tattva-sandarbha of Sri Jiva

[Nitaidas]

Well, lets have some tattva today:

अथ नत्वा मन्त्रगुरून् गुरून् भागवतार्थदान् |\\
श्रीभागवतसन्दर्भं सन्दर्भं वश्मि लेखितुम् || ७||

atha natvA mantragurUn gurUn bhAgavatArthadAn |\\
zrIbhAgavatasandarbhaM sandarbhaM vazmi lekhitum || 7||

Thus, having bowed to my mantra teachers and to the teachers who taught me the meaning of the Bhagavata, I wish to write a treatise that ties together the Bhagavata. (7)

[The plural of mantra guru here could be a sign of respect for the singular guru who gave him his mantras. Sometimes respect is show by referring to the person being respected in the plural. Later on. Sri Jiva will say that one can have only one diksa-guru at a time. We don't know, unfortunately, who Sri Jiva's diksa guru was, but we know there was one.]

[Nitaidas]

One more. This is the greatest one so far. It summarizes the theological teachings of the Sandarbhas and of CV in one verse:

यस्य ब्रह्मेति संज्ञां क्वचिदपि निगमे याति चिन्मात्रसत्ता-
प्यंशो यस्यांशकैः स्वैर्विभवति वशयन्नेव मायां पुमांश्च |
एकं यस्यैव रूपं विलसति परमव्योम्नि नारायणाख्यं
स श्रीकृष्णो विधत्तां स्वयमिह भगवान् प्रेम तत्पादभाजाम् || ८||



yasya brahmeti saMjJAM kvacidapi nigame yAti cinmAtrasattA-
pyaMzo yasyAMzakaiH svairvibhavati vazayanneva mAyAM pumAMzca|
ekaM yaysaiva rUpaM vilasati paramavyomni nArAyaNAkhyaM
sa zrikRSNo vidhattAM svayamiha bhagavAn prema tatpAdabhAjAm|| 8||


He whose consciousness and eternal being are sometimes called in the Vedas Brahman, whose partial manifestation, purusa, rules along with his own parts while controlling maya, whose one form sports in the higher space by the name of Narayana, may that Sri Krsna, Bhagavan, himself bestow here divine love on those who worship him. (8)

[So much is packed in here. Four levels of manifestation (well, actually three, since Krsna is not a manifestation of anything else, except perhaps himself) of Sri Krsna: Brahman, just Krsna's consciousness and being without his specific traits, Purusa, the Purusa of RV 10.90 and Bhag. 1.3, the first avatara of Sri Krsna and the source of all other avataras, Narayana in the higher heavens or Vaikuntha, and finally Sri Krsna himself who is Bhagavan, the source and home of all those other manifestations. And we get a blessing in addition. Wonderful verse: a candidate for memorization if ever I saw one.]

[Nitaidas]

Another choice scriptural comment by Jesus and Mo:

[Nitaidas]

A little tattva for today:

athaivaM sUcitAnAM zrIkRSNa-tadvAcyavAcakatA-lakSaNa-sambandha-tadbhajana-lakSaNa-vidheya-saparyAyAbhidheya-tatprema-lakSaNa-prayojanAkhyAnAm arthAnAM nirNayAya tAvat pramANaM nirNIyate|

tatra puruSasya bhramAdidoSacatuSTayaduSTatvAt sutarAm alaukikAcintyasvabhAvavastusparzAyogyatvAcca tatpratyakSAdInyapi sadoSANi||




Now that they have been introduced thus, in order to demonstrate the objects of our study: Sri Krsna [the subject of this book], the conveyed-conveyor relationship he has with this book, his worship as the thing to be enjoined which is synonymous with the thing to be taught, and love of him which is the purpose of this book, first of all the sources of knowledge are ascertained.

On that matter, because they are troubled by the four faults of humans (puruSa) headed by error and therefore unsuitable to touch an object whose nature is non-worldly and inconceivable, the sources headed by direct perception are faulty.

[Nitaidas]

Oct 4, 2010 14:17:36 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

A little tattva for today:

athaivaM sUcitAnAM zrIkRSNa-tadvAcyavAcakatA-lakSaNa-sambandha-tadbhajana-lakSaNa-vidheya-saparyAyAbhidheya-tatprema-lakSaNa-prayojanAkhyAnAm arthAnAM nirNayAya tAvat pramANaM nirNIyate|

tatra puruSasya bhramAdidoSacatuSTayaduSTatvAt sutarAm alaukikAcintyasvabhAvavastusparzAyogyatvAcca tatpratyakSAdInyapi sadoSANi||




Now that they have been introduced thus, in order to demonstrate the objects of our study: Sri Krsna [the subject of this book], the conveyed-conveyor relationship he has with this book, his worship as the thing to be enjoined which is synonymous with the thing to be taught, and love of him which is the purpose of this book, first of all the sources of knowledge are ascertained.

