Sarva Samvadini - Jiva Goswami on scriptures and reasoning

Below are some translations from Jiva Goswami's Sarva Samvadini and notes by a devotee in regards to them. What do some of you think of the translations? Are they correct? What about the interpretation?


Excerpts from Sarva-samvadini on sastra and reasoning

What follows is excerpts from Sarva-samvadini of Srila Jiva Gosvami along with a translation [1] and my notes. These excerpts deal with reliability of sastra and the role of (human) reasoning vis-a-vis accepting knowledge from the sastra.

There are some statements in sastra which appear to contradict human sense perception. Srila Jiva Gosvami first presents a sample of such statements:

TEXT: nanu vede 'pi "gravanah plavante", "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan" ity-adi-darsanad anaptatvam iva pratiyate.

TRANSLATION: [One might ask:] "We see even in the Vedas [Satapatha Brahmana 6.1.3.2, 4] statements like 'The stones float' and 'The ground spoke and the water spoke,' which seem to indicate that the Vedas are unreliable."

NOTE: In other words, the statements of sastra seem to contradict our sense perception. So aren't these statements indicate that the Vedas are unreliable? The answer, as we shall see is "no". All statements of the Vedas, including the above quoted ones, are reliable. How it is so will be explained here.

TEXT: ucyate, karma-visesangi-bhutanam gravnam virya-vardhanaya stutir iyam.

TRANSLATION: This we answer -- this praise of the stones is for the purpose of increasing the potency of the stones, which serve a role in a particular ritual.

TEXT: sa ca sri-rama-kalpita-setu-bandhadau prasiddhatvena yatha-vad eveti na dosah.

TRANSLATION: And this is indeed feasible, since it is well known that the same sort of address to stones occurred in such contexts as the building of the bridge which was arranged by Sri Rama. Thus there is no fault in this praise.

NOTE: In other words, the statement in sastra, "the stones float" is true as is proved in particular cases such as when Lord Ramacandra built a bridge of floating stones. In other words, Lord Ramacandra proved the truth of the Vedic statement, "The stones float."

TEXT: tatha, "mrd abravid apo 'bruvan" ity-adau tat-tad-abhimani-devataiva vyapadisyata iti jneyam.

TRANSLATION: And in statements like "The ground spoke", "the water spoke," we should understand that the demigods presiding over these elements are being referred to.

NOTE: This is commonly known among sampradayic scholars of sastra.

TEXT: tad evam sarvatraiva sarvathaivapta eva vedah.

TRANSLATION: Therefore the Vedas are in all situations and in all respects reliable authority.

NOTE: "In all situations" and "in all respects" indicate that *all portions* of sastra are reliable, and *not that only some* portions (dealing with devotional life, etc.) are reliable. It also indicates that they are reliable authority for all time, not that in the modern age of "scientific progress and advancement", the Vedas somehow lose their authority.

TEXT: kintu sarvajnesvara-vacanatvenasarvajna-jivair duruhatvat tat-prabhava-labdha-pratyaksa-visesavadbhir eva sarvatra tad-anubhave sakyate, na tu tarkikaih.

TRANSLATION: But since they consist of the words of the all-knowing Supreme Lord, finite living beings who do not know everything have difficulty construing what they mean, and so only those who have by His power received special perceptive capacity are able to in all instances realize their meaning. Mental speculators are not able to do this.

NOTE: Therefore it is important to listen to the recognized, accomplished liberated Vaisnava acaryas to understand the meaning of sastra. I propose that in ISKCON we accept Srila Prabhupada as such a person (devotees in ISKCON used to accept Srila Prabhupada as such, but now some of them appear to have become overintelligent enough to understand the Bhagavatam "directly" bypassing Srila Prabhupada). People who are merely adept in logic and / or having degrees from the nondevotee academia especially those who have associated with members of the nondevotee academia and whose beliefs, attitudes, understandings and desires have become distorted can neither understand, nor honestly claim to understand, the meaning of sastra.

TEXT: tad uktam purusottama-tantre, "sastrartha-yukto 'nubhavah pramanam tuttamam matam / anumadya na svatantrah pramana-padavim yayuh" iti.

TRANSLATION: This is stated in the Purusottama-tantra: "Realization incorporating the ideas taught in sastra is considered the most excellent means of correct knowledge. Inference and the other means of knowing cannot independently claim authority."

NOTE: Inference means reasoning, and independent inference refers to reasoning not based on sastra, that is, (fallible human) reasoning based on (fallible human) sense perception.

TEXT: tathaiva matam brahma-sutra-karaih, "tarkapratisthanat", "srutes tu sabda-mulatvat" ity-adau. tatha ca srutih, "naisa tarkena matir apaneya proktanyenaiva su-jnanaya prestha", "niharena pravrta jalpyas ca" ity-adyah. jalpa-pravrttas tarkika iti sruti-padarthah.

TRANSLATION: This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sutras in such sutras as "Because logical speculation is never final" (2.1.11) and "No, because the revealed scriptures say otherwise, and knowledge of the Supreme is derived from transcendental sound" (2.1.27). There are also such statements of sruti as: "My dear boy, this knowledge cannot be obtained by mental speculation. It can be properly understood only when an especially qualified person speaks it" (Katha Upanisad 1.2.9) and "They are enveloped in a fog and prone to useless talk." (Rk-samhita 10.82.7) The sense of the word jalpyah in this sruti text is "speculators engaged in useless talk."

NOTE: Upon seeing Brahma-sutra 2.1.27 quoted above, one might think that for knowledge of the Supreme, yes, one must depend on sastra, but in other cases, such as within the empirical field, can one depend on sastra? That is clarified here:

TEXT: ata eva varaha-purane, "sarvatra sakyate kartum agamam hi vinanuma / tasman na sa saktimati vinagamam udiksitum" iti.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is said in the Varaha Purana: "In all situations one can always apply the traditional authority of scriptures even without using logic. Therefore logic is impotent to see the truth without the help of scripture."

NOTE: Yes. "In all situations" one can always depend on the authority of the sastra, *even without using reasoning*.

Baradraj: So knowledge is not necessary for faith but faith is necessary for knowledge.

Prabhupada: Yes. Therefore devotee, without any knowledge he becomes devotee. That faith, only faith. The devotee advances. Jnanam ca yad ahaituki. Later on, they become automatically full of knowledge because they have strong faith. That is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. Tesam evanukampartham aham ajnana-jam tamah nasayamy: [Bg. 10.11] "Because he is faithful, therefore I help him how to get knowledge." Again you come to that. Mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca [Bg. 15.15]. Everything is there. (Morning walk; July 21, 1975)

We also find that Srila Prabhupada wanted us to accept the Fifth Canto *even when we don't understand it*.

