Prasthanatrayi Swaminarayan Bhashyam (Study)
by Sadhu Gyanananddas | 2021 | 123,778 words
This page relates 鈥�4.4k. Unknowable Becomes Knowable鈥� of the study on the Prasthanatrayi Swaminarayan Bhashyam in Light of Swaminarayan Vachanamrut (Vacanamrita). His 18th-century teachings belong to Vedanta philosophy and were compiled as the Vacanamrita, revolving around the five ontological entities of Jiva, Ishvara, Maya, Aksharabrahman, and Parabrahman. Roughly 200 years later, Bhadreshdas composed a commentary (Bhasya) correlating the principles of Vachanamrut.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
4.4k. Unknowable Becomes Knowable
Although the subject of the ultimate realities is unknowable and unimaginable, through authentic scriptures, one can understand the nature and form of the ultimate realities. Moreover, only scriptures are showing the way to have their 艣腻办艣腻迟办腻谤补.
厂惫腻尘颈苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺 beautifully puts it in the 痴补肠补苍腻尘峁泃补:
鈥淗aving contemplated in this way, one can realize everything that is described in the scriptures. After that, all remaining atheist feelings within one鈥檚 箩墨惫补 are resolved, and the 箩墨惫补 becomes extremely powerful. Besides, one develops a firm conviction that whatever is stated in the scriptures is true.鈥� (痴补肠补苍腻尘峁泃补 Amd膩v膩d 1, p.572)
Interestingly, here, we must stop to face a controversy raised by Bhadre艣ad膩sa in his all-encompassing commentary of (叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉 1/1/3).
The 蝉奴迟谤补 itself- 艢补蝉迟谤补测辞苍颈迟惫腻迟鈥� states that scripture is that by which one can know 鈥�Brahman,鈥� which has already been identified as the subject of the 厂奴迟谤补办腻谤补鈥檚 inquiry (叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉 1/1/1) and minimally referred to as the cause of the world鈥檚 origination, sustenance, and dissolution (叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉 1/1/2).
鈥�atra 蝉补苍诲别丑补岣� | yathoktayorak峁rabrahmaparabrahma峁噊jij帽膩syayo岣� 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺masti na veti | ki峁� pr膩ptam | na kimapi 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺miti | katham | na t膩vad b膩hyapratyak峁prasaro bahirindriy膩'gr膩hyatv膩t | n膩py膩bhyantara峁� 辫谤补迟测补办峁峁�, sv膩tmasvaj帽膩n膩d墨taravastur奴patv膩t | n膩pyanum膩na峁�, tasya pratyak峁paj墨vyatv膩nniyatas膩hacaryavi艣i峁ａ弓ali峁単膩dyabh膩v膩t | n膩pi 艣abdastath膩vidha艣abd膩bh膩v膩dityapr膩m膩峁噄katv膩nn膩driyata iti pr膩pte tatra 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺mavadh膩rayati 艣膩strayonitv膩d iti | 艣膩strameva bhavati tatra pramukha辫谤补尘腻峁嘺mityartha岣� |鈥� (Brahma蝉奴迟谤补 1/1/3, p.18)
鈥淗ere is doubt, is there any 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 to reveal the form of inquired Brahman and Parabrahman? The opposition says that ultimate realities cannot be known with any 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺. We know that the external indriayas are used in perception, which fall short because the ultimate realities are not subject to know by external human senses; it is not perceivable through internal indriyas. Moreover, inference falls short to grasp them because of its dependency on perception. Not even the scriptural words can entail them due to their own mix and different nature. In answer to these questions, that scriptures are the prominent 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 in order to know the ultimate realities.鈥�
Let us explain it in detail.
The objection takes this form: 鲍辫补苍颈艣补诲颈办 statements such as
鈥淔rom where speech returns... having not attained it.鈥�
鈥淭his Self, the immortal indweller, is the unseen seer, the unheard listener鈥︹��[1]
鈥淎nd that which is invisible, ungraspable...鈥�[2] etc.
