On the pramanas.

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

One topic that is important to discuss amongst ourselves is the gradation of

evidences. Now that this position paper by the Dvaita school on ISKCON

criticizes what it thinks is our system of evidences in the opening as well

as section 2, it is a good time to bring this topic up.

 

Please feel free to correct any inaccuracies here.

 

 

There is, first of all, "shabda" which broadly refers to the shastras

including the sruti and smrti and the nyaya-sastras. The shruti are eternal

syllables that were never authored (even by God) and includes the four

original Vedas and the Upanisads. The smrti includes the Bhagavad-gita and

the Puranas, and Nyaya refers to Srila Vyasadeva's Vedanta sutra.

 

The smrti can be subdivided into (1) that which is more or less eternal and

emanates with the Vedas from Lord Brahma and (2) the words and commentaries

upon the above sastras by the members of the disciplic succession

(specifically ours).

 

The former category (the primary smrti) particularly the Puranas and

Itihasas (Mahabharata) is more or less like Sruti except that the words and

syllables

of the smrti works are presented a little differently according to time and

place in terms of intonation and word order (svara-krama-bheda). The words

and purports of the acharyas like Srila Prabhupada naturally fall under the

latter category of smrti and can be called the secondary smrti. (The terms

"primary" and "secondary smrti" are my own.)

 

 

Note in this yuga, due to the difficulties in establishing the meaning of

sruti, the smrti texts particularly the Mahabharata and Puranas assume a

greater significance than the sruti. This is due to the unfavorable

circumstances of this age.

 

Besides sabda, there is logic (anumana) (distinguished from dry logic

kutarka) and pratyaksa-pramana (perception) (distinguished from faulty

mundane perception). There are many logical rules in understanding the

sastra like proximity (sannidhi) and propriety (yogyata) which came up the

other

day.

 

"2. Valid Pramanas -- ISKCON argue that all testimony other than

Shabda (revealed scriptural authority) is unreliable."

" Jiva Goswamy also discounts all other sources of valid Pramanas except

Shabda (revealed Word) as only the last named can never be sublated by any

other pramana."(PPV)

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism most certainly accepts the full range of pramanas as

used in other schools. Jiva Gosvami accepts various pramanas and reduces them

to

3 from which the others are derived. All three pramanas (including sabda,

perception (pratyaksa) and logic (anumana)) are explicitly mentioned in the

Srimad Bhagavatam itself in 11.28.9 and 11.19.17.

 

What Jiva Gosvami does deny is that those with the four defects (illusion,

mistake, cheating, and imperfect senses) may not properly utilize logic

(anumana) and perception (pratyaksa) to arrive at spiritual reality (Tattva

sandarbha 9). [Note even Madhva distinguishes faulty perception from true

pratyaksa-pramana by defining the latter as the flawless contact between the

flawless senses and their object.] Regarding logic, the Kurma-purana quoted

by the Gosvamis distinguish between the proper and improper uses of logic.

When both perception and logic are properly used in a way consistent with

sabda, they also produce knowledge.

 

 

"Unlike the traditional approach of analysing the Prasthana Thrayas --

Brahma Sutras, Gita, and Upanishaths -- the school took the supreme authority

of

Bhagavata Purana as an axiomatic truth and derived their system based on

it." (PPV)

 

It is true that the six Gosvami's didn't produce formal commentaries on the

above texts, regarding the Srimad Bhagavatam as superior, in some way, to

them all.

 

Now what is the position of the Bhagavatam in relation to sruti and smrti? Is

it better than the sruti? Is it a sruti? Or is it primary smrti (and

therefore only similar to sruti)?

 

According to Jiva Gosvami in Tattva-sandarbha, the position of Srimad

Bhagavatam is unique among all divine literatures.

 

>From the point of view of structure, it is a smrti as it has variable

intonation and word order (svara-krama) as do other Puranas. This is the way

other sampradayas view it. However, from the point of view of function, Jiva

Gosvami states that it is sruti, smrti, poetic works and nyaya--all in one.

 

Bhagavatam as the best sruti.