The Western ethos of education appears to be that *first* you understand things *and then* you believe. But the sampradayic ethos of sastric education is that you accept the validity of scriptures *whether you understand any portion of it or not* [2] and *then* you try to study and understand it to whatever extent you can. And it is not that all human beings can understand all statements of the scriptures.

[...]

TEXT: yat tv agame kvacit tarkena bodhana drsyate, tat tatraiva sobhanam agama-rupatvat, bodhana-saukaryartha-matroddista-tarkatvat.

TRANSLATION: And when we see sometimes in the revealed scriptures that information is provided by speculative logic, it is in those cases praiseworthy because it is part of scripture, being speculation offered only for the sake of making understanding easier.

NOTE: The scriptures also teach very reasonably in order to make understanding easier.

TEXT: yadi ca yat tarkena sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanam pramanam iti syat, tada tarka evastam, kim vedeneti vaidikam-manya api te bahya evety ayam abhiprayah sarvatraiva.

TRANSLATION: Persons who imagine themselves followers of the Vedas may say "If something is proven by logic then it must be the very words of the Vedas and authoritative. So let us use logic; what need have we of the Vedas?" But those who speak thus are actually opponents of the Vedas, and this is indicated everywhere.

TEXT: ata eva tesam srgalatvam eva gatir ity uktam bharate.

TRANSLATION: Thus it is stated in the Mahabharata (Santi-parva, 180.47-49) that these people will become jackals in their next lives.

TEXT: yat tu srotavyo mantavyah ity-adisu mananam nama tarko 'ngi-krtah, tatraivam evam uktam yatha kurma-purane, purvaparavirodhena ko nv artho 'bhimato bhavet / ity-adyam uhanam tarkah suska-tarkam ca varjayet iti.

TRANSLATION: And when speculation under the name of "reflecting" is acknowledged in such statements as "It should be heard about and reflected on" (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.5), it is in the following sense that such is being said, as stated in the Kurma Purana: "Speculation means to conjecture in such ways as asking which meaning of a text is appropriate without contradicting what precedes and follows it. Dry speculation, however, should be rejected."

NOTE: In other words, reasoning is okay when we use it to understand the meaning of sastra.

This is also stated by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana in the conclusion of his commentary to verse 9 of Laghu-bhagavatamrta:

tatha ca veda eva vyasasya pramanam tarkas ca tad-anusari na nivaryate suska-tarkas tu praheya eveti tad-anuyayino me tad eva.

And so, Veda is the accepted source of valid knowledge for Vyasa; logic which follows the Veda is not opposed, but dry speculation should definitely be rejected. This is the opinion of Vyasa's followers and (hence) for me. [3]

Srila Prabhupada clarified the matter by explaining the difference between mental speculation and acceptable philosophical speculation:

As for the difference between mental speculation and philosophical speculation, we take it that everything is known by the psychological action of the mind, so that philosophical speculation is the same as mental speculation if it is merely the random or haphazard activity of the brain to understand everything and making theories, "if's" and "maybe's." But if philosophical speculation is directed by Sastra and Guru, and if the goal of such philosophical attempts is to achieve Visnu, then that philosophical speculation is not mental speculation. It is just like this: Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that "I am the taste of water." Philosophical speculation in the accepted sense then means to try to understand, under the direction of Sastra and Guru, just how Krishna is the taste of water. (Letter to Chaturbhus, 21 January 1971)

So, the approach of trying to understand *how* a sastric statement such as "I am the taste of water" is correct is acceptable. But the approach of trying to understand *if* such a statement is correct is *not acceptable*. However, this is the approach of the nondevotee academia and despite knowing that it is so, some of our devotees don't seem to mind getting trained up by the nondevotee academia to approach the scriptures in such unacceptable ways.
---

ENDNOTES:

[1] Regarding the translation, I had taken the help of Sri Gopiparanadhana Prabhu of NE-BBT last year on Sarva-samvadini (but translation of the section presented here in this article is not checked by him). I have also consulted a Bengali version of Tattva-sandarbha published along with Sarva-samvadini and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary (edition published by Gopinath Gaudiya Math (Mayapur, 1998)). The sections excerpted in this article appear as additional explanations to text 9 of Tattva-sandarbha.

[2] More of this perhaps in a separate article.

[3] Laghu-bhagavatamrta of Srila Rupa Gosvami, published along with the commentaries of Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana and Vrndavanacandra Tarkalankara (Bengali script) by Haribhakta Das, Gaurabda 503.

Submitted by Vidvan Gauranga das (JPS)

Notice something interesting in Sri Jiva's method of proving a statement to his audience:


The commentator says:

How does Sri Jiva begin his counter-argument to the one arguing that because of some statements contradicting common sense the Vedas are anApta? He argues as follows:


He refers to an instance where such a thing is proven by presenting an example in which such an instance was perceived. In other words, Sri Jiva utilizes pratyAkSa-pramAna to instill confidence in the legitimacy of the Vedic statements. He could have easily said nothing but "And it is so, because the scriptures are the authority." However, we see that he strives to prove the legitimacy of a scriptural statement by making it understandable to us within our framework of experiences.

= = =


Here a statement is interpreted as having more to it than its literal meaning, just as we have on some occasions referred to the presence of tRtIya-atizayokti-alaGkAra in cases where the impossible has been stated.

= = =


The commentator interprets:

Without seeing the broader context of what is being discussed, it is hard to say what Sri Jiva's statement precisely refers to. For example, in the case of the Bhagavata, everything therein is Apta, befitting and trustworthy in the proper context, or in other words, they are reliable for the purpose they were meant for.

In concluding, Sri Jiva states:


And truly, by the grace of He who is within the heart all knowledge and remembrance arises, and a person who is not intent in serving the ultimate purpose of all zAstra will most likely be baffled in his pursuit of understanding.

Though it has been portrayed otherwise, I do not believe that myself, Jagadananda or others would be particularly inclined to demonstrate that a particular passage in zAstra is fundamentally flawed in all respects. Rather, what we have attempted to do is interpret it in such a way as to demonstrate its original intent, or in other words, the very point of the statement.

In the closing passage of the text cited, Sri Jiva states:


The quote from Kurma-purana specifically encourages us to understanding the scripture in its context, in such a way that it does not contradict either the immediate context nor the overall import of the scriptures. Therefore, if we interpret Ugrasena's 30 trillion bodyguards as tRtIyAtizayokty-alaGkAra, we are doing just that, looking at the statement in its context. In this context, we see a number of superlative statements surrounding this one, and nowhere else do we read of Ugrasena traveling with 30 trillion bodyguards from Mathura to Hastinapura, for example.

