Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.

 

 

 

Query shared on 20th February 2017 AD —  6:00:53 AM – PST —

 

Sir Nagendra Sharma Rao ‘Advaitin’ (Flushing, New York, USA):

 

a) Now I have some questions TO LEARN for you. You are very well versed and traditionally trained, I could see that instantly from the manner and content of your responses. That is why it is such an honor, pleasure, enriching and ennobling experience to interact with you.
I do not have to qualify or give a lot of explanation.

How do you reconcile the two avowedly atheistic schools out of the six astika darsana scholars, namely Purva Mimamsa and Nirisvara Samkhya with the avowedly dualistic, theistic Dvaita Vada?
b) This other question is related to details of upasana, dhyana, samadhi, vide pratyahara-dharana-dhyana-samadhi iti samyama continuum from the Yoga Sutras.

There are two Sutras from the Yoga Sutras:

There is a Sutra in Patanjali, prātibhādvā sarvam [Yoga Sutra 3.34], on which Vivekananda comments: “Everything comes to him [to a man with Pratibha] …

ऋतम्भरा तत्र प्रज्ञा ॥४८॥

The knowledge in that is called “filled with Truth”.

The next aphorism will explain this.

श्रुतानुमानप्रज्ञाभ्यामन्यविषया विशेषार्थत्वात् ॥४९॥

49. The knowledge that is gained from testimony and inference is about common objects. That from the Samadhi just mentioned is of a much higher order, being able to penetrate where inference and testimony cannot go.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA
RAJA YOGA

How do you include or integrate this with astika Dvaita Vada theory anc practice?

Narayana Smaranam!

 

 

Reply by Gurupādācārya Svāmī ‘Acintya-bheda-abheda-vādī’ –

 

A) The avowedly atheistic school of Pūrva-mīmāṁsā (including three of its Bhāṭṭa, Murārīya & Prabhākarīya sub-divisions) is reconciled by a Rāmānujīya Viśiṣṭādvaitīya work known as Seśvara-mīmāṁsā of Veṇkaṭanātha. Since, all vaiṣṇava schools have a common ground of dvaita to some extent, no separate treatment has been given from each vaiṣṇava school concerning the pūrva-mīmāṁsā.

 

The atheistic school of nirīśvara-sāṅkhya is reconciled by adopting the sāṅkhya-darśanam as propounded by bhagavad-āvatāra Kapiladeva in the 3rd Canto of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam.

B) The Pātañjala-yoga-sūtra 3.49 – “श्रुतानुमानप्रज्ञाभ्यामन्यविषया विशेषार्थत्वात्॥४९॥“ / “śrutānumāna-prajñābhyām anya-viṣayā viśeṣārthatvāt /” – This applies to scriptures which have not arose from the jnana/yoga-samādhi or the bhakti-samādhi. Both Mahābhārata (Gītā included) and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam have been manifest from samādhis. The first chapter of Mahābhārata confirms this – “puṇye himavate pāde madhye giri-guhālaye…..” and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “bhakti-yogena manasi samyak praṇihite ‘male….”. Hence, the above aphorism from Yoga-sūtra is inapplicable to the knowledge assimilated from the samādhi-labdha-granthāni viz. Mahābhārata and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam.

 

Yoga-sūtra 3.48 (ऋतम्भरा तत्र प्रज्ञा ॥४८॥ / ṛtambharā tatra prajñā) is reconciled with the following phrase of Bhagavad-gītā – “…dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te…”.

 

Yoga-sūtra 3.34 (प्रतिभावाद्वा सर्वम् / pratibhāvād vā sarvaṁ) is reconciled with the Nārada-pañcarātra statement cited in Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu 1.1.34 – “hari-bhakti-mahādevyāḥ sarvā mukty-ādi-siddhayaḥ / bhuktayaś cādbhutās tasyāś ceṭikāvad anuvratāḥ //”

 

 

 

— Gurupādācārya Svāmī

3 thoughts on “Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.

  1. Further sub-queries and sub-replies in response to the post – “Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.” – Pt. 1

    Sub-query shared on 23rd February, 2017 AD – 4:56:03 AM PST—

    Sir Nagendra S. Rao ‘Advaitin’ (Flushing, New York, USA):

    Swamiji namaskaram:

    Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.

    YOUR RESPONSE:

    B) The Pātañjala-yoga-sūtra 3.49 – “श्रुतानुमानप्रज्ञाभ्यामन्यविषया विशेषार्थत्वात्॥४९॥“ / “śrutānumāna-prajñābhyām anya-viṣayā viśeṣārthatvāt /”

    – This applies to scriptures which have not arose from the jnana/yoga-samādhi or the bhakti-samādhi. Both Mahābhārata (Gītā included) and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam have been manifest from samādhis. The first chapter of Mahābhārata confirms this – “puṇye himavate pāde madhye giri-guhālaye…..” and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “bhakti-yogena manasi samyak praṇihite ‘male….”. Hence, the above aphorism from Yoga-sūtra is inapplicable to the knowledge assimilated from the samādhi-labdha-granthāni viz. Mahābhārata and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam.

    Remarks by Mr. Nagendra Sharma Rao –

    Your answer is not at all clear.

    Are you saying that that the tattvas of other Mathas, e.g. Islam or Judaism do not / can not flow out of samadhi?

    Are you saying that samādhi-labdha-granthāni viz. Mahābhārata and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam are the ONLY true founts of knowledge, apart from the Vedas?

    If so, what about the celebrated passage in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, “There the Veda is no Veda” ityadi.

    Are you saying Yoga Sutras 3.49 based samadhi is invalid as a source of any knowledge?

    Or that it is a source only of knowledge outside the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata?

    This cannot be since the kernel of ALL wisdom is in these two great Granthas per the Vaishnava mathas. This despite my being a Smartha and rejecting Mahabharata and Bhagavatam as definitive pramana. They are merely smriti and NOT shruti and therefore cannot be given the same status.

    The Gita is somewhat different being neither here nor there. Adi Samkara Bhagavadpada wrote a celebrated Bhashya on the Gita, much before either of the major revered Vaishnava charade – Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya.

    Again in relation to this, what is your position w.r.t. to the great Sivachara Mathas of Tamil Saivism, which arguably from a historical standpoint are more ancient and parallel to the Vaidika sampradayas?

    They reject the authority of the Vedas as pramana. Yet they are profound Sanskrit scholars and several are dhyana siddhas of the first order.

    What do you say about the knowledge they have gained through samadhi?

