Logic Based On Sastra Is One Of Our Pramanas
To reconcile any real or apparent contradiction in our philosophy and to reveal the siddhänta we have to resort to logic. Sometimes people raise objections against logic not knowing its importance. The problem arises because they do not distinguish between logic based on sastra and other types of logic, called kutarka, bad logic. In fact logic plays a crucial role in understanding the scripture and the statements of our äcäryas. Indeed such use of logic is unavoidable, especially in reconciling contradictions in the scriptures or comments of the acaryas. Srila Jiva Gosvami has shown this by his brilliant analysis of sambandha jnana, abidheya and prayojana in the Sandarbhas.
Ironically, persons who have voiced disdain for our using logic have used it extensively in attempting to establish that nitya-muktas fall from Vaikuntha. It is evident, however, that they do not have a good grasp of logic, because their seemingly logical arguments find no support in the sastra.
Just to show that logic is unavoidable I cite an example from one of the many texts that came on COMM about the jiva issue. Under the sub-heading Insubstantial logic (tarko apratistha) this author wrote:
I'm not putting my hand on my heart for blind faith here. We all want to understand Srila Prabhupada's instructions on a deeper level, both for our individual spiritual progress and for progress in our preaching. But, tarko apratistha--logical argument is not the basis of that understanding. One must follow the mahajana Srila Prabhupada. Thus the truth hidden in his heart will become revealed to us by the grace of guru and Krsna. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deva tatha gurau.
After a statement like this one will expect that this author will not use any logic in his presentation, which would be very interesting to see. But sure enough he uses logic many times in the course of his ensuing argument. Actually, even if one only quotes "the mahajana" one arranges his quotes in some semblance of logical order. So from this text it is clear that the author does not understand the meaning of tarko apratistha, which we shall explain a little further along. In the very next paragraph following the one above, the author writes:
I've failed to devise a logical framework into which every one of Srila Prabhupada's statements on the origin of the jiva fits, seamlessly resolving all apparent contradictions. I admire the devotees who continue to put forward some such frameworks. They seek the truth. But the logic of, "whenever Srila Prabhupada said the jiva originates in Vaikuntha, it was part of strategy to get Western people to have faith in his overall message," is flawed. This claim is tarka of the most insubstantial kind. Here's some reasons why.
If, as he says, all we have to do is "follow the mahajana, Srila Prabhupada," why even attempt to devise a logical framework in the first place? Just accept all Srila Prabhupada's statements lock, stock, contradictions and all. Why not? After all , yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deva tatha gurau. . ..
Other points to be gleaned from his second paragraph: 1. Although this author expresses admiration for those who seek the truth in this matter, and further declares that by following Srila Prabhupada "the truth hidden in his heart will become revealed to us by the grace of guru and Krsna" he also intimates that because he has failed to logically devise a framework to resolve the jiva issue no one else has solved it and maybe no one else ever will. But what if the truth hidden in Prabhupada's heart has been revealed to someone other than him? 2. He makes a strawman out of the Prabhupada-preached-we-fell-as-strategy-view and then proceeds to shred it. We can say this because at the time he in fact does not know our arguments and evidence on this point. This, however, must be no bother to one who is against logic in the first place. 3. After he decries the use of logic and the logic of "whenever Srila Prabhupada said the jiva originates in Vaikuntha, it was part of strategy to get Western people to have faith in his overall message," by calling it insubstantial logic he proceeds to give four "logical" reasons why he holds this belief.
We will not cite his reasons, because we think our point is quite clear: logic is unavoidable. He says that our claiming that Prabhupada used a preaching strategy on the jiva-whence issue is based on "flawed" logic and there is no evidence that Prabhupada had such an intention. This is our response. The mere fact that Prabhupada gave contradictory statements on this issue is a clear hint that he had a strategy, because both cannot stand. One type of statement has to be primary and the other taken as secondary. Our task is to determine which one. That we have done in the first ten chapters of this book. It is now clear which version has to be considered strategy.
As for his assertion that Prabhupada gave no hint of having a strategy not even to "one or two intimate disciples," we present the relevant portion of a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and three of his disciples in London (17th. August 1971):
Revatinandana: Sometimes people ask...