In regards to the pratyAkSa-vizeSAvadhi mentioned by Sri Jiva, I do not think it is an all-or-nothing issue; in accordance with our individual aspirations, just as we are empowered by God to accomplish many devotional tasks, we also receive a certain degree of adhikAra for interpreting such statements.

Returning to the commentator's interpretation of pratyAkSa-vizeSAvadhi leading to proper insights being the exclusive domain of "recognized, accomplished liberated Vaisnava acaryas", we may conclude that those who can perceive the true meaning of a statement, such as Sri Jiva with his examples, will be able to explain the statement as Sri Jiva has done. I would take Sri Jiva's interpretation over someone else's anytime, but I would not take a non-interpretation ("believe or perish") over a reasonable interpretation, even if coming from someone else than a "recognized, accomplished liberated Vaisnava acarya".

This thread is very important. The basis of all knowledge depends upon what is accepted as pramana. As Madhava pointed out Jiva Goswami has given pratyaksa back up of the statement "the stones float".

Pratyaksa or sense perception is in fact a very important topic. In fact we all gain all our knowledge ultimately through this pramana. Even if one reads the Vedas one has to read the words and understand them. The mere reading or hearing of the words of the Vedas involves pratyaksa. Then the understanding of those words involves anumana or inference as to their meaning. Those persnos who say they know and follow the Vedas actually follow what they have "percieved" from the Vedas. And so it is for all of us.

Some of us have been trained or have experience in different methods of evaluating (anumana) the things we percieve. However if we want to accurately understand the intent of an author like Jiva Goswami there are a miriad of contextual factors to be taken into account. Not only the contextual sense but also the time, place, circumstances, culture in which the author was living.

This is why the Vedas are known as the supreme pramana. Because they are apauruseya. Not written at any time, in any place, or under any circumstance, or by any person. Sruti is therefore considered the highest pramana.

Keshava

This one is hard to swallow.

The Vedas were in fact written down at a particular place and time.
This is the same type of thing muslims say about Quran. The fact is, both the Quran and Vedas, although at first recited and passed on orally and aurally, did in fact get written down. With the passage of time things get added or subtracted from the texts. Who can argue that?

In fact, are the original texts available anywhere? I mean the very first written texts of the Vedas?

Would the writings of the Goswamis be considered sruti or smriti?

Shruti is essentially the four Vedas. Many commentators object to even some of the Upanishads, considering them later works and hence deprived of the original authority of shruti. Derivative works, a category in which the Puranas belong, are smriti. The works of the Gosvamins could also be considered smriti if we take a broad definition of the concept.

Of course no-one says that the Vedas were never written, the fact that they exist in a written form means that they were written. I believe what Keshava refers to is their divine origin, that no human authored them, but they emanated from the breathing of the Great Vishnu when the cosmos unfolded.

Betel, I do not think that manuscripts written on palm leaves would survive 5000 years. They hardly stay in one piece for a couple of centuries.

This cannot be proven.
What can be proven is that they were written down at one point in time by human hands. Therefore what is read as "Vedas" today may not at all be reminiscent of the original spoken Vedas. Agreed?

What can be proven in the end? Say, even if such a thing as the Vedas emanating from the breathing of Vishnu was provable, how would you prove it?

As far as I know, though the Puranas and the such have been often widely interpolated, the original four Vedas seem to be quite intact. I believe Adiyen would know more about this, I recall him mentioning something along those lines before, about the traditions that maintain for example Rig Veda.

If the Vedas were so important in the eyes of the Goswamis and Mahaprabhu's early followers, why didn't any of them write tikas on them?
I still do not know why they said Vedas are proof.

This is correct. Due to a strong emphasis on correct pronunciation of the Vedic texts as they are without any changes (nobody really understood what the texts were about, and thus naturally the emphasis shifted towards a pure vibration of the texts rather than understanding of them), even the most minute, a tradition of memorization developed, and this has saved the Vedic texts from changes. There are different recensions of some texts, of course.

In my opinion, this was to show respect for the principle of revelation, rather than the content. And indeed, Sruti itself says "The truth is not known by scholarship, but by revelation."

But respect for revelation means you respect those to whom revelation has come. By seeing them, we pine for the same to happen to us. And we form opinions about what kind of revelation we want, because revelations also have something to do with seeing what we want to see--especially when we did not really know what it was that we wanted to see!

And, respect for revelation is, more than anything else, the faith that there is something to be revealed.

These are all very important things.

Well, Mahaprabhu and company were familiar with the Quran which was and is claimed to be revelatory. Why did they not chose that text?

My point is, there must be some sort of real tangible connection with the Vedas otherwise there are so many other texts that fall within the "revealed" category.

I wish to know what that connection is.

Elpis says most people who recited vedas could not understand them due to their complexity. So then, what is their use? Is Krishna bhakti stated therein?

I see your point about JIva instilling confidence in the statements of the zruti in this way, but is it really the case that he does so by utilizing pratyAkSa-pramANa? RAma's bridge is not available for us to perceive, nor has anyone alive today ever seen it (true for JIva's time as well). It is true that according to a revered story some mythical characters did witness the bridge of floating stones, but is this applying pratyAkSa-pramANa? Granted, we may accept the reports of certain people as being true based on their authority--and the stories of RAma were no doubt perceived like that at JIva's time--but aren't we talking about something else than pratyAkSa-pramANa then?

It seems that JIva is basically establishing a statement from zruti by referring to a story from smRti. This does not strike me as being all that different from, say, a scenario where I argue that the ancient Greek texts are correct, that Hydras do exist, and this is so because Hercules defeated one.

Would these commentators also consider the brAhmaNas and AraNyakas to be smRti rather than zruti?

This is a profound and beautiful insight. Thank you for sharing it.

(Jagat @ Jun 28 2004, 08:41 PM)





Beautiful but it doesn't make sense, like I said before;

Well, Mahaprabhu and company were familiar with the Quran which was and is claimed to be revelatory. Why did they not chose that text?

My point is, there must be some sort of real tangible connection with the Vedas otherwise there are so many other texts that fall within the "revealed" category.

I wish to know what that connection is.

Elpis says most people who recited vedas could not understand them due to their complexity. So then, what is their use? Is Krishna bhakti stated therein?

That's an interesting question there. Come to think of it, I read it in Jagadananda's preface to Gopala-tapani:


I am not personally all that familiar with the "leading theologians" (Shankara, Madhva?) and their specific views in this regard.