Confirm that Parabrahman is beyond the subject of speech and sound; he cannot be described nor can he be heard. He is therefore unknowable by scriptures. Which, after all, are nothing but 鈥榓 pile of words鈥�.[3] To this, the 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补 answers that these are the ramblings of those who have not grasped the true import of the scriptures and solely have faith in the imagined proficiency of their flawed reasoning. Statements such as the above serve simply to avow the unlimited nature of Parabrahman and the limited scope of human means. Indeed, it is by these very scriptures that this is established.[4] How can those same scriptures, which you, too, cite, then become invalid? If you argue, on the basis of these statements, that Parabrahman is not the subject of verbal testimony, then what will you make of other statements in those same set of scriptures, which describe him as knowable through scriptures?
Such statements contain the following:
鈥淭hat Self extolled in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲...鈥� (Brhad膩ra峁噛aka-upani峁d 3/9/26)
鈥淚 alone am to be known by all of the Vedas.鈥� (叠丑补驳补惫补诲-骋墨迟腻 15/15)
They assure that, even with all their typical confines and inadequacies, words, when divinely spoken or inspired, can invaluably serve as a reliable source of knowledge about Parabrahman. As always, though, we must also accept that this revelation, even though adequate, is never exhaustive. The 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补鈥� s debate at this 蝉奴迟谤补 (Brahma蝉奴迟谤补-1/1/3, pp.18-19) is interested in indicating the logical fallacies of the perspective that inferential reasoning is a valid means of knowing Brahman. In the process, he advances some of the same characteristics of the 厂惫腻尘颈苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺 system as in the previous 补诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺蝉. The 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补 first states that the knowledge of Ak峁rabrahman is only attained through scripture, and cites a total of nineteen 鲍辫补苍颈艣补诲颈办 verses and two verses from the Bhagavad 骋墨迟腻 in defense of that. The 辫奴谤惫补辫补办峁 (opponent) concedes the point but then argues that Parabrahman can indeed be resolved through inference.
The 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补 then commences an extensive rejection of this perspective that is far more technical than its predecessors. A full engagement with this rejection presupposes considerable knowledge of Navya Ny膩ya鈥攖he system of logic as it developed in the second millennium鈥攁nd its precise, systematic analysis categories. The debate exhibits 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补鈥� s significant coaching and sophistication. There is one other field of the 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补鈥� s position in which his commentary sets itself apart from the previous ones. In discussing the primacy of scriptural testimony in knowing about Brahman, the 叠丑腻峁补办腻谤补 again centers the role of the 叠谤补丑尘补蝉惫补谤奴辫补 Guru in arbitrating and preaching this scripture, based on the same scriptural texts cited in his commentary.
The 笔谤补蝉迟丑腻苍补迟谤补测墨 literature on this relevant topic is in large quantity. It has disclosed the rise of the significance of verbal testimony as a powerful means of knowledge. Such as 鈥�艢astradi峁ａ弓y膩 tupade艣o v膩madevavat (1/1/31) The instruction (given by Indra about himself) (is possible) through insight based on scripture, as in the case of Vamadeva. 鈥�艢rutestu 艣abdamulavat鈥� (2/1/28)-But (this is not so) on account of scriptural passages and on account of (Brahman) resting on scripture (only). 鈥�Sarve Veda...鈥�(Katha-upani峁d 2/15) That goal which all the Vedas glorify, which all austerities proclaim, desiring which (people) practice brahmacarya (a life of continence and service), that goal I tell you briefly鈥攊t is Ak峁rabrahman. 鈥�Yah 艣膩stravidhim 耻迟蝉峁沯测补鈥� (Bhagavad-骋墨迟腻 16/23) One who acts under the influence of their desires, disobeying scriptures, neither attains perfection nor happiness nor the supreme goal.
Therefore, let the scripture be your guide in determining what should be done and what should not be done. One should perform duty using scriptures as a guide. (叠丑补驳补惫补诲-骋墨迟腻 16/24) There are some supplementary factors that help the textual sentence to understand its meaning. Only that blend of words is called a sentence when four factors are taken care of. They are expectancy (腻办腻峁僰峁Ｄ�), consistency (测辞驳测补迟腻), contiguity (腻蝉补迟迟颈), and knowledge of the purport (迟腻迟辫补谤测补 箩帽腻苍补尘). Understanding all this facilitates us to understand why verbal testimony is an independent means of knowledge very different from inference etc.[5]
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
Brhad膩ra峁噛aka-upani峁d 3/7/23
[3]:
[4]:
[5]:
SSS, p.166