On that matter, because they are troubled by the four faults headed by error and therefore unsuitable to touch an object whose nature is non-worldly and inconceivable, the sources headed by direct perception are faulty.

There is much to consider in these two sentences. The four anubandhas are given here. Very important for the reader to know what she is getting into: subject of the book, the relationship of the book to that subject, the main point or meaning of the book, and its purpose. But before any of this can be discussed it is important to settle the question of epistemology or answer the question: how do you know this? Thus with that first statement he raises the question of pramANa or the valid means of knowing.

Everyone by now knows what the four faults are. If not, here they are: bhrama (error), pramAda (oversight), vipralipsA (desire to mislead), and karaNApATava (inaccuracy of the senses). As for the pramANa Sri Jiva lists 10 in his SS: pratyakSa, anumAna, zabda-arSa-upamAna-arthApatti-abhAva-sambhava-aitihya-ceSTA. Though it seems to me that these faults apply to all the pramANas, Sri Jiva says that they do not apply to zabda, verbal testimony. His appeal is strangely enough to sensual evidence. He say we "see" the other pramANas to give incorrect knowledge because of their being faulty, but we do not "see" that in the case of zabda. But how can this be?

[Nitaidas]

Well no one has taken up this challenge. Doesn't anyone think about these things? Don't just follow blindly. Don't be sheep. The process is sravaNa and then manana. You hear from the guru and then you think about it. Blind faith is not desirable.

Anyway, here are some of the problems I see with this epistemology. The faults do not belong to the pramAna. They belong to purusa. That is why Sri Jiva started with tatra purusasya. Since they belong to the purusa, which means in this case, the human being, they infect all of the pramANa, even zabda. So zabda cannot be free of the doSas as long as it used by a purusa. The only zabda that can be free of fault is zabda not originating in purusa. ApauruSeya zabda is the Veda, so only the Veda qualifies as faultless.

There are, however, two more problems. One is that in spite of the faulty nature of the pramANas in the hands of a purusa, they can and do still yield valid knowledge, pramA. They just need to be checked and confirmed. Well that is what science does. Theories must be tested and the tests must be repeatable. So repetition or confirmation is an important component in any use of the various pramANa.

Secondly there is the problem of access to apauruseya zabda. What access do we have to it? Well unfortunately we have to access it through the other pramANa. We have to see it or hear it or read it and we have to depend on whole chains of transmission to receive it. So, we are back in the same hole. Those pramANa have the same doSas. We might mis-hear it, we might misread it, and anyone in the chain of transmission might have done so too. Therefore a faultless Veda is really beyond our reach.

The last thing to point out is that, as I hope some of you have guessed, though various people list three or four or ten or thirteen pramANa, there is really only one: pratyaksa. direct (sensual) perception. The rest are only extensions of that.

[Nitaidas]

How are anumAna and zabda extensions of pratyakSa? They are both based on pratyakSa. One forms the idea of invariable concomitance based on previous perceptions. One notices, for instance, that wherever there is fire there is smoke. The two, fire and smoke, become invariably connected. Thus, when one sees smoke on a distant mountain one infers the presence of fire. Similarly, zabda means testimony, verbal testimony, and the one who gives that testimony is called the Apta, the "experienced" or "authority." The one who testifies has prior experience of something or has learned something from some earlier authority. But eventually, previous authority ends in pratyakSa. Even the sages who reveal the sacred Veda do so on the basis of their experience. They "hear" the Vedic hymns and speak them. So it all boils down to experience which is the realm of pratyakSa.

[Nitaidas]

ततस्तानि न प्रमाणानीत्यनादिसिद्ध-सर्वपुरुष-परम्परासु सर्वलौकिकालौकिक-ज्ञाननिदानत्वाद् अप्राकृत-वचन-लक्षणो वेद एवास्माकं सर्वातीत-सर्वाश्रय-सर्वाचिन्त्याश्चर्य-स्वभावं वस्तु विविदिषतां प्रमाणम्|

Therefore, those are not sources of knowledge. Because of being the cause of all worldly (laukika) and unworldly (alaukika) knowledge in the beginningless, established traditions of all human beings, the Veda alone, which is characterized by unworldly statements, is the source of knowledge for those of us who want to know that thing whose nature is above all, the support of all, inconceivable to all, and astonishing.