There is certainly a tangible connection with the Vedas. The basic philosophy dealing with the relationship between Brahman and Jagat is derived from Vedanta. You might want to read Baladeva's commentary on Vedanta-sutra if you are interested in parallels between the Upanishads and Gaudiya-theology.

I am certain you are familiar with the basic division of scriptures into karma, jnana and bhakti. The tree of Veda yields fruits to all tastes. While the Vaishnava-traditions have roots in Vedanta, I would not think they have that many parallels to the hymns and so forth.

Well yes, that's true of course what you're saying. The scope of immediate pratyAkSa is after all rather finite. It seems that the line between aitihya and zabda is rather thin as the centuries pass by. Let us say that he attempts to legitimize them by offering a sensible explanation; at any rate, he sees a need to present evidence outside the original statement in an attempt to illustrate why it is a good idea to accept such a statement, and moreover points out that there are seers who can actually make sense out of even the oddest of statements.

If there indeed were no need to apply our faculties of reason at all, no such elaborate talks would be required. He could just say, "Believe it, otherwise not." This returns to the original premise I presented in the beginning of the Treating Scripture as Evidence -thread, that in order to fulfill its purpose, scripture needs to be served with the appropriate spices. In other words, we must become the seers of good sense if we are to be taken seriously as advocates of Sri Caitanya.

Im talking about the 4 Vedas, Madhava. Not the later upanishads or vedanta.
What is the connection?
Why is sruti considered sabda pramana and the best pramana when that sruti itself does not describe Radha Krishna?
How can it be used as proof to verify Their existence and divinity?
Do you get the point?

Let me address a couple of things.

1. I did mean authored not written. Of course they were written. However as has been explained they are "accepted" even by scholars as the oldest religious texts known to man. So unlike the bible, quran, etc we cannot find out a date when they did not exist.

2. Whether you accept the above or not. The Vedas have been passed down by a very rigid aural system which insures that they are literally syllable by syllable the same as they were since they have been known. You cannot say this about the bible or quran.

3. I disagree that those memorizing the Vedas do not know their meaning. Also great acharyas have commentied on them. Sayana and even Madhva has his Rg Veda Bhasya.

4. Krsna Bhakti is given in them. In his Rg Veda Bhasya Madhva states that each and every word of the Vedas means Krsna. In fact Krsna says the same in Bhagavad Gita. "By all the Vedas I am to be known."

more soon

Keshava

PS Pratyaksha does not man only finite pratyaksha. There is such a thing as Yogic Pratyaksha. I was assuming that Madhava was saying this about Jiva's statement. However either way whether he meant that by "yogic" pratyaksha he has seen the floating stones or whether he meant that "just as an example remember the floating stones of Rama" in either case he has given a type of proof. In the first case it is yogic pratyaksha and in the second a quote from Ramayana - sabda from smrti "that which is remembered" or history.

Keshava

By the way there is an an ashram in Hrsikesha that say that they have one of the floating rocks of Rama. I have seen it. Yes, it floats. Whether it is one of the Rama rocks I don't know. Naturally I assume it's made of pumice. A type of rock that indeed floats. So there is no need to doubt the Vedas that there are floating stones. I have actually seen them.

Keshava

Let me give an example of a Vedic text that Srila Prabhupada (and other Acarayas) say is a prayer to Krsna.


Isopanisad mantra 18 from the Sukla Yajur Veda Samhita Madyandina Sakha (last chapter)

agne naya supathA rAye asmAn
vizvAni deva vayunAni vidvAn
yuyodhy asmaj juhurANam eno
bhUyiSThAm te nama uktiM vidhema

Translation by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

"O my Lord, powerful as fire, omnipotent one, now I offer You all obeisances and fall on the ground at Your feet. O my Lord, please lead me on the right path to reach You, and, since You know all that I have done in the past, please free me frm the ractions to my past sins so that there will be no hindrance to my progress."

Now the western indologists give for instance the word "agne" vocative sing. of fire the meaning "fire", but who in their right mind talks to a fire like that. Then there are Pantheists who might say that "agne" means to the deity of fire personified. But the Vaisnava Acaryas have seen that every word means Krsna so they have tranlated the word agne as a name of Krsna. And in fact Agni menaing powerful like fire is one of the names of Krsna or Visnu. This can be confirmed in Visnu sahasranama or Krsna sahasranama from Mahabharata - smrti.

Keshava

Since a prerequisite at Gaudiya Discussions is to back up what you say with the opinions of Gaudiya Acaryas I thought that I might quote Baladeva's prameya ratnAvalI a little.

Here goes.

yatha zrI bhAgavate

"Thus in the Srimad Bhagavata (it is stated):"

zrutiH pratyakSam aitihyam anumAnam catuSTayam

"(There are) four means of rightful knowledge, revalation (sruti/vedas), perception, tradition, and inference."

pratyakSe'ntar bhaved yasmAd
aitihyaM tena dezikaH |
pramANaM trividhaM prAkhyat
tatra mukhyA zrutir bhavet ||

"Since tradition is included in perception, the qualified teacher has said that the means of knowledge are three (only) of which revalation (zruti) is the main one"


Keshava

So this also backs up Madhava's point that Jiva is proving about the stones by pratyaksha because as Baladeva says here tradition or history is also considered pratyaksha.

Oh also did everyone notice that it is stated in the Bhagavatam that zruti is the main (mukhyA) pramana


Keshava

Sorry the quote is from the Bahgavatam but the statement that zruti is the main one is from prameya ratnAvakI.

Keshava

If the praman of shrooti is dependent on the praman of pratyaksha as you yourself say
then you cannot posit the former as the highest
unless you are implying a distinction between shrooti as a reference to the written Veda and shrooti that is innate or immanent in our consciousness.

Please consider ......

Well what about the earlier Upanishads, Svetashvatara and all? How do you define "Veda"? Is there a particular statement from the Gosvamins that you are thinking of in this regard?

According to my understanding, older religious texts can be found in, for example, the Mesopotamian and Hittite contexts.


The text of the Quran was also fixed not too long after the passing of the prophet. Yes, the text of the Vedas became fixed, but it is certainly not impossible that prior to the establishment of the canonical texts variations existed.


I have a different way of perceiving things than the tradition, granted, but this is quite a leap. Where exactly does the Rg-veda expound KRSNa-bhakti? Merely saying, "Here the word agni indicates KRSNa," is not very convincing. Let us try to see what the texts themselves say rather than uncritically accept what Madhva and others read into them.


Yes, he does offer a kind of proof. However, as I see it, he does so by appealing to tradition--that RAma built a brick of stones--not by an appeal to pratyAkSa-pramANa. Accepting that someone has seen something via yogic pratyAkSa is the same as accepting this person as an authority--ipse dixit, "He himself has said it." So, JIva never goes beyond an appeal to either revelation or tradition.

