शास्त्र-सम्बन्धः

Source: TW

Humans were not around from the inception in this universe. In fact they are very recent phenomenon given the age of the universe. The shAstra-s (in the broad sense) have been around for just a subset of that period of human existence. At some point the humans & their shAstra-s will become extinct. Thus, if the devatA-s were dependent on the shAstra-s then their existence will be finite & conterminal with the emergence & extinction of species like humans. This is contradictory with the very account of most devatA-s in a shAstra, be it naigamika or Agamika.

Hence, we posit that the devatA-s have to exist independently of the shAstra & humans. They might be termed “Platonic” –like the Platonic triangle existed even before any human drew a representation of one. The Platonic spear or wheel existed even before a human made one.

That shuddharupa of theirs (“Platonic form”) inspires the humans & it results in the production of a text that might be termed shAstra. This results in something like the drawing of the Platonic triangle. Like an exposition or the discovery of the geometry of that triangle, which was always there, the the shAstra might expound the discovery and the practice of the ritual relating to the devatA. To that degree for human praxis the devatA’s apprehension is dependent on the shAstra.

Just like a man untrained in geometry or grammar can claim false theorems or make bad words/ sentences, likewise a man could misapprehend the devatA-s in his self quest. Hence, like Euclid or pANini to guide him, he needs the shAstra to guide his understanding of the devatA-s rather than being repeatedly starting their discovery from the scratch. However, just as geometers may prove the bhujA-koTi-karNa-nyAya in many different ways, likewise a devatA might be expounded in many different ways by different shAstra-s.

What is the best upapatti of the devatA for person X - hence depends on which of these works best for him. To that degree the apprehension the devatA might be rather shAstra-dependent.

Finally, we see that a given deva/devI might present themselves as multiple devatA-s. Thus, they are what may be termed prakR^iti-s. The most abstract of these prakR^iti-s are the ones that have an existence quite independent of humans or any such species & their shAstra-s. ity alaM vistAreNa |

Do you draw a distinction between the devatas platonic form apprehended through yoga and their instantiation as entities in temples, murtis receiving cult veneration etc?

I think there is a hierarchy of apprehension even in the yogic perception: most are only semblances of the platonic form like mUrti-s.