First off, I don't claim to be an authority on the puranas. But this does raise an interesting question - what or who is an authority? I don't just mean on the puranas, but in general. Who is a spiritual authority, and where does the authorization come from? Followers of various gurus will say their guru is the authority. If pressed, perhaps they'll say "oh, I've experienced so much with x - that proves their authority" But followers of guru b. who derives a completely different interpretation, and gives a different set of teachings, will say exactly the same thing. It may be argued that a guru has authority by virtue of being in a particular lineage - but there are different lineages, and they don't agree, so they can't all be authoritative. At this point, some revert to an argument that only the lineage of their particular guru has authority. Again, it is said that a particular guru is an authority by virtue of their own personal realization or enlightenment. But again, the same arguments apply - why should the relization of one guru be accepted, and that of another rejected? And what of personal insights/revelations? What if they contradict the interpretation and teaching of a guru? Should one then reject one's own insight, and subordinate one's understanding to another? My experience tends to make me think that is not at all wise. If I had taken that attitude, I'd still be where I was 25 years ago, reading Prabhupada, and trying to ignore all the meanings in various texts he completely misses, or passes over. If indeed, I'd ever got that far even - I might still be tangled up in the catholic faith into which I was born. If we say - God is the only authority, then what place is there for a guru? Possibly it depends on the stage of development of the individual - at some stage, the teachings of a particular guru may be some use - the danger is that real growth may then be severely held back because of attachment to teachings that are no longer relevant to one's needs or level of understanding. And on another level - where questions like the origin of the puranas are concerned, should one just accept traditions, which may be false, or should the researches of scholars be given more credence? Is tradition or objective research to be regarded as more authoritative? Just a few questions - I'm sorry if this is found by some to be offensive, I don't intend to offend, just to question, and perhaps provoke some discussion.
Having a guru is always good, because you have someone to look up to when you are in doubt, That is all.
The ultimate truth, the only truth, is a subjective experience. That is the ultimate authority. As for us, the scripturres are the authority. If we cannot read and understand ourselves, we approach a Guru. The Guru must be shrotriya bramhanishta (learned in scriptures and established in brahman). This immediately rules out the charlatans and those with half-knowledge. Different Gurus, all equally great, may teach differently. This is because there different paths, different ways of approaching the topic. Also, since the subject is beyond words (yato vaacho nivartante) people will attempt to describe it in many ways, but the truth is the same. It is a simple case of gazing at the finger not the star. It is because of the possible confusion arising from multiple gurus that we are told to have one guru, one mantra, one preferred form of the lord. Our effort must remain focussed. Even when two different mahatmas (or the same mahatma) say opposing things, their contradiction is only illusory. If understood in the full light of who is being taught, when and why, the conflict will resolve itself. What is good for one student may be bad for the other. That Guru is the authority. Does this imply blind faith? No! Question. Always question (respectfully, of course). A true Guru expects that of a disciple. A true Guru will always answer, in some way. As you keep questioning, as answers keep coming that satisfy you, it creates shraddha, trust or faith in the Guru's word. This is an essential quality, for if you don't have faith in your means of knowledge then you are lost. Seeing is believing, but for that you must have shraddha in your eyes. After repeated examination, when a Guru satisfies you, at some point, the questioning is no longer needed. Then you just hold on to the master's feet and you will be guided to the final purshartha.
