{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe48/sbe48246.htm","path":"hin/sbe48/sbe48246.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48246.htm","text":"43. And on account of contradiction.\nThe origination of the g\u00eeva is, moreover, distinctly controverted in the books of the Bh\u00e2gavatas also. Thus in the Parama-samhit\u00e2 'The nature of Prakriti consists therein that she is non-sentient, for the sake of another, eternal, ever-changing, comprising within herself the three gunas. and constituting the sphere of action and experience for all agents. With her the soul (purusha) is connected in the way of inseparable association; that soul is known to be truly without beginning and without end.' And as all Samhitas make similar statements as to the eternity of the soul, the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra doctrine manifestly controverts the view of the essential nature of the giva being something that originates. How it is possible that in the Veda as well as in common life the soul is spoken of as being born, dying, &c., will be explained under S\u00fb. II, 3, 17. The conclusion, therefore, is that the Bh\u00e2gavata system also denies the origination of the soul, and that hence the objections raised on this ground against its authoritativeness are without any force. Another objection is raised by some. S\u00e2ndilya, they argue, is said to have promulgated the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra doctrine because he did not find a sure basis for the highest welfare of man in the Veda and its auxiliary disciplines, and this implies that the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra is opposed to the Veda.--his objection, we reply, springs from nothing else but the mere unreasoning faith of men who do not possess the faintest knowledge\nof the teachings of the Veda, and have never considered the hosts of arguments which confirm that teaching. When the Veda says, 'Morning after morning those speak untruth who make the Agnihotra offering before sunrise,' it is understood that the censure there passed on the offering before sunrise is really meant to glorify the offering after sunrise. We meet with a similar case in the 'bh\u00fbma-vidy\u00e2' (Kh. Up. VII, 2). There at the beginning N\u00e2rada says, 'I know the Rig-veda, the Yagur-veda, the S\u00e2ma-veda, the \u00c2tharvana as the fourth, the Itih\u00e2sa-pur\u00e2na as the fifth,' and so on, enumerating all the various branches of knowledge, and finally summing up 'with all this I know the mantras only, I do not know the Self.' Now this declaration of the knowledge of the Self not being attainable through any branch of knowledge except the knowledge of the Bh\u00fbman evidently has no other purpose but to glorify this latter knowledge, which is about to be expounded. Or else N\u00e2rada's words refer to the fact that from the Veda and its auxiliary disciplines he had not obtained the knowledge of the highest Reality. Analogous to this is the case of S\u00e2ndilya's alleged objection to the Veda. That the Bh\u00e2gavata doctrine is meant to facilitate the understanding of the sense of the Veda which by itself is difficult of comprehension, is declared in the Paramasamhita,'I have read the Vedas at length, together with all the various auxiliary branches of knowledge. But in all these I cannot see a clear indication, raised above all doubt, of the way to blessedness, whereby I might reach perfection'; and 'The wise Lord Hari, animated by kindness for those devoted to him, extracted the essential meaning of all the Ved\u00e2nta-texts and condensed it in an easy form.' The incontrovertible fact then is as follows. The Lord who is known from the Ved\u00e2nta-texts, i.e. V\u00e2sudeva, called there the highest Brahman--who is antagonistic to all evil, whose nature is of uniform excellence, who is an ocean, as it were, of unlimited exalted qualities, such as infinite intelligence, bliss, and so on, all whose purposes come true--perceiving that those devoted to him, according as they are differently placed in the four castes and the\nfour stages of life, are intent on the different ends of life, viz. religious observances, wealth, pleasure, and final release; and recognising that the Vedas--which teach the truth about his own nature, his glorious manifestations, the means of rendering him propitious and the fruits of such endeavour--are difficult to fathom by all beings other than himself, whether gods or men, since those Vedas are divided into Rik, Yagus, S\u00e2man, and Atharvan; and being animated by infinite pity, tenderness, and magnanimity; with a view to enable his devotees to grasp the true meaning of the Vedas, himself composed the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra-s\u00e2stra. The author of the S\u00fbtras (Vy\u00e2sa)--who first composed the S\u00fbtras, the purport of which it is to set forth the arguments establishing the Ved\u00e2nta doctrine, and then the Bh\u00e2rata-samhit\u00e2 (i.e. the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata) in a hundred thousand slokas in order to support thereby the teaching of the Veda--himself says in the chapter called Mokshadharma, which treats of knowledge, 'If a householder, or a Brahmak\u00e2rin, or a hermit, or a mendicant wishes to achieve success, what deity should he worship?' and so on; explains then at great length the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra system, and then says, 'From the lengthy Bh\u00e2rata story, comprising one hundred thousand slokas, this body of doctrine has been extracted, with the churning-staff of mind, as butter is churned from curds--as butter from milk, as the Brahmana from men, as the \u00c2ranyaka from the Vedas, as Amrita from medicinal herbs.--This great Upanishad, consistent with the four Vedas, in harmony with S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga, was called by him by the name of Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra. This is excellent, this is Brahman, this is supremely beneficial. Fully agreeing with the Rik, the Yagus, the S\u00e2man, and the Atharv\u00e2n-giras, this doctrine will be truly authoritative.' The terms S\u00e2nkhya and Yoga here denote the concentrated application of knowledge and of works. As has been said, 'By the application of knowledge on the part of the S\u00e2nkhya, and of works on the part of the Yogins.' And in the Bh\u00eeshmaparvan we read, 'By Brahmanas, Kshattriyas, Vaisyas and S\u00fbdras, M\u00e2dhava is to be honoured, served and worshipped--he who was proclaimed by Sankarshana\nin agreement with the S\u00e2tvata law.'