I agree that JIva does see the need to bring in additional evidence, and this is, as you point out, a very important point. Still, to my eyes it seems that he never goes beyond an appeal to authority and tradition. That aside, I agree that his bringing in additional evidence is important.

I agree that it is certainly a reference brought in from within the authority of the tradition, the example on floating stones. However, it is clear that Jiva attempts to demonstrate how the statement "makes sense". Of course, as he cites from Kurma, the truth of the statement would not be lost even if not understood, but it is evident that making sense is a great virtue here. Hence zAstra-yukti-sunipuna.

I don't know about the Christians, but the Muslims say the Quran was passed down by a very rigid aural system which insures that it is literally syllable by syllable the same as it was since it has been known.

Well, that's of course possible. That in itself would obviously not tell of the depth of the revelation. There are different grades of revelation, some more profound than others which may be very circumstantial. In regards to why Mahaprabhu did not choose the Quran as His source of revealed inspiration, evidently He found something more profound in the tradition of revelation He chose.

The following is from Ananta Dasji's Madhurya Kadambini commentary, which fits right in to this discussion.

The author cites evidence from the zrutis to establish that the Self-manifest transcendental blissful Absolute Truth and the truth of bhakti are completely beyond material nature. He shows the infallible authenticity of zabda-pramANa or zrutis, the scriptures.

PramANa or evidence is the means to determine the authenticity of an object. PramAtA yenArthaM pramiNoti tad eva pramANam. Srimat JIva GosvAmIpAda writes in Sarva-saMvAdinI:

yadyapi pratyakSAnumAna-zabdArSopamANArthApatty-abhAva-sambhavaitihya-ceSTAkhyAni daza pramANAni viditAni, tathApi bhrama-pramAda-vipralipsA-karaNApATava-doSa-rahita-vacanAtmakaH zabda eva mUla-pramANam –

“Generally there are ten types of evidence, namely pratyakSa, anumAna, zabda, ArSa, upamAna, arthApatti, abhAva, sambhava, aitihya, and ceSTA. zabda, or zruti, however, is accepted as the most authentic evidence because it is free from the four defects of bhrama (illusion), pramAda (confusion), vipralipsA (cheating) and karaNApATava (defect of the senses).

We will briefly explain how the other nine types of evidence are not wholly dependable.

PratyakSa: The knowledge directly perceived by the five sense organs, namely eye, ear, tongue, nose, and skin, and the mind, is known as pratyakSa. The knowledge perceived through these senses can never be reliable because of the above mentioned four defects of delusion, imperfect senses, etc. The reality of an object cannot thus be known by pratyakSa. For example, a magician makes things that do not exist in reality appear real to the senses. How can transcendental things then be proven through the material senses?

AnumAna: According to nyAya-zAstras, knowledge inferred from our common observations is known as anumAna. The usual example given is girir vahnimAn dhUmAt, “Since I see smoke on the mountain, I can infer that it is on fire.” We have all seen, “Where there is smoke, there is fire.” Thus when we see smoke coming from behind the mountain we presume that there is a fire on the mountain. But since smoke may also be visible even after the fire has been extinguished by rain, the above presumption is faulty. AnumAna or presumption is thus also defective.

ArSa: The sayings of the sages (RSis) are known as ArSa. Due to the differences in the theories of different sages, ArSa is also unacceptable as a valid pramANa.

UpamAna: Ascertaining knowledge of an object based on comparison with another object of similar characteristics is known as upamAna. If one says, “lotus-like face”, still one cannot have complete knowledge of the face simply by seeing a lotus. Therefore, upamAna is also defective.

ArthApatti: Sometimes a fact is directly perceived and thus cannot be rejected, but the cause of that fact is not so perceived; in such cases one may speculate on the cause through common sense. This is known as arthApatti. For example, if one sees a very healthy person, but never sees him eating or drinking in the day time, which is generally expected, then one may reasonably deduce that this person must be eating or drinking during the night. However, arthApatti is also an unreliable source of knowledge, because this person may be healthy because he is taking some special medicine or because he has received the blessings of a god.

AbhAva: An object cannot be perceived by the senses if it does not exist in their proximity. For example, a person standing on one side of a high wall cannot see a pot lying on the other side of the wall. Incomprehension of the existence of the pot is called abhAva.

Sambhava: One hundred exists in one thousand. When such an understanding appears in the intellect, it is known as sambhava. AbhAva and sambhava can never ascertain the Absolute Truth, since He is completely beyond all material conceptions.

Aitihya: A fact accepted in society as common knowledge being passed on by tradition, although no one knows who said it and when, is known as aitihya-pramANa.

CeSTA: Knowledge of an object or its number perceived by raising the fingers or another bodily gesture is known as ceSTA. Aitihya and ceSTA are also unacceptable as authentic types of evidence for spiritual matters.

zabda: zAstras, or zabda, are apauruSeya, not made by any mundane person. It is also known as Apta-vAkya, or absolutely accurate verbal authority. ApauruSeya means a fact manifested from the Lord, who is all knowing, all powerful, full of auspiciousness, and full of compassion. zabda-pramANa is thus free from the previously mentioned four defects of imperfect senses, tendency to cheat, illusion and inattentiveness.

JIva GosvAmI further writes in Sarva-saMvAdinI:

anyeSAM prAya-puruSa-bhramAdi-doSamayatayAnyathA-pratIti-darzanena pramANaM vA tad-AbhAsaM veti puruSair nirNetum azakyatvAt, tasya tad abhAvAt. ato rAjJA bhRtyAnAm iva tenaivAnyeSAM baddha-mUlatvAt, tasya tu nairapekSyAt yathAzakti kvacid eva tasya taiH sAcivya-karaNAt, svAdhInasya tasya tu tAny upamardyApi pravRtti-darzanAt. tena pratipAdite vastuni tair viroddhum azakyatvAt. teSAM zaktibhir aspRzye vastuni tasyaiva tu sAdhakatamatvAt.

“Regarding other types of evidence, the person ascertaining any fact may be bewildered due to the false perception of his senses and the existence of the four defects. It therefore becomes impossible to verify the authenticity of such facts. There is no such doubt, however, about zabda-pramANa. As servants are completely under the control of the king, so too are other types of evidence dependent on zabda-pramANa. In certain cases, other types of evidence support zabda-pramANa, but zabda-pramANa itself is completely independent. It dominates other types of evidence and is self-evident. No other evidence can oppose the facts determined by zabda-pramANa. zabda-pramANa is most effective in cases where other types of evidence are unable to touch the facts.”