    Sub-reply by Gurupādācārya Svāmī ‘Acintya-bheda-abheda-vādī’ –

    A) Since, ‘apauruṣeya’ (of trans-human origin) Veda śāstra is the sole evidential source (nirduṣṭa pramāṇa) of the ‘doṣa-catuṣṭaya-rahita-jñānam’ (bereft of the quadruple flaws of ‘bhrama’, ‘pramāda’, ‘vipralipsā’ and ‘karaṇāpāṭava’) or the ‘nirduṣṭa prameya’ and because, the non-Vedic paths of the Abrahamic denominations like Christianity and Islam etc. do not abide by the Veda śāstra and rather choose to abide by their pauruṣeya-granthas (sacred texts of humanly origin like the Bible and Quran), hence, their pramāṇa is duṣṭa (contaminated) on basis of its humanly authorship. When pramāṇa is faulty, all prameyas rooted on such pramāṇa are, by default, replete with flaws. For this reason, non-Vedic samādhis do not have any power to provide nirduṣṭa-tattva-anubhūtiḥ.

    B) Along with Vedas/Upaniṣads (Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇam has been designated as the incarnation of the Veda in Bṛhad-dharma-upapurāṇa by Vedavyāsa – “veda-vedye pare puṁsi jāte daśarathātmaje / vedaḥ prācetasādāsīt sākṣād-rāmāyaṇātmanā //”), Mahābhārata/Gītā and Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – are the most authentic sources of divine knowledge.

    C) The import of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisād 4.3.22 – “atra…vedā avedā…bhavati” (“Herein,….Veda becomes no Veda…”) is to make the jñāna-adhikārī and the upasānā/bhakti-adhikārī transcend the level of the karma-kāṇḍātmaka Vedas. This has been verified in the Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā verse – “traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna…”. It does not prove the invalidity of the vedānta portion of the Veda even after the mokṣa-prāpti since, upāsanā/bhakti is both the sādhana and the sādhya and the acme of all Vedānta is upāsanā/bhakti as even verified by Bhagavān’s statement in Bhagavad-gītā – “bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān…..” and by Śrīmad-bhāgavata’s statement – “bhaktyā sañjātayā bhaktyā” + “bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ…” + “na sādhayati māṁ yogo…” etc. Śrīmad-bhāgavatam has been considered as ‘sarva-vedānta-sāra’ – “sarva-vedānta-sāraṁ hi śrīmad-bhāgavatam iṣyate / tad-rasāmṛta-tṛptasya nānyatra syād ratiḥ kvacit //” + “vayaṁ tu na vitṛpyāma uttama-śloka-vikrame / yac chṛṇavatāṁ rasa-jñānāṁ svādu svādu pade pade //” + “nigama-kalpataror galitaṁ phalam….pibata bhāgavatam rasam ālayam…..” and on this verse of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam, the most famous commentator Śrīdhara Svāmī comments – “ālayaṁ layo mokṣaḥ abhividhāvākāraḥ layam abhivyāpya” which means that “even after obtaining mokṣa, the relish of rasa-svarūpa-śrīmadbhāgavata continues”. Hence, Śrīmad-bhāgavata, the personified kernel of all Vedānta or parama-vedānta-rūpa is, simultaneously, rasa-svarūpa. Its relish post-mokṣa indicates the relevance of sarva-vedānta-sāra-bhāgavata post-mukti.

    D) Many core views of the Pātañjala-yoga-sūtras have been refuted by the Vedānta schools including the Advaita. Commentaries of Śaṅkara and even of the Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta refute the views of Yoga and Sāṅkhya darśanas and have replaced those views with their version of the seśvara sāñkhya etc. Yoga-darśanam conflicts many views of Vedānta and has been held as invalid by the staunch Vedāntins.

    E) The ‘parama-śrutitva’ of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam is testified in Śrīmad-bhāgavata 1.4.7 as – “….yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ…” and the Śuddhādvaita-vedānta-pravarttaka Jagadguru Vallabhācārya writes in his Subodhinī commentary to the said verse – “yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ vaiṣṇavo vedaḥ”. To consider Śrīmad-bhāgavata to be not ‘śruti’, but ‘śruti-tulya’ would conflict with the following statements from the Bhāgavata-māhātmya of Padma-purāṇa where, all the three aspects of prasthāna-trayī viz., veda/upaniṣad, vedānta/brahma-sūtra and gītā have been depicted as impotent against the potency of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “veda-vedānta-ghoṣāiś ca gītā-pāṭhair muhur muhuḥ…”. Therefore, Bhāgavata is not ‘śruti-tulya’, but ‘parama-śruti-rūpa’ and the panama-veda.

    F) Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā is, directly, the sarvopaniṣad/sarva-śruti-sāra-bhūtā – “sarvopaniṣado gāvo dogdhā gopāla-nandanaḥ…” – as declared in its māhātmya itself in Mahābhārata.

    G) The śaiva-siddhānta established by decrying the authority of Vedas and independent to the Vedas – is considered invalid in the eyes of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta school. Any notion non-Vedic has no value to us, not in the least, however mystical it might be. Knowledge can be gained of different types. Samādhis are of various types. Only Vedic samādhis can bestow the supremely auspicious results.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Further sub-queries and sub-replies in response to the post – “Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.” – Pt. 2

    1) Prima Facie Contention raised by Vāyu Sakha from Nequen, Argentina (Facebook post link – https://www.facebook.com/radhakrishnadas.brahmachari/posts/1329063973825526) –

    Original veda-śāstras are apauruṣeya but they are also subject to the course of time and the human intellectual bias: sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa / sa mahatā kālena tatcchrotṛbuddhīmāndyādvīnaṣṭaprāyo’bhūt. If the refined instruction about upāsanā/bhakti sādhana is subject to such deterioration, why not the jñāna/karma-kāṇḍātmaka vedas?
    .
    Ācāryas and scholars agree that there are certain interpolations, corruptions and/or misinterpretations in the prasthānatrayī corpus (which will be more serious as this kali-yuga elapses, according to bhaviṣya-parva of Harivaṁśa). So the concept of nirduṣṭa-pramāṇa is subtly relative and depends on the arguer’s position.
    .
    In your definition of “non-Vedic path” you extrapolate indigenous claims to global contexts. It is not correct to do so in a reductionist and disqualifying way. No authentic sampradāya is dedicated to gratuitously labeling others religious traditions through theological prejudice.
    .
    In his Siddhānta-darpaṇaḥ, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa just says: vedaṁ tad-vācyaṁ ca pareśaṁ durdhiyo nāstikā na manyante | kecic cāstikābhāsāḥ samāśrayantyardha-kukkuṭīyam. So if this phrase is transformed into a motto (“I’m āstika, you are nāstika”) and is enough to overcome many opponents around the world, what is the need for a real pūrvapakṣa? It is not appropriate to use a couple of Sanskrit lines from the 18th century to discredit millenary living traditions.