["Those" refers to pratyakSa, and the other pramana. Here, though, it is interesting to note that Sri Jiva rejects those pramana only in the matter of knowing the vastu or substance that is amazing, beyond all, the abode of all, and inconceivable by all, etc. The other pramana are inadequate for knowing in this special case. So it is a kind of Non-overlapping Magisteriums (NOM) argument like that offered by some who argue the science and religion have separate domains of validity that do not overlap.]

[Nitaidas]

Here is a pdf of what we have done so far of the Tattva-sandarbha. More coming soon. Keep an eye out for the Bhagavat-sandarbha, too. I'm doing both together.


Here.

[Nitaidas]

Here is some more of the Tattva-sandarbha:

taccaanumata.m tarkaaprati.s.thaanaat (bra. suu. 2.1.11) ityaadau,acintyaa.h khalu ye bhaavaa na taa.mstarke.na yojayet
(ma. bhaa. 6.5.12) ityaadau "saastrayonitvaat
(bra. suu. 1.1.3) ityaadau| "srutestu "sabdamuulatvaat
(bra. suu. 2.1.27) ityaadau|

\begin{verse}

pit.rdevamanu.syaa.naa.m veda"scak.sustave"svara| \\
"sreyastvanupalabdhe.arthe saadhyasaadhanayorapi|| (bhaag. 11.20.4) ityaadau|| 11||

\end{verse}

tatra ca veda"sabdasya samprati du.spaaratvaadduradhigamaarthatvaacca
tadarthanir.naayakaanaa.m muniinaamapi parasparavirodhaadvedaruupo
vedaarthanir.naayaka"scetihaasapuraa.naatmaka.h "sabda eva
vicaara.niiya.h| tatra ca yo vaa veda"sabdo naatmavidita.h so.api
tadd.r.s.tyaanumeya eveti samprati tasyaiva pramotpaadakatva.m
sthitam| tathaa hi mahaabhaarate maanaviiye ca
itihaasapuraa.naabhyaa.m veda.m samupab.r.mhayediti
(ma. bhaa. 1.1.267)| puura.naatpuraa.namiti caanyatra| na
caavedena vedasya b.r.mha.na.m sambhavati| na hyaparipuur.nasya
kanakavalayasya trapu.naa puura.na.m yujyate|


And that is confirmed: ``Because of the instability of
argument,"\footnote{{\it Brahma-s\=utra}, 2.1.11. Tarka here means
inference, the instrument of argument.} and so forth; ``those things
that are inconceivable may not be grasped by argument,"\footnote{{\it
Mah\=abh\=arata}, 6.5.12.} and so forth; ``scripture is the
cause."\footnote{{\it Brahma-s\=utra}, 1.1.3. Scripture is the cause
of correct knowledge.} and so forth; ``But [not Brahman] because of
revelation, because of its being the root of
sound."\footnote{{\it Brahma-s\=utra}, 2.1.27.} and so forth;

\begin{verse}

O lord, your Veda is the eye\\
of ancestors, gods, and humans,\\
most beneficial in matters unperceived\\
and in what's to be achieved\\
and how to achieve it.\footnote{{\it Bh\=ag}., 11.20.4.}

\end{verse}

And in this matter, because the texts of the Veda are difficult to
study completely and difficult to understand the meanings of and
because even the sages who try to determine their meanings contradict
one another, one should take into account the scripture consisting of
the histories ({\it itih\=asa}) and ancient lore ({\it pur\=a\d{n}a})
which is a form of the Veda and which ascertains its meanings. And
moreover, since those Vedic texts which are not self-revealed should
be inferred by examining it (i.e. the scripture consisting of the
histories and ancient lore), nowadays it is established as a creator
of real knowledge. So, indeed. it is said in the {\it
Mah\=abh\=arata}\footnote{Mbh., 1.1.267.} and the {\it Traditions of
Manu}:\footnote{Apparently not found in the {\it Manu-sm\d{r}ti}.} the
histories and ancient lore should expand the Veda." And elsewhere it
is said: Pur\=a\d{n}as are so-called because of completing ({\it
p\=ura\d{n}a}). Nor is possible for the Veda to be enlarged by
something that is not the Veda. Nor is it fitting to complete some
gold that is incomplete with tin.