Because zabda pramANa has emanated from the Supreme Brahman, no opposing evidence is accepted. Vedic zAstras appear from BhagavAn Himself. evaM vA are asya mahato bhUtasya nizvasitam etad yad Rg-vedo yajur-vedaH sAma-vedo’tharvAGgirasa itihAsaH purANam – “O Maitreya! Rg-veda, Yajur-veda, SAma-veda, Atharva-veda, ItihAsa (MahAbhArata and RAmAyaNa), and other PurANas appear when the all-pervading Parabrahma exhales.” (MaitreyI UpaniSad) In other words, all this knowledge emanates from Him.

If the words of the Lord are the self-evident crest jewel of all evidence, one may ask whether the words of Buddha-deva, who is a manifestation of the Lord, will be accepted as such evidence? zrIla JIva GosvAmI replies to this question,

na ca buddhasyApIzvaratve sati tad-vAkyaM ca pramANaM syAd iti vAcyam. yena zAstreNa tasya IzvaratvaM manyAmahe tenaiva tasya daitya-mohana-zAstrakAritvenoktatvAt

“Though He is the Lord, His words cannot be accepted as evidence, since the very zAstras that describe Him as Lord say that He has composed zAstras to bewilder the demon-like atheists, rather than to deliver the Absolute Truth.” (Sarva-samvAdinI)

I still find a fundamental problem with sabda. After all, revelation still has to come through a human agent, who we must assume is subject to defects.

I assume we'll be coming back to this sooner or later....

In addition to the human agent issue, we have the issue of interpolation and attribution of new texts to old authors. Which Puranas shall we accept as zabda? If some of it is interpolated, which sections shall we accept as zabda if there is uncertainty over the degree of interpolation? For example, what of the Brahma-vaivarta-purana? And what of Devi Bhagavata? Yes, and what of the Upanishads, with all the different listings you find?

zabda-pramANa is most effective in cases where other types of evidence are unable to touch the facts.”


This is a very important sentence. It shows that there Jiva is admitting there are cases where the other pramanas are important for empirical issues.

Regarding Buddha:

If the words of the Lord are the self-evident crest jewel of all evidence, one may ask whether the words of Buddha-deva, who is a manifestation of the Lord, will be accepted as such evidence? zrIla JIva GosvAmI replies to this question,

na ca buddhasyApIzvaratve sati tad-vAkyaM ca pramANaM syAd iti vAcyam. yena zAstreNa tasya IzvaratvaM manyAmahe tenaiva tasya daitya-mohana-zAstrakAritvenoktatvAt

“Though He is the Lord, His words cannot be accepted as evidence, since the very zAstras that describe Him as Lord say that He has composed zAstras to bewilder the demon-like atheists, rather than to deliver the Absolute Truth.” (Sarva-samvAdinI)

Please note that of all Vaisnavas Sri Vaisnavas do not accept Buddha as an avatara of Visnu.



Keshava

You may wonder how I spend my days... In between posting on GD. OK, I am working on one "/$%?&*! passage in Priti Sandarbha, also quoted by Ananta Das in Madhurya Kadambini.

Here it is--related to arthApatti found above.

“bhaktir evainaM nayati bhaktir evainaM darzayati bhakti-vazaH puruSo bhaktir eva bhUyasI” iti zruyate | tasmAd evaM vivicyate : yA caivaM bhagavantaM svAnandena mAdayati, sA kiM lakSaNA syAt ? iti. na tAvat sAGkhyAnAm iva prAkRta-sattva-maya-mAyikAnanda-rUpA bhagavato mAyAnabhibhAvyatva-zruteH svatas-tRptatvAc ca. na ca nirvizeSa-vAdinAm iva bhagavat-svarUpAnanda-rUpA, atizayAnupapatteH | ato natarAM jIvasya svarUpAnanda-rUpA, atyanta kSudratvAt tasya |

The Mathara-zruti says, “Bhakti brings one near to the Lord. Bhakti makes one see the Lord. The Lord is under the control of bhakti. Bhakti is the greatest thing of all.” Now the question here is, what is the specific quality of bhakti that overwhelms even the Lord with his own bliss? We cannot follow the sankhya philosophers who suggest that bhakti is a product of the material mode of goodness and just another kind of illusory mundane pleasure. After all, according to the srutis, the Supreme Lord is completely self-satisfied and so cannot be attracted by any material object. Nor should anyone follow those who deny God’s attributes and think that bhakti is bhagavat-svarUpAnanda, or the bliss that inherent within the Lord's own being. The Lord enjoys the bliss derived from bhakti (bhakty-Ananda) far more than he does the bliss of his own being (svarUpAnanda). As such, it further goes without saying that bhakti cannot be the inherent bliss existing in the jIva, since the bliss of jIvAnanda is extremely minute and thus entirely incapable of overwhelming the Lord.

hlAdinI sandhinI samvit tvayy ekA sarva-saMsthitau |
hlAda-tApa-karI mizrA tvayi no guNa-varjjite ||

The Vishnu Purana says, "“The three eternal energies, namely, hlAdinI, sandhinI and samvit exist within the Lord's nature, for he is the possessor of all energies. On the other hand, the essential being of the Lord is completely free from the three modes of nature, namely, happiness (sattvikI), misery (tAmasi), and the mixture of both (rajasi)."

iti viSNu-purANAnusAreNa hlAdiny-Akhya-tadIya-svarUpa-zakty-Ananda-rUpaivety avaziSyate, yayA khalu bhagavAn svarUpAnandam anubhavati, yad-AnandenAnanda-vizeSI-bhavati, yayaiva taM tam Anandam anyAn apy anubhAvayatIti |

According to this statment from the Vishnu Purana, we are left only with the possibility that bhakti is the bliss that arises from the Lord's internal energy named his "pleasure-giving potency," for it is through this hlAdinI-zakti that the Lord experiences the joy of his own being and through which he possesses the attribute of Ananda. And it is also through this hlAdinI-zakti that the Lord causes others to experience these joys.

atha tasyA api bhagavati sadaiva vartamAnatayAtizayAnupapattes tv evaM vivecanIyam, zrutArthAnyathAnupapatty-arthApatti-pramANa-siddhatvAt.