    ***

    Refutation –

    A) The view holding the ‘apauruṣeya veda-śāstra’ as subject to deterioration or perish is untenable on the grounds of the perennially and unconditionally imperishable status possessed by the Vedas. For this reason, Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, a great Advaitin commentator on Gītā (highly regarded even by the Gauḍīya ācāryas like Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarttī), asserts in his commentary Gūḍhārtha-dīpikā, while explaining the adjective employed in Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā verse 4.1 – ‘yogam avyayam’ — as – “…avyayam avyaya-veda-mūlatvāt…” – meaning that “yoga is avyaya or imperishable denoting its origin from the imperishable Veda”. Thus it is understood, that the Veda/śruti-śāstra remains, eternally, existing, despite its misinterpretation and distortion invoked, circumstantially, due to multiple factors including the curse given by Sage Gautama to the brāhmaṇas etc. as described in the Skanda-purāṇa and again cited into Mādhva-bhāṣyaṁ onto the Brahma-sūtra and further quoted into the start of the Govinda-bhāṣyam onto the Brahma-sūtra by Gauḍīya-vedāntācārya Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa as – “dvāpare vedeṣu samutsanneṣu saṅkīrṇa-prajñair brahmādibhir abhyarthito bhagavān puruṣottamaḥ kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyanaḥ san tān uddhṛtya vivabhāja. tad-artha-nirṇetrīṁ catur-lakṣaṇīṁ brahma-mīmāṁsām āviścakāra ity asti kathā skāndī.” The gist is that Vedas are prone to undergo disarray on occasions and such are the instances when Lord Nārāyaṇa incarnates through his jñāna-śakti as the Bādarāyaṇa Vedavyāsa to systematize the Vedic corpus. But, as mentioned in the Skanda-purāṇa, such disarray of Vedas affects only those who are meant to be bewildered by the Lord and not those fortunate souls who are blessed. Only for the sake of ‘asura-vimohanam’, such incidences occur, thus, ruling out any possibility of the bhāgyavān sādhakas of bhakti/upāsanā or jñāna-mārga to be entrapped into any illusion at any time. The fortunate practitioners of all three paths obtain their desired destinations at all times past, present and future by following the Vedic instructions because, despite having undergone a disarray, the Vedic literature reveal their true import to such sincere sādhakas on the strength of the Upaniṣadic verse – “yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau / yasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ //”. Moreover, the scriptures have never asserted anywhere that any sādhaka will not be able to reach the destination of any of the three paths at any particular timely tenure due to the disarray of the Vedic knowledge. Hence, it is deducted that such disarray affects only the an-adhikārīs of the true knowledge and not the adhikārīs.

    B) Concept of nirduṣṭa-pramāṇa is, neither, subtly relative nor depends on the arguer’s position even if the possibility of interpolation/extrapolation/corruption/misinterpretation is taken into account for the reason –

    If the ‘ṣaḍ-liṅga-prakriyā’ (upakrama, upasaṁhāra, abhyāsa etc.) of interpreting the scriptures is adopted along with the various śabda and artha vṛttis (like jahat, ajahat lakṣaṇā, mukhyā, abhidhā, vyañjanā along with all Naiyāyika, Vaiyākaraṇika and Mīmāṁsaka techniques applied as when required) and if all the Vedic scriptures are matched, mutually, to the verify the common ground of – “vede rāmāyaṇe caiva purāṇe bhārate tathā / ādāv ante ca madhye ca hariḥ sarvatra gīyate //” (from Harivaṁśa Upapurāṇa) – then, it is not a difficult task to excavate any corruption inserted in the sacred scriptures. As far as misinterpretation of the non-corrupt textual passages is concerned, polemical refutation and counter-refutation forming the śāstrārtha is the, only, solution.

    C) To extrapolate and apply Indigenous claims to global contexts to disqualify the non-Vedic traditions as invalid is, wholly, logical and ethical for the reasons mentioned in our following analysis composed earlier on this matter – https://brvf.org/2017/01/03/%E2%80%8Ban-irrefutable-and-invincible-logical-reason-as-to-why-sanaatana-dharma-is-the-only-true-and-natural-religion-of-the-mankind-thus-establishing-all-other-denominations-as-its-later-advented-m/

    D) The true import of Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s statements is given in our analysis done earlier on the same matter (by the way, these are not couple of Sanskrit lines written in 18th Century only; they reflect the age-old Sanātanī viewpoint of discrediting all non-Vedic traditions as inauthentic — https://brvf.org/2016/12/31/non-vedic-faiths-are-equivalent-to-atheism/

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī

    2) 2/23/17, 7:10:51 AM:

    Mr. Kavi Iyer / Aryan Paladin – Singapore:

    🏼🕉 🏼

    Superb refutation of the views of all sub-Vedic & non-Vedic schools of thought by Acharya Sri. The idea that any so-called “spiritual experience” or Samadhi can qualify as Pramana is a false, modernist theory not found in the teachings of the Acharyas. Also, the gentleman’s comment that Adi Shankaracharya’s bhasyas are older than Vaishnava ones is not strictly speaking true. Western scholarship does consider Adi Shankaracharya as the first Vedantic Acharya of the Kaliyuga but the tradition of the Nimbarka Sampradaya asserts that Sri Nimbarkacharya was the first Acharya to appear in the Kaliyuga right after the beginning of the dark age. Also, the Pashupata faith has been refuted in Sri Bhasya by Sripad Ramanujacharya as being of non-vedic provenance. All-in-all, this piece was a pleasure to read & savour.

    🏼🕉 🏼

    3) 2/23/17, 6:50:02 AM: Chairman S.N. Varadarajan Veda Sasthra Vidya Trust:

    4) 2/23/17, 11:12:25 AM:

    Sir Nagendra S. Rao ‘Advaitin’ — Flushing, New York, USA:

    OM!

    THIS IS SO MUCH CLEARER.

    Swamiji:

    I agree with 80 or 90% of what you say. What is interesting for me is that your methodology of argument is almost identical to mine, though our sampradayas are different. This has great implications in these modern times when people (Isais and Muslims) are trying to divide us and conquer, by setting Hindu against Hindu.

    Dvaitin, Visisht Advaitin, Advaitin are all astika Sanatana Dharmis of India, nee Bharatavarsha.

    “The śaiva-siddhānta established by decrying the authority of Vedas and independent to the Vedas – is considered invalid in the eyes of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedānta school. Any notion non-Vedic has no value to us, not in the least, however mystical it might be. Knowledge can be gained of different types. Samādhis are of various types. Only Vedic samādhis can bestow the supremely auspicious results”.

    Swamiji our sampradaya gives EXACTLY the same response as above.

    The problem is at the practical level. Now you shuttle / have interactions between Lodi and Anand. The vatavarna in both places is very different.

    The US is a market place of religions. Now you and I may say that only “Vedic samādhis can bestow the supremely auspicious results”.

    What do you say about those involved in Saiva Siddhanta practice, c.f. renowned Kauai Aadheenam who publish Hinduism Today, from Kauai, Hawaii?

    Are you going to / do you have to reject their experience born of their samadhi since they do not accept Veda as pramana?