--How then could these utterances of B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana, the foremost among all those who understand the teaching of the Veda, be reconciled with the view that in the S\u00fbtras he maintains the non-authoritativeness of the S\u00e2tvata doctrine, the purport of which is to teach the worship of, and meditation on, V\u00e2sudeva, who is none other than the highest Brahman known from the Ved\u00e2nta-texts?\nBut other passages in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata, such as 'There is the S\u00e2nkhya, the Yoga, the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra, the Vedas, and the Pasupata doctrine; do all these rest on one and the same basis, or on different ones?' and so on, declare that the S\u00e2nkhya and other doctrines also are worthy of regard, while yet in the S\u00e2r\u00eeraka S\u00fbtras those very same doctrines are formally refuted. Why, therefore, should not the same hold good in the case of the Bh\u00e2gavata doctrine?--Not so, we reply. In the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata also B\u00e2darayana applies to the S\u00e2nkhya and other doctrines the same style of reasoning as in the S\u00fbtras. The question, asked in the passage quoted, means 'Do the S\u00e2nkhya, the Yoga, the Pasupata, and the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra set forth one and the same reality, or different ones? If the former, what is that reality? If the latter, they convey contradictory doctrines, and, as reality is not something which may be optionally assumed to be either such or such, one of those doctrines only can be acknowledged as authoritative, and the question then arises which is to be so acknowledged?'--The answer to the question is given in the passage beginning, 'Know, O royal Sage, all those different views. The promulgator of the S\u00e2nkhya is Kapila,' &c. Here the human origin of the S\u00e2nkhya, Yoga, and P\u00e2supata is established on the ground of their having been produced by Kapila, Hiranyagarbha, and Pasupati. Next the clause 'Apar\u00e2ntatamas is said to be the teacher of the Vedas' intimates the non-human character of the Vedas; and finally the clause 'Of the whole Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra, N\u00e2r\u00e2yana himself is the promulgator' declares that N\u00e2r\u00e2yana himself revealed the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra doctrine. The connected purport of these different clauses is as follows. As the systems\nof human origin set forth doctrines mutually contradictory, and, moreover, teach what is in conflict with the matter known from the Veda--which, on account of its non-human character, is raised above all suspicion of error and other imperfections--they cannot be accepted as authoritative with regard to anything not depending on human action and choice. Now the matter to be known from the Veda is N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, who is none other than the highest Brahman. It hence follows that the entities set forth in those different systems--the pradh\u00e2na, the soul (purusha), Pasupati, and so on--have to be viewed as real only in so far as N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, i.e. the highest Brahman, as known from the Ved\u00e2nta-texts, constitutes their Self. This the text directly declares in the passage, 'In all those doctrines it is seen, in accordance with tradition and reasoning, that the lord Narayawa is the only basis.' This means--'To him who considers the entities set forth in those systems with the help of argumentation, it is evident that N\u00e2r\u00e2yana alone is the basis of all those entities.' In other words, as the entities set forth in those systems are not Brahman, any one who remembers the teaching of texts such as 'all this indeed is Brahman,' 'N\u00e2r\u00e2yana is all,' which declare Brahman to be the Self of all, comes to the conclusion that N\u00e2r\u00e2yana alone is the basis of those entities. As thus it is settled that the highest Brahman, as known from the Ved\u00e2nta-texts, or N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, himself is the promulgator of the entire Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra, and that this system teaches the nature of N\u00e2r\u00e2yana and the proper way of worshipping him, none can disestablish the view that in the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra all the other doctrines are comprised. For this reason the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata says, 'Thus the S\u00e2nkhya-yoga and the Veda and the \u00c2ranyaka, being members of one another, are called the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra,' i.e. the S\u00e2nkhya, the Yoga, the Vedas, and the \u00c2ranyakas, which are members of one another because they are one in so far as aiming at setting forth one Truth, together are called the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra.--The S\u00e2nkhya explains the twenty-five principles, the Yoga teaches certain practices and means of mental concentration, and the \u00c2ranyakas teach that all the subordinate\nprinciples have their true Self in Brahman, that the mental concentration enjoined in the Yoga is a mode of meditation on Brahman, and that the rites and works which are set forth in the Veda are means to win the favour of Brahman--thus giving instruction as to Brahman's nature. Now all these elements, in their inward connexion, are clearly set forth in the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra by the highest Brahman, i.e. N\u00e2r\u00e2yana, himself. The S\u00e2r\u00eeraka S\u00e2stra (i.e. the Ved\u00e2nta) does not disprove the principles assumed by the S\u00e2nkhyas, but merely the view of their not having Brahman for their Self; and similarly in its criticism on the Yoga and P\u00e2supata systems, it merely refutes the view of the Lord being a mere instrumental cause, the erroneous assumptions as to the relative position of higher and lower entities, and certain practices not warranted by the Veda; but it does not reject the Yoga itself, nor again the lord P\u00e2supati. Hence Smriti says,' The S\u00e2nkhya, the Yoga, the Pa\u00f1kar\u00e2tra, the Vedas, and the Psupata doctrine--all these having their proof in the Self may not be destroyed by arguments.' The essential points in all these doctrines are to be adopted, not to be rejected absolutely as the teaching of Gina. or Sugata is to be rejected. For, as said in the Smriti text quoted above, in all those doctrines it is seen, according to tradition and reasoning, that the lord N\u00e2r\u00e2yana is the only basis.'--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility of origination.'","title":"SBE 48: The Vedanta-Sutras with commentary by Ramanuja, George Thibaut, tr.: Second P\u00e2da: 43. And on account of contradiction","type":"page"}