Now this conclusion may be drawn despite the objection that the hlAdinI-zakti or svarUpa-zakti always exists within the Lord Himself, making it impossible for it to overwhelm him [as was suggested in the Mathara Sruti text cited at the beginning of this passage]. The reason we may draw this conclusion is that it is possible to infer something when the facts in a case contradict common knowledge. (zrutArthAnyathAnupapatty-arthApatti-pramANa-siddhatvAt)

The above passage was not easy to translate, and Ananta Das's Bengali version is not all that easy to understand either. Here is basically how Ananta Dasji explains the above idea:

[We already encountered arthApatti above as one of the ten kinds of evidence. This is how it is being applied here:] One can establish the truth by inference when the facts in a case contradict common sense or received knowledge. ([because] anupapatti -- "the [logical] impossibility", anyathA "[of something being] other", zrutArtha -- "[than] the heard meaning," i.e, what one has been told, the prima facie evidence, siddhatvAt -- "can be established", pramANa "by the proof", arthApatti "of inference."

For instance, if a man named Devadatta is seen to be getting fat, even though he does not eat during the daytime, one can infer that he must be eating at night. In this case, we know that nothing but the hlAdinI zakti, an energy that comes from the Lord's own being, can bring pleasure to the Lord, and yet, here is something (bhakti) that is apparently coming from outside himself. The only conclusion we can come to is that, like Devadatta's nighttime snacks, bhakti is also an aspect of Krishna's hlAdinI potency, which is taking another form to bring him immense joy.

tasyA hlAdinyA eva kApi sarvAnandAtizAyinI vRttir nityaM bhakta-vRndeSv eva nikSipyamANA bhagavat-prIty-AkhyayA vartate | atas tad-anubhavena zrI-bhagavAn api zrImad-bhakteSu prIty-atizayaM bhajata iti |

The overwhelmingly blissful function of the hlAdinI zakti is eternally being transfered (nikSipyamANa [love that word!]) into the devotees where it has been given the name of bhagavat-prIti, or love for the Lord. Therefore, by experiencing the love [the devotees feel for him], the Lord also feels an overwhelming love for his blessed devotees.

Now that, Madhava, you will see, is quite different from what I was sent. The real key was in understanding arthApatti and exactly how it was being used in this context, i.e., exactly what Jiva's argument was. I do believe I got it.

Just to return to the context of this thread, however, it is interesting here how a pramana which was just condemned as unreliable is now being used to prove a theological point. The "known" fact (zrutArtha) here, however, is a revealed statement about the Lord and his energies (i.e. from the Vishnu Purana) and another statement from the Mathara sruti about the power of bhakti to "control Krishna, to bring Krishna, etc." It's an interesting passage, certainly.

Well, the Alvars never speak of Buddha as an incarnation of ViSNu in their hymns (in fact, I believe that they do not mention him at all).

Regarding Buddha, then I have always been interested in the dynamics that lead to his being considered an avatAra of ViSNu. Some years ago I began to research this as preparation for a paper towards a B.A, in Indology. As I went to the U.S. to study, I never finished it. However, it seems to me that this can be traced back to the stories of tripura and MAyAmoha. The BhAgavata-purANa connects Buddha with tripura, the three cities of the asuras which Ziva destroyed with a single arrow when they were aligned in a particular way. The accounts differ in the various purANas, but the core of the story is that the asuras have come to inhabit three mighty cities. In these they lead pious lives and follow the Vedic dharma. The devas, however, wants to break the asuras power, but as they follow Vedic dharma this cannot be accomplished. In other words, the asuras faith in and commitment to follow the Vedic path has to be broken. For this purpose some sort of expansion of ViSNu called MAyAmoha is dispatched to tripura to preach a sinful doctrine. Here again the accounts differ. In some, MAyAmoha attacks the Vedic path by pointing out that its followers are sensual as they sacrifice together with their wives; an extreme ascetic path is being preached here. In other accounts, however, MAyAmoha attacks the ascetic nature of the Vedic path and encourages licentiousness, etc. among the asuras. So, by hook or by crook MAyAmoha accomplishes his task and the three cities can now be destroyed.

As I mentioned above, the BhAgavata-purANa connects Buddha to tripura, and it seems to me that at one point MAyAmoha was identified with Buddha. Of course, MAyAmoha himself and his doctrine(s) was connected with Jainism and Buddhism; see the account in the ViSNu-purANa, for example. Still some research to be done here, though.

On a related topic, Padmanabh Jaini wrote an interesting article on the Brahmanical appropriation (as formulated in the BhAgavata-purANa) of the Jaina tIrthaGkara RSabha (chapter 18 in this publication).

Sincerely,
Elpis

You might find this interesting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

Quote:
'Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God...
What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest ... was an evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D.'

I think the following passage from Bhakti Sandarbha is a good one.

tatra prathamaM tAvat tat-tat-saGgAj jAtena tat-tac-chraddhA-tat-tat- paramparA-kathA-rucy-AdinA jAta-bhagavat-sAmmukhyasya tat-tad-anuSaGgenaiva tat-tad-bhajanIye bhagavad-AvirbhAva-vizeSe tat-tad-bhajana-mArga-vizeSe ca rucir jAyate. tataz ca vizeSa-bubhutsAyAM satyAM teSv ekato’nekato vA zrI-gurutvenAzritAc chravaNaM kriyate. tac copakramopasaMhArAdibhir arthAvadhAraNaM punaz cAsambhAvanAviparIta-bhAvanA-vizeSevatA svayaM tad-vicAra-rUpaM mananam api kriyate. tato bhagavataH sarvasminn evAvirbhAve tathAvidho’sau sadA sarvatra virAjata ity evaMrUpA zraddhA jAyate.

The process followed by the intellectual devotees (vicAra-pradhAna) is as follows: Through the the association of sädhus, they gets a particular kind of faith in the Supreme Truth and subsequently a taste for discussions related to these subjects. Thus turned towards the Lord, they concomitantly develop a taste for a specific form of the worshipable Lord and the particular path of worshiping him. When they desire to know more specifically about these things, they take shelter of one or more of these sädhus as çravaëa-guru in order to undertake a study of the scriptures. A thorough study of the scriptures means to analyse them with reference to their upakrama-upasaMhAra (beginning and conclusion) abhyAsa (repeated themes), apUrvatA (original ideas), phala (promised benefits), artha-vAda (elements selected for particular praise), and upapatti (proofs and arguments). After hearing, one goes on to manana, or reflecting on what one has heard in order to get rid of two doubts, asambhävanä (to think that what one has heard is impossible) and viparéta-bhävanä (to think that it is false). As a result of following this process, one develops faith that the all-merciful omnipotent and omniscient Lord resides everywhere in all manifestations, and that one should serve him with devotion. [This is called scriptural faith.](Bhakti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 202).