    I can give answers based on the Mandukya Karikas of Gaudapada Muni. You very well know that is strictly not shruti.

    In fact the main reason for Adi Samkara Bhagavadpada being considered a Prachanna Bauddha is his acceptance of the Mandukya Karikas.

    At sadhana and anusthana level the practice is very similar, even if the sampradayas are different.

    I submit that as the head of a noted parampara within an established, hoary sampradaya you have to have an inclusive scheme to include things such as Saiva Siddhanta within the fold of Sanatana Dharma.
    ———————————————-
    The ‘parama-śrutitva’ of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam is testified in Śrīmad-bhāgavata 1.4.7 as – “….yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ…” and the Śuddhādvaita-vedānta-pravarttaka Jagadguru Vallabhācārya writes in his Subodhinī commentary to the said verse – “yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ vaiṣṇavo vedaḥ”. To consider Śrīmad-bhāgavata to be not ‘śruti’, but ‘śruti-tulya’ would conflict with the following statements from the Bhāgavata-māhātmya of Padma-purāṇa where, all the three aspects of prasthāna-trayī viz., veda/upaniṣad, vedānta/brahma-sūtra and gītā have been depicted as impotent against the potency of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “veda-vedānta-ghoṣāiś ca gītā-pāṭhair muhur muhuḥ…”. Therefore, Bhāgavata is not ‘śruti-tulya’, but ‘parama-śruti-rūpa’ and the parama-veda.

    The ‘parama-śrutitva’ of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam is testified in Śrīmad-bhāgavata 1.4.7 as – “….yatraiṣā sātvatī śrutiḥ…”

    This is no argument. It is really tautological. It is really the same argument as the Christians and Muslims saying that our philosophy / way of thinking is correct, BECAUSE OUR BOOK SAYS SO.

    “To consider Śrīmad-bhāgavata to be not ‘śruti’, but ‘śruti-tulya’ would conflict with the following statements from the Bhāgavata-māhātmya of Padma-purāṇa where, all the three aspects of prasthāna-trayī viz., veda/upaniṣad, vedānta/brahma-sūtra and gītā have been depicted as impotent against the potency of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam – “veda-vedānta-ghoṣāiś ca gītā-pāṭhair muhur muhuḥ…”.

    This again is a standard Dvaita sampradaya argument. Here again it is tautological. You are seeking to establish a Grantha as pramana using another Purana which again Advaitins will not accept as Shruti.

    PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT DENYING THE Sreshtatva of the Srimad-bhagavatam. That in itself does not make it shruti. Nowhere in the Vedas which both of us accept as shruti is this fact mentioned.

    The Bhagavatam 10th Canto is full of Advaita Mata ideas. It is studied by Advaita acharyas. That still does not make it sruti. The transition from Sruti Tulya to Sruti then is a matter of faith, not definitive proof. There is nothing wrong with such unwavering get faith. It is just not definitive proof.

    The Dvaita sampradayas are asking for acceptance as axiomatic certain things that the Advaita sampradaya rejects as definitive.

    Many core views of the Pātañjala-yoga-sūtras have been refuted by the Vedānta schools including the Advaita. Commentaries of Śaṅkara and even of the Vaiṣṇava schools on Vedānta refute the views of Yoga and Sāṅkhya darśanas and have replaced those views with their version of the seśvara sāñkhya etc. Yoga-darśanam conflicts many views of Vedānta and has been held as invalid by the staunch Vedāntins.

    I agree 100% on this point. But refutation of a CONCLUSION AS TRUTH IS NOT THE SAME THING INVALIDATION OF THE METHODOLOGY.

    Vedanta rejects the conclusions of Nirisvara samkhya but not the taxonomy and methodology of arriving at such conclusion. Au contraire!

    “The import of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisād 4.3.22 – “atra…vedā avedā…bhavati” (“Herein,….Veda becomes no Veda…”) is to make the jñāna-adhikārī and the upasānā/bhakti-adhikārī transcend the level of the karma-kāṇḍātmaka Vedas. This has been verified in the Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā verse – “traiguṇya-viṣayā vedā nistraiguṇyo bhavārjuna…”. It does not prove the invalidity of the vedānta portion of the Veda even after the mokṣa-prāpti since, upāsanā/bhakti is both the sādhana and the sādhya and the acme of all Vedānta”.

    BEAUTIFULLY PUT, AND SUCCINCT. I agree.

    But here again, it all hinges on the retention or existence of lesha matra jiva bhavana in aham. This obviously has to be co-eval with the existence of Iswara bhavana in imam.

    But the definition of moksha itself here is different. Real Advaita sakshatkara is the total and permanent transcendence of jiva bhavana in one, leading of course to the transcendence of Isvara bhavana in the other.

    Since the residuum is not shoonya, it must be nitya shuddha, buddha mukta, Caitanya with no attributes.

    This is a matter of axiomatic awareness requiring no proof. The reverse of Cogito ergo Suman.

    “I think therefore I am” of Descartes is reversed in Advaita. “I am therefore I think”. Atman is svaprakasa, svaprakasa, svayam jyotih.

    No proof is necessary, relevant or possible.

    This is beginning to turn into vada even if couched in samvada terms. THAT WAS NEVER MY INTENT.

    Let me conclude by requesting. You are no wed the empowered head of a great peetha. The power and energy of the peetha flows through you. Please do send your anugraham and the blessings of your peetha so that it leads to the appropriate evolution / development in me.

    At the jiva-Iswara level, Iswara is sarvajna, sarvashaktiman ax n DC sarvavyapi. There is nothing wrong in asking for anugraham of Him / Her / It.

    Sadaa Sarvakaaleshu Naasti Teshaam Amangalam
    Yeshaam Hridi Sthito Bhagavaan Mangalaayatano Harih.

    “Always, at all times, there is no inauspiciousness for them in whose heart resides Lord Hari, the abode of auspiciousness”.

    bhAvAdvaitam sadA kuryAt kriyAdvaitam na karhicit |
    advaitam trishu lokeshu nAdvaitam guruNA sah ||

    ADI SANKARACHARYA
    TATTVOPADESA – (LAST) SLOKA NO. 87

    Always hava Advaita in bhavana, but there is no Advaita in action
    You can resolve the 3 worlds through Advaita, but Advaita stops at the Guru.