If the ultimate truth is subjective, or thought of as subjective, then it can't be the ultimate truth, which must be objective. If we say all truth is subjective, we are lost. If the experince of truth is only subjective then it wouldn't matter what you believed - anyone's subjectivity would have to be regarded as as good as anyone else's. Which would make gurus redundant. If there is a reality, it must be an objective reality. Not a description of reality, but reality itself. Problem with saying scriptures are the ulimate authority was dealt with in my oroginal post. Why should one scripture be accepted over another if they say different things?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think there is an objective reality - in that perhaps I've already departed from mainstream vedantic philosophy. I think the scriptures are attempts to explain that reality - but in the end, it is beyond definition - and beyond our mental knowledge. Ultimate truth can't be simply a formulation in symbolic/linguistic terms. The way I see it, scriptures probably originate in someone's experience. EG the Rishis who compiled the Veda sought to somehow set that experience in a form which could lead others to a similar experience. The trouble comes when those who don't have the experience, or have only a partial experience begin to change or develop or interpret what has been said, and when too complex a system arises. One could say everything then becomes top-heavy with superstructure, which has very little relation to the original experience, and probably doesn't help people toward realization, but just imprisons them in a set of beliefs. dogmas and often rituals. Sacred cows. I know full well what Bhaskar is saying - there can be different teachings which lead in the end to the same experience - and theoretically, that's well and good. But in practical terms I don't see too much evidence of that in the real world. More often, different teachings or gurus are almost in competition with each other. 'My version of the truth is superior to x's version'. Or in extreme cases, like our old friend Prabhupada, others versions of the truth are simply trashed. But worse still - it's not even the truth itself they're divided over, but only a written description or set of descriptions of truth.
Sorry Phil - I just read through the last few posts again - I think Bhaskar seems to be saying that all truth is subjective.
Agh! I'm going to have to add that scriptures may be incorrect, and that things like traditions concerning their true origins may also be incorrect. So if we believe in what are really myths as though they were objective and verifiable truth, we are in trouble. I think too that scriptures have caused much strife and conflict in the world just because they don't concur. EG the Islam/Christianity conflict, the Hindu/Islam conflict.
The problems are caused not because scriptures dont concur, the problem is because people dont understand their own scripture correctly. As for point of subjective and objective, the ultimate truth is subjective, in the sense it is one's own self. It is also the only truly objective truth, since in the light of realization, duality is dissolved, so there remains no separation of objective and subjective vision. As for the veracity of scriptures, take what makes sense to you, leave the rest. However, they are the maps to our destination, made by those who have trod the path before. Also, to call scriptures myth is not only quite presumptuous, but offensive too.
Well if someone is offended if I say the tale of Noah's Ark is myth - so be it. They have to be morons really, and probably, being offended is something they're going to experience a great deal, whatever I say or do. Same goes for some of the obviously non-historical stories associated with Hinduism. Another word for this tendency on insisting that myth = reality is fundamentalism.
The impression I got was that you were referring to ALL scripture as mythical. I apoogize if I wrnged you.
BBB, what we need to do is relax, when people stop being fearful of each other and start understanding each other and develop their spirituality in Bhakti to God, I am sure all problems will be solved. Seriously, what most people do is think too much or not think at all and they are the same thing because they really don't get anywhere by any of those methods. People want spirituality to explain all things, but we don't see that most of the things we are seeing is basically maya, what we see does not have to be what it truly is, it is (almost always atleast) far from the truth. So I think one should not think too much about scriptures and all these other types of things. One needs to focus on God.
The trouble is that the only notion people in general have of any kind of spiritual path derives from scriptures - and often, strict adherence to the exact content of a particular scripture is seen in itself as a big part of the path. It's useless for insatance to say to a christian fundamentalist that they should just develop Bhakti - it's not in the book, so it's not acceptable - whilst many other quite ridiculous things are in there, and if they're not accepted damnation awaits! And since the scriptures of different religions differ so much in the deatails, there is a kind of inbuilt conflict mechanism at work. It's really a block on people developing any spiritual insight to be too tied to any given scripture I think. One has to go beyond scriptures.
No need to apologize. I'm not saying even that myth isn't a valuable, in fact essential thing, from which we can learn a lot. Truths can be encapsulated in mythology, truths which are sometimes deeper than meer intellectual or rational truth. But historical fact is one thing, mythology another. In the end, it's really some essential truth that is in scriptures that is useful. A lot of the other stuff, in my view, is baggage.