In the Krama-sandarbha to BhAg. 1.2.21 and Bhakti-sandarbha 16, zrI JIva explains tatra zravaNena tAvaj-jJeya-gatAsambhAvanAz chidyante iti. mananena tad-gata-viparIta-bhAvanAH. sAkSAtkAreNa tv Atma-yogyatA-gatAsambhAvanA-viparIta-bhAvane iti jJeyam.

"AsambhAvanA or doubts related to the possibility of the object of knowledge existing can be erased by hearing. Reflection is the means of cutting through doubts about its falsehood. Direct experience of the object of truth will get rid of such doubts related to oneself, i.e., the impossibility of attaining perfection and the false concept of self."


tatraikasmiMs tv anayA prathama-jAtayA rucyA saha nijAbhISTa-dAna-sAmarthyAdy-atizayavattA-nirdhAraNa-rUpatvena saiva zraddhA samullasati | tatra yadyapy ekatraivAtizayitA-paryavasAnaM sambhavati na tu sarvatra, tathApi keSAMcit tato viziSTasyAjJAnAd anyatrApi tathA-buddhi-rUpA zraddhA sambhavaty evaM bhajana-mArga-vizeSaz ca vyAkhyAtavyaH | tad evaM siddhe jJAna-vijJAnArthaM nididhyAsana-lakSaNa-tat-tad-upAsanA-mArga-bhedo’nuSThIyata ity evaM vicAra-pradhAnAnAM mArgo darzitaH |

The faith of the intellectual devotee then combines with the original preferences that he developed at the beginning of hearing from the sadhus by establishing an intense preference for one paricular form that is capable of fulfilling one's own desires. Parenthetically, it is said here that though generally this intensification of faith is directed to a particular form of the Lord and not to all, occasionally it does happend that those who are not aware of the specific attributes of these forms may simultaneously have faith in other forms also.

The particular path of bhajan then follows: When this particular state of knowledge has been established, then one takes up the worship of the Lord in order to realize it. This is called [in this context] nididhyAsana. This, then, is the path followed by the intellectual devotees.


As for the ruci-pradhAna devotees, zrI JIva describes their attainment of faith in the following way:

ruci-pradhAnAnAM tu na tAdRg-vicArApekSA jAyate | kintu sAdhu-saGga-lIlA-kathana-zravaNa-ruci-zraddhA-zravaNAdy-AvRtti-rUpa evAsau mArgaH

Those devotees who are predominantly motivated by their taste do not depend on this kind of intellectual process. They simply hear the Lord’s pastimes from the sAdhus and attain a taste for them. This is followed by zraddhA. Their path then consists of continuing to hear and chant, etc., with faith. (Bhakti-sandarbha 202)



A couple of rough spots left in there, but they'll have to wait for smoothing out. I think that this passage is exceedingly interesting for the following reasons.

(1) Jiva does not seem to be denigrating the intellectual devotees, but rather giving them full credit. Ruci is not absent from their spiritual path, but strengthened by their intellectual search. So it is wrong to criticize us vicAra-pradhAna folk for not being raganuga devotees.

(2) The six types of hermeneutical tools are mentioned. These are meant to establish, as I have been saying all along, what is important and what is not. What is the real goal of the scriptures? To know God. So let us stick to that point. But as time goes by, the sources of knowledge expand and must be taken into account. The idea of zAstrIya-zraddhA means taking advantage of all sources of knowledge to use them in the service of faith.

(3) For those who did not notice, Jiva has adapted the categories of the jnana-marga to bhakti in the vicara-pradhana path. Namely zravaNa-manana-nididhyAsana, as found in the

Interestingly, it seems to me that ruci and vicAra are ultimately two wings on the same bird. Where the intellect fails, one must remember the taste one received from bhajan. When the taste goes, one must energize one's faith machine with reason. It is unlikely that anyone will be exclusively one or the other type of devotee, but one should clearly keep the goal of transcending the intellect in mind.

Just came across this in Tattva-sandarbha, Sarva-samvadini in this very location (#9).



"The direct perception of a person knowledgable in the scripture is also reliable and free from the customary defects, because it is based in shabda."

This should be put to the test on a contemporary person.

Likely, the view you would encounter would be that the siddhas lived "in the past".

In the context of the author himself, that is, if we are to understand the statement as a general truth, it raises a question on why he was engaged in editing Sri Rupa's writings (among a host of other examples). Were there misspelled words, missing/partial references or problems with grammar, or was the text in need of restructuring? If so, wouldn't these be examples of the tendency to make mistakes (bhrama), or to not have a complete perception of everything (karaNApATava), both among the classical defects?

Therefore, do we need to qualify our understanding of this statement rather than taking it at face value as is commonly done?

Well, if you by "face value" mean that the statement may be considered pious by some, but is false, then we are in agreement.

Face value - the apparent value or significance of the statement. What I am saying is that some may interpret that as a statement intended for global application, while others would limit the scope of its application to certain areas of expertise where the freedom from flaws would prevail.

I know the meaning of face value. From my perspective it appears that the statement is false, whether accepted globally or restricted.

Would you agree that anyone can be perfect in anything?

What would you think of the idea of something or someone being "reasonably perfect", though not "absolutely perfect"? Staying within the boundaries of Jiva's presentation, would that be a legitimate interpretation?

What I am trying to say (not very elegantly, I admit) is that from my point of view the statement, whether taken at face value or qualified somehow, as you suggest, is hyperbole.

I wonder, how many of the statements we take as hyperbole appear as such only because the author did not elaborate on the context in which the statement was meant to be understood?

And with this, again, we are back in the square where we debate on whether we are allowed to seek possible intended contexts in pursuing a rational meaning or whether we should plainly adopt the "virtuous men of faith" approach while shrugging off the question as mysteries of the heavens.

Absorption and deep study of something does indeed make a person capable of seeing things within that particular field of study more clearly. However, that does not mean that any judgment from such a person is correct. Aristotle is a person whose opinion you cannot just dismiss, you need to take them into account, but it is not that everything he said is correct.

When it comes to people who are learned in the scriptures, then that learning gives them insights into the subtleties of the theology. They will see things that others do not and understand matters more comprehensively. So within that field, the world of theology, I acknowledge that they hold authority and that their judgments should not be easily dismissed, yet I maintain that they are not beyond mistakes and misunderstandings. The statement as it stands could lead to the belief that people learned in theology somehow partake of some divine infallibility and that the scriptures themselves are infallible, both of which are incorrect. Furthermore, theology is something constructed and it is not obvious that theological learning necessarily gives you insights into life in general.

Anyway, if JIva's statement can be weakened through interpretation, then it would be acceptable to me.

I am sure that this happens.


If we take the author seriously, we need to seek that context. But that search may end up in a significant weakening of the statement.

That would be "hypoboli" wouldn't it?