    Shambhave Namah

    Narayana Smaranam

    Nagendra

    ***

    Reply –

    A) The experience born of the samādhi of the followers of the non-Vedic Dravidian Śaiva-siddhānta school + the Kāśmīra Pratyabhijñā Kaula Śaiva school + the Nātha Haṭhayogī school etc. — can well be explained as non-Vedic samādhis and hold no substantial value to the followers of Vedic Dharma. The solid reasons for such consideration are ascertainable from the treatment of the ‘aśabda pradhāna’ of the Sāṅkhya-sūtras and the ‘īśvara-praṇidhānam’ of the Yoga-sūtras as done by the Vedānta school in Brahma-sūtra — “īkṣateḥ na aśabdam” – where ‘pradhāna/material nature/prakṛti has been differentiated between the Vedic and non-Vedic categories (especially, in Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Govinda-bhasyam commentary on it, as well as, in all classical commentaries on this sūtra). The Pātañjala-yoga-sūtra’s maxim – “īśvara-praṇidhānād vā” has been interpreted in the same light to distinguish between the Vedic and non-Vedic concepts of ‘īśvara/God’ – thus holding non-Vedic concepts of God on par with atheism or nāstikya-vāda due to the fact that atheism is not defined as mere non-belief in a God, but as a non-belief in Vedic testimony (veda-prāmāṇya) and all that which is rooted on the Vedic testimony (veda-prāmāṇya-janya prameya-nicaya). The reason why Veda-prāmāṇya is of utmost importance to the followers of Sanātana-dharma is found in the Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā verses – “tasmāt śāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te…” + “yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya…” + the Brahma-yāmala-tantra/āgama-vacanam – “śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-pañcarātra-vidhiṁ vinā / aikāntikī harer bhaktiḥ utpātāyaiva kalpate //” + Śrīmad-bhāgavata statement – “tac chraddadhānā munayo…..bhaktyā śruta-gṛhītayā…”. The śāstras are defined as, only, the Vedic ones as verified in Harivaṁśapurāṇa statement – “vede rāmāyaṇe caiva purāṇe bhārate tathā / ādāv ante ca madhya ca hariḥ sarvatra gīyate //” + Skanda-purāṇa’s proposition – “ṛg-yajuḥ sāmātharvāñ ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam / mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva śāstram ity abhidhīyate // yac cānukūlametasya tac ca śāstraṁ prakīrtitam / ato ‘nya-grantha-vistāro naiva śāstraṁ kuvartma tat //” + Mahābhārata 1.1.244 – “yeṣāṁ śāstrānugā buddhiḥ te na muhyanti kaścana”. Furthermore, Śrīmad-bhāgavatam adds – “śrutiḥ pratyakṣam aitihyam anumānam caṭuṣtayam…”.

    Conclusion is that all non-Vedic Indigenous schools – whether following the āgamas not, and which are, philosophically, not aligned with the Vedic siddhānta such as the ones like Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism etc. – are outside the fold of Sanātana-dharma, though can be considered to be ‘Hindu’ in a broader sense due to the common Indigenous background. Only such reconciliation is possible and not of any other type.

    B) The contention labelling the citation of one Purāṇa to verify the validity of the other purāṇa as ‘śruti-rūpa’ – is tautological – is refuted on the following grounds by declaring Purāṇas as the pañcama-veda –

    Purāṇas and Itihāsa are enumerated as the fifth Veda both in the Mādhyandini-śruti and in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (2.4.10) belonging to the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa of Śukla-yajurveda-saṁhitā asserts –“evaṁ vā are’sya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitametad yadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo’tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam”. Also, in Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.4.20, it’s stated – “ṛg-yajuḥ sāmātharvvākhyā vedāścatvāra udhṛtāḥ / itihāsa-purāṇañca pañcamo veda ucyate”. Apart from these evidences, there are other similar explicit proofs found in ŚBMP 3.12.39, Mahābhārata – Mokṣadharma 340.11 and Chāndogyopaniṣad 7.1.2 – “ṛgvedaṁ bhagavo ‘dhyemi yajurvedaṁ sāmavedamātharvaṇaṁ caturthamitihāsaṁ purāṇaṁ pañcamaṁ vedānāṁ vedaṁ”. By all these citations, it’s clear that since Śrīmad-bhāgavad-gītā is part of Mahābhārata (which is ‘itihāsa’ and thus pañcama-veda), it has also emanated from the ‘niḥśvāsa’ of the Śrī Hari (as indicated by Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad verse no. 2.4.10 given above). It’s, similarly, clear that since Śrīmad-bhāgavata-mahāpurāṇa is, also, a pañcama-veda, it has, similarly, emanated from the exhalation of the Lord and such fact regarding the manifestation of all the 18 Purāṇas + 4 Vedas from the four mouths of Brahmā is asserted in the Brahma-purāṇa statement cited in Gauḍīya-tattvācārya Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbhaḥ. Furthermore, the logic of ‘samānajātīya-niveśitatvāt sañkhyāyāḥ’ is employed to indicate ‘na hi trapuṇā hema-pūraṇaṁ yujyate’ to explain the complementary nature of the pañcama-veda-svarūpa purāṇetihāsa. Just as how an incompletely built golden anklet cannot be completed by filling the gap with a glass, similarly, if Purāṇas and Itihāsa are the 5th Veda (as declared by the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti itself), then, they form 1/5th portion of the total Veda and hence, Purāṇa/Itihāsa is of the same calibre as the first four Vedas or else, the golden anklet vs. glass filling analogy applies to show the inconsistency. The tales and histories mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa/Āraṇyaka/Upaniṣad sections affiliated with the first four Vedas cannot be considered here to be the Purāṇa and Itihāsa comprising the 5th Veda – for those tales and historical depicts described in the first 4 Vedas are part of the first 4 Vedas and thus, cannot be extrapolated to be counted as the 5th Veda.

    C) The seemingly pro-Advaita sections of Śrīmad-bhāgavatam have been explained in the Vaiṣṇava light by the Gauḍīya commentators. The methodology by which various schools of Indigenous philosophy arrive at conclusions share common grounds at times and there is no dispute on it. The Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 4.4.21-22 affirms – “dhīro vijñāya prajñāṁ kūrvīta brāhmaṇaḥ” stating that “the scriptural knowledge should be cultivated for the obtainment of the intuitive realization”. This means that though granthas like Śrīmad-bhāgavatam etc. which are known as samādhi-bhāṣā (“vedāḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-vākyāni vyāsa-sūtrāṇi caiva hi / samādhi-bhāṣā vyāsasya pramāṇaṁ tac-catuṣṭayam //” – Jagadguru Vallabhācārya) are, in themselves, replete with intuition and are not just not the mere theoretical knowledge about God, nevertheless, the intuitive wisdom contained within such granthas needs to be realized by the sādhaka upon the perfection of his sādhanā. This is the meaning of obtaining the vijñā through the prajñā.

    Heartily blessings aka anugraḥa on your good self for providing us a chance to further inundate ourselves in the scriptural talks which is nothing but the worship of the śabda-brahma through buddhi/intelligence.

