The story of Satyakaman is from Chandogya Upanishad, often used in 'modern' times in the debates on who is a Brahmin. Before we talk about Internet Hindus, listen to the story of Satyakaman in Tamil or read it in English here.
In current times, the debate centers around the definition of Brahmin or about honesty. In a way, we, the people of today look for a Śabda Pramāṇa - that is proof from well-recognized texts. In the recent past, people may have looked for a Upamāna Pramāṇa. That is, when a situation demands, this story may be compared to arrive at a resolution.
The purpose of all these stories, Purana and our Itihasa aren't just for proof. They have served a much bigger purpose than just referencing texts like the Bible or the Quran. (Grammarly suggested changes from 'a Bible' to 'the Bible' and 'a Quran' to 'the Quran'. That explains the difference between a Hindu system of values and an Abrahamic system of values.)
The lives of our Puranic characters are examples for us to follow. They aren't rule books. There are diverse situations and personalities to guide us through the challenges of our lives.
The Internet Hindus are stuck in proofs and references. A 'trad' or a traditional Hindu would reject the story of Satyakaman and stick to his definition of who a Brahmin is. But a 'rayta' would agree with the decision of the master Gauthama and continue his tirade against the trads.
What we seldom realize is - the characters in these stories guide us in our lives. The characters Satyakaman and his mother Jabala are straightforward - honest to the core. The relevant character for Internet Hindus is the master Gautama. He defined who a Brahmin is, for himself. He didn't need any Pramāṇa to decide. He was free from acquired knowledge.
That's what a Hindu is - someone who can aspire and get that freedom from the bindings - including that of knowledge. And that's what Internet Hindus should aim for.
1 comment:
+1; very well articulated. 🙏🏿🕉️
In Hinduism (or Dharma if you will), we differentiate between two kinds of knowledge/vidya - para and apara; apara being about our normal lives via our intellect, senses, empirical observations etc. Para is beyond all that.
And, there are two kinds of truth - Rta (that which is the universe, or a multiverse if you will, its rhythm+ order - which is not really concerned about human beings one way or the other) based and Satya based. The former may be roughly called 'objective truth' and the latter, the 'subjective truth.' The subjective truths can be different to different folks, depending on where they are coming from - and they may even be internally and externally consistent.
With that background somewhat delineated:
I do not much like this Raita Vs Trad classification and associated skirmishes; but, they are categories with limited usefulness - as some folks who espouse Hindu PoV, seem to identify themselves with one or the other. I find the skirmishes mildly annoying though, like you perhaps do. So.
The Trads and Raitas so-called, are only and merely looking at the subjective truth, so to say - each relevant to their PoV. And it is not that, they don't have a place in the empirical scheme of things - and in the ways in which we tease out simple classifications out of the complex reality. But of course, they are far from 'complete.'
It is also pertinent to remember that Dharma is the one that scaffolds & sustains Rta. And Hinduism is actually, nothing but Dharma.
So, for any 'seeking' Hindu - it would be a pertinent idea to look at the world/universe from the PoV of Rta and Paravidya. However ymmv and all that - depending on where one is coming from and where one wants to go.
There is so much scope out there, to understand & assimilate different PoVs and contextualize them, without getting into skirmishes.
Shameless plug on some of my collected musings on Rta:
guilt, shame, politics, freedom, soaring high & ऋत: reflections & notes - https://othisaivu.wordpress.com/2021/01/31/post-1252/
Post a Comment