ग्रन्था अपि वस्तुतो निश्चप्रच-शिष्टाचार-सूचका एवेति युक्तं गृहीतुम्।
Strictness vs laxity in practice
Strictness
- Following the shAstra is highly regarded (in the shAstra-s and in other texts). Eg.
- “यः शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य वर्तते कामकारतः। न स सिद्धिमवाप्नोति न सुखं न परां गतिम्।। BG16.23।।”
- Some prescriptions of the shAstra-s are seriously (even fanatically) followed by the orthoprax members of communities to whom they apply.
- Evidence: kālanirṇaya text (Hemādri, Mādhava, Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, Kāśinātha etc.).
- Examples include: In case of brAhmaNa-s: Vegetarianism in non-sacrificial contexts. Not crossing the seas. Performing twilight salutations (sandhyA-vandanam) daily. etc..
- The motivation can either be ultimate liberation or dharma.
- Holy books are considered extremely useful guides for beginner and intermediate spiritual practitioners.
- Partly for this reason, they are considered worthy of preservation with great care. This despite the many stories of sages throwing away or destroying their personal copies when they found them useless for further spiritual progress.
- Holy books are considered extremely useful guides for beginner and intermediate spiritual practitioners.
Laxity
- Yet, plenty of people do transgress these injunctions without too much guilt, despite some censure.
- This despite the fact that we have documentary records from the past where people who fail to observe base line prescriptions expected by their specific community get caught and would be shunned by their community unless they performed expiations that were certified by the appropriate jāti or community councils. [??]
- The records don’t let you estimate the rate at which such prosecutions happened when the so-called “rules” were violated.
- Just like today, if one community shunned you, you could just associate yourself with another (eg: stop being a shrauta, join some bhakti sampradaaya) etc..
- The community was concerned about “… base line prescriptions…” - that allows for omissions and merely translates to keeping up the appearances in many cases.
- There is much evidence of laxity.
- Nīlakantha-dīxita in kaliviḍambana - मन्त्रभ्रंशे संप्रदायः प्रयोगश्च्युतसंकृतौ । देशधर्मस्त्वनाचारे पृच्छतां सिद्धमुत्तरम् ॥ ८८ ॥
- Nearly the entire community of Tamil Brahmins of all types hypocritically perform the adhyAya-upaakarma and claim to regret not performing the annual switch from studying the veda-s to shaastra-s every year and fix that by repeating the prescribed mantra-s.
- Some major samskāra-s such as sīmantonnayana were routinely omitted (rarely conducted) in my clan even 2-3 generations ago , without any consequence or ostracism from the broader community. This continues today.
- The feeling or internal transformation is ultimately paramount - allowing one to transgress (knowingly or otherwise) prescribed structure, and perform (ritual and other) actions true to their feeling. See examples in the “Structure vs feeling tension” section here.
Pro-refinement view
- Canonification (mostly by modern scholarship) of attempts at refinement is wrong.
- The veda-s, purāṇa-s and āgama-s are no more canonical law in the realm of worship than the recommendations of nāṭyashāstra (the so-called fifth veda) is in the realm of dance or mātanga’s work is in the realm of music. They are just attempts at refinement of an artistic/ spiritual activity, in order to benefit from the observations of previous practitioners and connoiseurs.
- This extends to the role of dharmashAstra-s in organizing society and gRhyasUtras in leading a refined and aesthetically sensitive life.
- The folk vs canonical/ classical distinction is misplaced. If the dance of dommara-s is folk, so is the dance of TN devadaasi-s (sadir/ bharatanaaTyam). Same with vedic/ aagamic/ taantrik worship.