    5) Prima Facie Contention 2nd by Vayu Sakha from Argentina –

    A). The veda-śāstras are prone to undergo naṣṭa/vinaṣṭa on occasions, but what is the frequency of such incidents and the degree of such damage/corruption/misinterpretation? Let us see the devotional sphere. Around 15th century, Śrīmad Advaitācārya Prabhu experienced a devastating landscape in his time. Just 500 years after the Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s advent, gauḍīya vaiṣṇavism was almost synonymous with dishonesty and immorality in the Bengal area. And today, its various parivāras cannot agree and act with unity; they cannot even sustain “healthy enmity” (as a reflection of gopī-prātipakṣya) and constructive disputes (pūrvapakṣa). According to you, in addition, the West is being flooded by the “neo-gauḍīyas” misrepresented doctrine. So at present the bhakti- śāstras are not going through a relative naṣṭa/vinaṣṭa circumstances? Who are the fortunate adhikārīs? Who has the pure and absolute truth?
    .
    B). Therefore, the nirduṣṭa-pramāṇa requires an exegetical analysis + the mastery of various logical, grammatical, epistemological techniques + comparative studies. Is it an individualistic or community task? Where is the chosen one or the chosen group? And these same questions apply to the establishment of the śāstrārtha.
    .
    C+D). If Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s statements “reflect the age-old Sanātanī viewpoint“, then that means he has never gratuitously criticized the millenary living traditions around the world but only the indigenous ones present in his time. As you have previously assumed: “As far as we know, no classical Sanskrit work among any Sampradayas of Sanatana Vedic Dharma have criticized any Abrahamic faiths like the Christianity and Islam. The only attacks made were on Jainism, Buddhism and many perverted Hindu sects like the Kapalikas etc.” So your extrapolation of nāstika/“non-Vedic” concept to a global and postmodern context is not proper.
    .
    There are immature leaders in every religion who are experts in twisting their own scriptures to discredit other traditions. A distorted Biblic/Talmudic/Quranic hermeneutic easily could express only statements about exclusivity and supremacy. Would you dare to discuss with Zākira Nāika about it?
    .
    I do not think an authentic śuddha-bhakta can distribute intolerance, discrimination and hatred in this world.

    ***

    Refutation –

    A) Veda-śāstras never undergo any nāśa or destruction for they are nitya/eternal and apauruṣeya/trans-human and directly, made manifest by God – īśvara-prakaṭita. Only the timely manifestation (āvirbhāvaḥ) and disappearance (tirobhāvaḥ) of these scriptures is accepted as analogous to the reiterated rise and set of a sun. Vide Caitanya-bhāgavata 3.3.510-511 verses which compare the eternal Vedic scriptures (Śrīmad-bhāgavatam included) with the bhagavat-svarūpas like Matsya/Kūrma etc. Who manifest and conceal Themselves on occasions – “jena rūpa matsya-kūrma ādi avatāra / āvirbhāva tirobhāva jena tā sabāra // ai-mata bhāgavata kāro kṛta naya / āvirbhāva tirobhāva āpanei haya //”.

    Bhakti-śāstras or any other type of śāstras (like the mokṣa and dharma śāstras etc.) never undergo any relative or even ultimate destruction. The misinterpretation of the scriptures is due to the doṣa-catuṣṭayātmaka-antaḥkaraṇa of a baddha-jīva who is not guided by a siddha-guru of any particular Vedic path. Such misinterpretation is not innate to the scripture itself. The adhiṣṭhānam of such kadartha-ghaṭanam (misinterpretation/philosophical corruption) is the misguided unfortunate intellect.

    The sole way to excavate the ultimate philosophical truth regarding any passage of the Vedic scripture is through a polemical debate involving pañcāñgī nyāya (nigamana, hetu etc.), ṣaḍ-līṅga-prakriyā (abhyāsa, upakrama, upasaṁhāra etc.), the various śabda and artha vṛttis (lakṣaṇā, mukhyā, abhidhā etc.) and the mīmāṁsaka/vedāntī prakriyā involving 5 limbs such as pūrva-pakṣa, viśaya, saṁśaya, uttara-pakṣa and saṅgatiḥ. If pūrvapakṣa is not happening within any sect or between two sects or even between two different religions – scriptures of Sanātana-dharma cannot be held accountable for such an anomaly prevalent, for, a healthy dissertation cum debate has, always, remained a Sanātanī tradition till date.

    Fortunate adhikārīs are those who are selected by Bhaktidevī (in case of bhakti-mārga) to enter her domain of nirguṇā-bhakti (this selection is made by Bhaktidevī Herself as elucidated by Viśvanātha Cakravarttī in his Mādhurya-kādambinī by profusely analysing certain propositions from Śrīmad-bhāgavatam like ‘yadṛcchaivopacitā..’ etc.).

    Not each and every jīva is fortunate enough to reach the paramount or even near to paramount destinations. For if not so, statements of Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā – “..vāsudevaḥ sarvam it sa mahātmā sudūrlabhaḥ..” and the Śrīmad-bhāgavatam’s proposition – “muktānām api siddhānāṁ nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇaḥ / sudūrlabhaḥ praśāntātmā kotiśvapi mahāmune //” – would turn irrelevant.

    B) The task of clarifying/establishing/embossing the nirduṣṭa-pramāṇa is of the dharmādhikārīs and ācāryas. The criteria of śāstrārtha is ascertained, quite logically, in the treatise – ‘Vāda-lakṣaṇam’ by Jagadguru Dvaita-vedānta-pravarttaka Ānandatīrtha Pūrṇaprajña Madhvācārya.

    C) Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa never felt a need to, gratuitously, criticize or philosophically analyse the non-Indigenous non-Vedic doctrines like the Abrahamic faiths of Islam and Christianity because Christianity was only limited to certain parts of Kerala and Goa states of Bhārata at that time and was not widely known in Bhārata. As far as Islam is concerned, its spread was done on the strength of sword and hence, any amount of rational or philosophical criticism of it would not have created any positive difference in curbing its martially designed spread. This was the reason why all Vedic scholars and ācāryas of various Sanātanī sects never, rationally, analysed the Abrahamic sects till 19th Century – when the situations were overturned and no martially forced conversions were incumbent and faiths like Christianity started to wide-spread on various social reasons in Bhārata. Since, all Indigenous non-Vedic or Vedic sects were open to all philosophical criticisms, it was considered relevant to, only, analyse them. All rational criticism is meaningless against the might of a sword inspired by a fanatic crusade of jihād by the Islamists. It is not because of any fear that Vedic ācāryas refrained from such criticism, but, because they felt such criticism unproductive till the time non-Vedic faith like Islam was being spread on the might of the political and martial power. Nevertheless, in Tattva-dīpikā, Śrīla Baladeva has analysed all Indigenous doctrines existing to date during his period.