[Nitaidas]

And so more:

nanu yadi veda"sabda.h puraa.namitihaasa.m copaadatte, tarhi puraa.namanyadanve.sa.niiyam|
yadi tu na, na tarhiitihaasapuraa.nayorabhedo vedena| ucyate
vi"si.s.taikaarthapratipaadakapadakadambasyaapauru.seyatvaadabhede.api
svarakramabhedaadbhedanirde"so.apyupapadyate| .rgaadibhi.h
samamanayorapauru.seyatvenaabhedo maadhyandina"srutaaveva vyajyate eva.m vaa are.asya
mahato bhuutasya ni"svasitametadyad.rgvedo yajurveda.h saamavedo.atharvaa"ngirasa
itihaasa.h puraa.namityaadinaa (b.r. u. 2.4.10)|| 12||


Now if the Vedic scripture includes the ancient lore and histories,
then some other ancient lore ({\it pur\=a\d{n}a}) [that is not Veda] should be
searched out. If none is found, then the histories and ancient lore
are not non-different from the Veda. To this it is said: because they
are collections of words establishing the same specialized meanings
while also being without a human author, they are not different from the Veda.
And because of their differences in order and in their use of accents
they can be also be called different. Their non-difference from the
\d{R}g and so forth because of not being by human authors is suggested
by the M\=adhyandina scripture ({\it B\d{r}had-\=ara\d{n}yaka
Upani\d{s}ad}): ``thus, indeed, this which is the exhalation of this great
being is the \d{R}gveda, Yajurveda, S\=amaveda, Atharv\=a\.ngirasas,
history, and ancient lore.\footnote{{\it B\d{r}had-\=ara\d{n}yaka},
2.4.10.} (12)

[Nitaidas]

[Here is some more]

ataeva skaandaprabhaasakha.n.de
\begin{verse}
puraa tapa"scacaarogramamaraa.naa.m pitaamaha.h|\\
aavirbhuutaastato vedaa.h sa.sa.da"ngapadakramaa.h|| \\
tata.h puraa.namakhila.m sarva"saastramaya.m dhruvam|\\
nitya"sabdamaya.m pu.nya.m "satako.tipravistaram|| \\
nirgata.m brahma.no vaktraattasya bhedaannibodhata|\\
braahma.m puraa.na.m prathamamityaadi| (ska. pu. 2.3-5)
\end{verse}
atra "satako.tisa"nkhyaa brahmaloke prasiddheti tathoktam|

t.rtiiyaskandhe ca .rgyaju.hsaamaatharvaakhyaan vedaan
puurvaadibhirmukhai.h (bhaa. 3.12.37) ityaadiprakara.ne

\begin{verse}
itihaasapuraa.naani pa~ncama.m vedamii"svara.h|\\
sarvebhya eva vaktrebhya.h sas.rje sarvadar"sana.h|| iti| (bhaa. 3.12.39)
\end{verse}



Therefore in the Prabh\=asa-kha\d{n}\d{d}a of the Skandha Pur\=a\d{n}a

\begin{quote}

Previously the grandfather of the immortals performed intense
austerities. As a result, the entire body of ancient lore ({\it
pur\=a\d{n}a}) comprising all disciplines, everlasting, composed of
eternal words, auspicious, a hundred ko\d{t}i\footnote{100 x
10,000,000, i.e. one billion?} stanzas in length, came out of
Brahm\=a's mouth. Understand its divisions: first was the {\it Brahma
Pur\=a\d{n}a}, ... \footnote{{\it Skandha Pur\=a\d{n}a}, 2.3-5.}

\end{quote}

Here it is also said: ``a hundred ko\d{t}i stanzas are well-known in the
world of Brahm\=a.''