Two Bhagavatam commentators have said, "The Vedas, Puranas, and poetic works

(kavyas) instruct one like a master, friend, or beloved, respectively, but

Srimad Bhagavatam instructs like all three." (Tattva S. 26.2)

 

The Bhagavatam calls itself the "the one unrivalled essence

of Shruti which is the torchlight of spiritual knowledge for those who

want to cross over the darkness of ignorance" ("akhila-shruti-saaram

ekam adhyaatma-diipam atitiir.shataam tamo-'ndham", SB 1.2) and the "sAtvatI

shrutiH" in SB 1.4.7: "transcendental essence of the Vedas".

Jiva Gosvami commenting on this calls it the "parama-shruti-rUpatvaM": "the

highest manifestation of the shruti" (Tattva S 26.3)

 

Bhagavatam as Vedanta.

The Bhagavatam is also declared to be the essence of the nyaya sastra

Vedanta-sutra by the Bhagavatam itself: "sarva-vedAnta-sAraM" : "essence of

Vedanta" and it is called a commentary by the Garuda-purana "artho 'yaM

brahma-sUtrANAM": the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. Jiva Gosvami

explains the term "artha" as "akRtrima-bhASya-bhUta" or "natural

commentary".

(TS 21.2)

 

The Bhagavatam also serves as a smrti, specifically as a Purana and is

elaborately glorified and demonstrated by Jiva Gosvami in Tattva sandarbha

as the best Purana.

 

 

 

"This approach was justified on the strength of the statement that Bhagavata

is the quintessence of ALL the shasthras and thus possesses supreme

authority, as it is accepted as Vyasa's own commentary on the Brahma Sutras

(composed by himself)."

 

Yes, this is true. The Bhagavatam calls itself "sarva-vedetihAsAnAM sAraM

sAraM": "the cream of all the Vedas and Itihasas." (1.3.41)

 

The Garuda Purana glorifies the Bhagavatam as containing the essence of the

all Vedic knowledge (vedartha-paribrmhitah).

 

The other reason for its uniqueness relates to the very nature of Srimad

Bhagavatam--It is in fact indentical to the Lord Himself.

 

The Padma-purana states:

namami devam karuna-nidhanam tamala-varnam suhitavataram

apara-samsara-samudra-setum bhajamahe bhagavata-svarupam

 

I bow down to that Lord , the ocean of mercy whose color is like that of a

tamala tree and who appears in this world for the welfare of all. I worship

Him as the bridge for crossing the unfathomable ocean of material existence.

The Bhagavata has appeared as His very Self."

 

The Skanda Purana (Vishnu-khanda 6.4.3) [cited in Satyarayana's commentary

of

Tattva-sandarbha p.92) states:

 

srimad bhagavatasyatha srimad bhagavatah sada

svarupam ekam evasti sac-cid-ananda-laksana

 

"The Bhagavata and the Supreme Lord are always of the same nature

possessed

of eternal existence, knowledge and bliss."

 

 

Therefore, not only does it fulfill the functions of all classes of sastra,

but the Srimad Bhagavatam is ontologically superior to all other sastras

including the sruti section. Therefore, the Gaudiyas have confidently

accepted it as the highest and most conclusive pramana (nirNAyaka-sastra) and

as the "incomparable torchlight of knowledge" (kasmai yena vibhaa.shito 'yam

atula.h

j~naana-pradiipa.h. -SB)

 

 

" Thus, while all other systems were defined substantially by the founders

writing their own commentary on Vyasa's Brahma Sutras, according to their

own tenets, this school did not even have any such commentary at its formative

stage and one was written (with several points of significant difference

with Madhva Bhashya) much later by Baladeva Vidyabhushana in the 18th century.

The basic approach of the system with its faith pinned on the single main

source

-- Bhagavata, generally reducing the importance of all other sources

accepted by the other schools of Vedanta and its lack of critical examination

by

rival schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not

capable

of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no accepted

common ground rules essential for debate with the three main systems." (PPV)

 

The Gaudiya system is most certainly capable of entering the sphere of

"traditional disputation". The acharyas do very distinctly follow "the

common ground rules" of logic essential for debate. It would be nice to get

into

what those rules are as we examine our own and other interpretations of

various verses, sutras, etc.

 

 

ys

Gerald Surya