    Also, gratuitous criticism of non-Vedic and esp. Abrahamic theology is needed, solely, to convince the followers of those paths to accept the Sanātanī fold. It is, never, needed to realize the supremacy of the Vedic Dharma by those who are ardent followers of Sanātana-dharma for they, already, know that the Vedas are apauruṣeya in contrast to the pauruṣeya and veda-virūddha texts of Abrahamic faiths. The followers of Vedic Dharma are convinced of the ‘svataḥ-prāmāṇya’ of the Vedic canon vs. the ‘a-svataḥ-prāmāṇya’ of the non-Vedic scriptures (non-Vedic texts are not ‘parataḥ-pramāṇa’ for they are not substantiated by the Vedic beliefs; hence, they are ‘a-svataḥ-pramāṇa’ meaning ‘not able to validate on its own’.).

    Again, as shown by us above, the reason for not analysing the Abrahamic faith was ‘unproductivity’ due to the Abrahamic faiths’ not promoting a rational ground for their spread. Hence, our non-extrapolation of nāstika/“non-Vedic” concept to a global and postmodern context is, wholly, proper and accurate. Though, Abrahamic faiths were not analysed by the Siddhānta-darpaṇa-kāra, nevertheless, due to their non-Vedic nature, through upalakṣaṇa technique, they are counted in the category of nāstika/non-Vedic. Śrī Baladeva considers all veda-bāhya and veda-virūddha matas/beliefs as nāstika. Are only Indigenous denominations like Buddhism and Jainism the only non-Vedic camps? Certainly, not. Therefore, Baladeva’s statement applies, globally, though he did not analyse the Abrahamic faiths in his works due to the reasons of ‘unproductivity’ or anupādeyatā.

    Gurupādācārya of BRVF has, successfully, completed the task of philosophically exposing the logical faults and discrepancies of Abrahamic faiths and articles pertaining to such exposition can be found on our website — https://brvf.org/ . As far as confuting the theological views of Mr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik ‘Sunni Wahabi’ of Islamic Research Foundation (Mumbai, MH, Bhārata) is concerned, that too, has been done by us in the summer of 2012 by posting a series of articles on our Facebook and blog. (The article about Zakir Naik was taken down from our website only 2 months back because it contained certain statements related with an institution which we have forsaken now after the start of our own organization BRVF. To not confuse the readers who might still take our current affiliation with that institution, we have removed that article series from the blog). When, the confutation article about Zakir Naik was spread all over the cyber forums by us 5 years back, his followers and agents were not able to refute it and despite repeated requests made from our side directly to the secretary of IRF, a debate proposal was not accepted by IRF.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī ‘Acintya-bheda-abheda-vedāntī’

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Further sub-queries and sub-replies in response to the post – “Reconciliation of Sāṅkhya & Pūrva-mīmāṁsā with the Vaiṣṇava-siddhānta & interpretation of Yoga-sūtras in the Vaiṣṇava light.” – Pt. 3

    1) Prima Facie Contention # 3 by Vayu Sakha –

    A). Yes. Veda-śāstras never undergo any nāśa but only serious naṣṭa (according to Kṛṣṇa himself). And you know that Madhusūdana and Baladeva add: iha loke naṣṭo vicchinna-sampradāyaḥ. This seems to have happened to the pristine rudra-sampradāya; and sometimes that also seems to be happening to the gauḍīya paramparā.
    .
    Traditional pūrvapakṣa is only possible within a delimited theological framework; it is proper simply for all sampradāyas who dominate the Vedic principles.
    .
    B). Again, this question does not admit absolute definitions but relative ones. Who is a true dharmādhikārī, Satya Sai Bābā, Jayendra Sarasvatī, Kṛpālu Ji Mahārāja, Ravi Śaṅkara, Bābā Rāmadeva, Nithyānanda Svāmī? (The list is really too long!). Who is a true ācārya, Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura (who differ from Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī), Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvati Ṭhākura (who widely differ from his contemporaries gauḍīyas pontiffs), Śrīla Prabhupāda (who apparently reached the limit of what is spiritually tolerable), Bābājī Satyanārāyaṇa Dāsa or only you?
    .
    C). Solipsism favors the conception of one’s own supremacy in order to disqualify—in a supposedly objective way—the dignity of others. How did you come to the conclusion that Christianity is pauruṣeya, veda-virūddha and a-svataḥ-prāmāṇa without having systematically studied its theology and lived in a Christian community?
    .
    What sense does this have for you if you are afraid to understand someone different from you? — Mattheus enim non eſt aggreſſus sed scripſit motus a Spiritu sancto. Similiter et Marcus, et Joannes haud aliter, et Lucas || Omnibus autem diſcipulis suis per hominem quem aſſumpſit, tamquam membris sui corporis caput eſt. Itaque cum illi scripſerunt quæ ille oſtendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum eſt quod ipſe non scripſerit; quandoquidem membra eius id operata sunt, quod dictante capite cognoverunt. Quidquid enim ille de suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum illis tamquam suis manibus imperavit |.
    .
    Your concept and extrapolation of nāstika is very subjective (just like your upalakṣaṇa technical application). The label of “unproductive religion” is held by leaders of all traditions (just look in any direction and you will immediately find them). It is just a psychological tactic: underestimate, disqualify and reify the opponent. If the opponent does not exist, I am the only one; if he exists, I am superior.
    .
    Regarding Zākira Nāika, if you wrote something about him no longer exists; therefore, that cannot be considered an argumentative sample. At any rate, the point was the absolute intransigence that leaders assume when it comes to discussing their supposed supremacy. The sword of intransigence and martial arguments are true characteristic of unproductive theologies/philosophies.
    .
    D). To conclude this topic because the time is very valuable for both, I just prefer to hear again and again the voice of Arjuna’s charioteer and try to know who he was thinking about in uttering the 6.31 śloka.
    .
    Thank you very much for your answers.

    Refutation –

    A) Eternal Vedas never undergo any destruction. However, the Vedic path is overshadowed, at times, with the faults of the seekers practicing it. Śrī Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, in his Gūḍhārtha-dīpikā, explains (while commenting on Śrīmad-bhagavad-gītā 4.2 – (“…yogo naṣtaḥ parantapa..”) – “vyavahāra-kāle dvāparānte durbalān ajitendriyān anadhikāriṇaḥ prāpya kāma-krodhādibhir abhibhūyamāno naṣṭo vicchina-sampradāyo jātaḥ..” – meaning – “in the process of application/practice, at the end of Dvāpara-yuga, yoga/adhyātma is destroyed meaning its sampradāya is cut asunder by being overwhelmed with the faults like lust, anger etc. pertaining to the practitioners with senses uncontrolled and ineligible to enter the path”. The connotation of the above commentary is very clear. The vaidika mārga is destroyed for whom? For the sādhakas who are perceived as adhikārīs by the śāstra, or for the an-adhikārīs? Certainly, for the anadhikārī, the path is obscured – such is the meaning. Moreover, Śrī Vedāntācārya Veṅkaṭanātha, comments in his sub-commentary Tātparya-candrikā while explaining the main commentary Śrī-bhāṣyam of Rāmānujācārya on ŚBG 4.2 as follows – “…..’naṣṭaḥ’ ity atra atyanta-vicchedo nābhimataḥ vyāsa-bhīṣma-akrūrāder idānīm api vidyamānatvāt ity abhiprāyeṇa uktaṁ vinaṣṭa-prāyo ‘bhūd iti….” – meaning – “Śrī Rāmānuja uses the adjective ‘vinaṣṭa-prāyaḥ’ to explain the term ‘naṣṭaḥ’ as employed in ŚBG 4.2. Veṅkaṭanāthācārya comments that the term ‘naṣṭaḥ’ or yoga is destroyed does not indicate ultimate destruction or atyanta-viccheda. Because, if the Vedic path is, ultimately destroyed, great exponents of Vedic path like Vyāsa, Bhīṣma, Akrūra etc. would not be present (at the end of Dvāpara when this verse of Gītā is spoken). (This, also, indicates that if such great personalities are present, then their followers following the path of Vedic dharma are, too, present.). But, that such dhārmika personalities are present and so, Rāmānuja uses the adjective ‘yoga became almost extinct’ (but, not fully extinct).”