And in the Third Skandha, in the context: ``The \d{R}g, Yajur, S\=ama,
and Atharva Vedas [came] from the mouths starting with the eastern one
... "\footnote{Bh\=ag., 3.12.37.}

\begin{quote}

The histories and ancient lore are the fifth Veda. The controller,
seer of all, created them from all of his mouths.\footnote{ibid., 3.12.39.}

\end{quote}

[Nitaidas]

[Another little chunk. Also check the download for an updated version of the pdf]

api caatra saak.saadeva veda"sabda.h prayukta.h puraa.netihaasayo.h|
anyatra ca puraa.na.m pa~ncamo veda.h| itihaasa.h puraa.na.m ca
pa~ncamo veda ucyate (bhaag. 1.4.20)| vedaanadhyaapayaamaasa
mahaabhaaratapa~ncamaan (ma. bhaa. 12.340.11) ityaadau| anyathaa
vedaanityaadaavapi pa~ncamatva.m naavakalpeta
samaanajaatiiyanive"sitatvaatsa"nkhyaayaa.h|

bhavi.syapuraa.ne kaar.s.na.m ca pa~ncama.m veda.m yanmahaabhaarata.m
sm.rtamiti| tathaa ca saamakauthumiiya"saakhaayaa.m
chaandogyopani.sadi ca---

.rgveda.m bhagavo.adhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharva.na.m
caturthamitihaasa.m puraa.na.m pa~ncama.m vedaanaa.m vedam
(chaa. u. 7.1.2) ityaadi|

ataeva asya mahato bhuutasya (b.r. u. 2.4.10)
ityaadaavitihaasapuraa.nayo"scatur.naamevaantarbhuutatvakalpanayaa
prasiddhapratyaakhyaana.m nirastam| tadukta.m braahma.m puraa.na.m
prathamamityaadi|| 13||




Moreover, here the word Veda is used directly for the ancient lore and
histories. Elsewhere, too, the ancient lore is called the fifth Veda:
``The history and ancient lore are said to be the fifth
Veda,"\footnote{ibid., 1.4.20.} ``He taught the Vedas with the {\it
Mah\=abh\=arata} as the fifth,"\footnote{{\it Mah\=abh\=arata},
12.340.11.} and so forth. Otherwise, the ``fiveness'' would not fit
with the word ``Vedas'' and such because something of the same kind is
considered when counting.

In the {\it Bhavi\d{s}ya Pur\=a\d{n}a} [is
found:] ``And the fifth Veda belongs to K\d{r}\d{s}\d{n}a
[Dvaip\=ayana Vy\=asa] which is remembered as the {\it
Mah\=abh\=arata}." And in the Kauthum{\=\i}ya branch of the
S\=amaveda, the {\it Ch\=andogya Upani\d{s}ad}:

\begin{quote}

I study, O Bhagavas, the \d{R}gveda, the Yajurveda, the S\=amaveda,
the fourth, the Atharvan, and the fifth, the history and ancient lore,
which is the Veda of the Vedas.\footnote{{\it Ch\=andogya
Upani\d{s}ad}, 7.1.2.}

\end{quote}

Therefore, the well-known opposing explanation using the invention
that the history and ancient lore referred to in the statement ``[the
exhalation] of this great being ..."\footnote{{\it
B\d{r}had-\=ara\d{n}yaka Upani\d{s}ad}, 2.4.10.} are within the four
Vedas themselves is refuted. That is also stated in ``The Brahm\=a
Pur\=a\d{n}a was the first ..." (13)

[Nitaidas]

I have taken this up again. I found that I have already finished almost half of the text. I am going over the passages that have been done and adding notes from Sitanath Goswami's fine edition published by Yadavpur University in Kolkata, some later volumes of which were edited by my fondly remembered Sanskrit teacher Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee. Thanks to Narottamadasji for resurrecting my interest in this text in our discussions of Sri Jiva's possibly mistaken comments on Sankara in his षट्-सन्दर्भ. I will post the results periodically.

राधे राधे !

[narottamadasa]

Apr 22, 2020 18:35:25 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

I have taken this up again. I found that I have already finished almost half of the text. I am going over the passages that have been done and adding notes from Sitanath Goswami's fine edition published by Yadavpur University in Kolkata, some later volumes of which were edited by my fondly remembered Sanskrit teacher Dr. Chinmayi Chatterjee. Thanks to Narottamadasji for resurrecting my interest in this text in our discussions of Sri Jiva's possibly mistaken comments on Sankara in his षट्-सन्दर्भ. I will post the results periodically.

राधे राधे !

Dear Nitai Dada,

I have just found this thread (this forum is a real labyrinth with to many hidden pearls) and am very interested by your translations/comments. I have read श्री तत्त्व सन्दर्भ a couple of years ago translated by Gopiparanadhana Prabhu but, well... I would like to have a different perspective on this section of Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy. Currently I am reading new translation of Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji Maharaja (not the first one done in 90s), what an approach! Sri Jiva should be studied by every sadhaka, otherwise, how is it possible to understand श्रीमद् भागवत​? 

जय श्री राधे!