    B) “Traditional pūrvapakṣa is only possible within a delimited theological framework; it is proper simply for all sampradāyas who dominate the Vedic principles.” – Yes, this is true without doubt. But, followers of Nyāya-darśanam challenged the nāstika Buddhists, simply, on the basis of logic and arguments (and not on the basis of Vedic scriptures) to prove the existence of īśvara in the Iśvara-siddhiḥ of Udayanācārya. Moreover, the great Advaitin Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, in his Advaita-siddhiḥ, simply uses arguments and logic to establish his philosophy of Advaita – without making traditional use of the ādhyātmika scriptures. This proves that even without any common ground of Vedas etc., the polemical refutation and debate can bring expected outcome.

    C) The assumption that a true ācārya can, only, be one is bogus and Abrahamic. Sanātana-dharma allows the existence of the multitude of sampradāyas to prevail and be presided over by great personalities as the ācāryas. The principle of variety is what thrives Sanātana-dharma. It is never monotonous, but diverse. ‘ekaṁ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti’ frames the whole Sanātana-dharma; though it does not mean that all sects considering themselves to be Sanātanīs might be, necessarily, traversing accurately on the Vedic path. For ascertainment of that, debates and polemical works are required. Regarding differences of opinion or interpretation between two genuine ācāryas of any Sampradāya, that is so because scriptures have multiple permissible meanings. But, genuine ācāryas belonging to any particular sampradāya won’t go against the fundamental beliefs of that peculiar lineage and of the overall Sanātana-dharma. The example of neo-Gauḍīyas thoroughly deviated from the classical Gauḍīya and Sanātanī tradition cannot be given to prove or disprove the genuine stature of the true ācāryas. All those who peep into the fold of Sanātana-dharma are not true Sanātanīs or not true followers of the Vedic path. This can be ascertained by analysing their philosophy under an adept tutelage.

    D) We came to conclude that Christianity is pauruṣeya, veda-virūddha and a-svataḥ-prāmāṇa by having a systematic overview of their philosophy and our conclusion can be seen from the logic employed by us in our essay links provided earlier which show why any non-Vedic and especially, Abrahamic faith is not a true religion. Needless to go over those points here. The faults in Abrahamic faiths are shown in lengthy articles composed by us on our website – https://brvf.org/ and by typing the words ‘abrahamic’ into the search column given on that website, it will lead the reader to multiple articles composed by us to demonstrate the invalidity of Abrahamic faiths.

    E) ‘Unproductive criticism of Islam and Christiantiy’ – a phrase used in our previous reply means that, in the medieval times, any philosophical criticism of these faiths would not have proved any fruitful to the Sanātanīs because – Islam was spread on the strength of sword and the Christianity had only touched Bhārata till 18th century.

    F) F) Notions taken from Vedic scriptures and employed in the texts of the Abrahamic faiths (sometimes, with perversion/distortion and sometimes, as it is) have, merely, been borrowed or stolen from the Vedas as how Vedavyāsa puts it in the beginning of Mahābhārata — यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र। यन्नेहास्ति न तत् क्वचित्॥(१/६२/५३- महाभारत: आदिपर्व) (Whatever is here, is found elsewhere. But what is not here, is nowhere else. 1/62/53 – Mahabharata: The book of Beginning ). So, all that is good in the Abrahamic faiths is taken from the Vedic scriptures and all that is faulty – not Vedic.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī

    Comments by Professor Devendranath Tiwari – Indian Philosophy Department – Benares Hindu University, Varanasi/Kashi, UP, India –

    2/24/17, 7:40:27 PM: +91 99562 31085:

    Jnana tradition was there contesting with karma and bhakti tradition and vice versa. These views culminated in niskamakarma or the karma of the agent of Godhead..the agent is an agent of the karma having no ego of being the doer..this trend is to find in bhakti tradition also. .karma or bhakti without ego of bhakta or karmi is the highest type that does not bind, does not produce phala..the bhakti as devotion of the bhakta to the grace of God as the fruit is for lower bhaktas who cannot move without duality of bhakta and bhagawan..but their culmination is in the sense of loosing the bhaktahood.. this is my view and I donot claim that it is the only view. I respect the views of great swami ji..good morning to u all..

    The problem of Apauruseyatava of Veda is concened with eterninity of jnana /bhakti/ karma in different schools. it is eternal in tge sense of beginninglessness also. In very general way it speaks about the validity of the knowlege by statements wheteher vedic or laukika or the statements of the reliable persons. There are theories the all knowlegecis infused by languagecand therefore knowlege expressed or figured in or the determinate flashes of consciousness are veridical and we apply sources of validity like correspondence,pragmatic etc to convince abiut the verity of knowlege .. knowledge or bhakti in concerned systems are not created but flashes of consciousness and in that sense apauruseya.other arguments are also there but the most trusted and textual view is that the respective tradition text accept knowlege as apauruseya as we find in upanishd and mahabhasya of patanjali..jnanam hi tasya saranam ‘ jnanam evam dharmah again in narad bhakti sukta we find bhakti as etenal..

    Response –

    A) The pūrva-mīmāmsakas believed that only the karma-pratipādaka aṁśa is relevant and not the jñāna-pratipādaka aṁśa. However, the Vedantins, seriously, disagreed and proved the relevance of the jñāna-pratipādaka aṁśa.

    B) The pūrva-mīmāṁsakas and the uttara-mīmāṁsakas or Vedantins of Advaita school believed that the upāsanā-kāṇḍa/bhakti is provisional or temporal and that after mokṣa – it has no value. However, the bhakti/vaiṣṇava schools of Vedānta, seriously, disagreed to establish the eternality and supremacy of bhakti over other paths.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s