Prabhupada: These questions are not to be discussed in public. These are very higher understanding. For public should be, "This is matter, this is spirit." That's all.
The topic of this conversation is the jiva and many different points were brought out. We refer interested readers to this conversation and suggest it be read carefully. Prabhupada said that this "higher understanding" is not for the public. The clear meaning of the above quote is that Prabhupada had a strategy for presenting some points of the philosophy.
Now the question comes, did he include his disciples as part of that public when he discussed the jiva issue in his conversations, lectures, and letters, which are the primary places where he gave the opinion that once we were in the nitya-lila of God? We think the answer is self-evident, because there is ample instances in his books where he unequivocally states that no one falls from Vaikuntha, which we have shown to be in line with the true parampara siddhanta.
We return now to the main discussion, namely the validity of using logic in trying to understand what is the siddhanta when there is contradiction. The verse the fall-vadis commonly cite to decry our use of logic is from the Mahäbhärata:
tarko'pratiñöhaù çrutayo vibhinnä
nasav åñir yasya matir na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhäyam
mahäjano yena gataù sa panthaù
Dry arguments are inclusive. A philosopher whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great thinker. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right understanding of religious principles. The truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of the self-realized souls. Consequently, as the çästras confirm, one should follow in the footsteps of the Mahäjanas.
While enthusiastic to accuse us of dry logic the voices for the fall-vädés never defined the difference between dry logic and real logic. Nor do they pay any heed to "one should follow in the footsteps of the Mahäjanas," which is in the plural, for they interpret it to mean only Çréla Prabhupäda. Of course, when it suits them to quote another mahajana, like Bhaktivinoda or Bhaktisiddhänta, they expand it to the plural, then immediately collapse it again.
To dispel the false arguments lodged against using logic we will now discuss the role of logic in reconciling the philosophical controversies that sometimes come up. As far as following the path advocated by the mahäjanas, we have already followed in their footsteps in the preceeding chapters of this book by citing numerous references in support of no fall down from Vaikuntha, by citing them on the anadi nature of the jiva's bondage, and by giving the example of how Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura dealt with the Parakiya/Svakiya controversy.
In the Tattva Sandarbha Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, while establishing the Gauòéya Vaiñëava epistemology, accepted three pramäëas, or types of evidence--çabda, anumäna, and pratyakña. All evidence from çabda clearly indicates that the jéva does not fall. Pratyakña, direct perception, is obviously ineffective for deciding transcendental matters, but anumäna, inferential reasoning or logic, must be used in analyzing the scripture. All logic that agrees with and confirms the çästra is acceptable. Such logic is called real logic. It is not counted as dry logic. All our äcäryas used such logic.
Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé lists logic as one of the symptoms of an uttama adhikäri (BRS 1.2.17):
çästra yuktau ca nipuëaù sarvvathä dåòha niçcayaù
prauòha-çraddho' adhikäré yaù sa bhaktävuttamo mataù
One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures, who has strong determination, and firm faith in Kåñëa, is the person most eligible to achieve Bhakti.
Here yukti means logic and argument. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé comments that the logic referred to here is that which follows scripture. To clarify, he quotes a verse from the Vaiñëava tantra.
pürväparänurodhena ko'nvartho'bhimato bhavet
ityädyam ühanaà tarkaù süñkatarkaà tu varjayet
Proper logic is that which is used to reach the proper conclusion on the strength of understanding former and latter statements of çästra. Dry logic should be rejected.
This verse clearly states the difference between proper and dry logic. Proper logic is that which helps to reconcile the various parts of a book or books and thus aids in understanding the real conclusion of scripture. Dry logic is not supported by çästra rather it contradicts the scripture and has to be rejected. No one can be a Vaiñëava in good standing without use of proper logic. In the laws of Manu it is explained that without the aid of logic nobody can understand the true meaning of religion (Manu Småti12.106):
ärñaà dharmopadeçaà ca veda-çästrä'viordhinä
yastarkeëänusandhatte sa dharmaà veda netaraù
Only a person who uses logic which is not against the Vedas and the works and religious teachings of the great sages can understand the real meaning of religion. Others cannot.
The important point to be noted here is that without logic a person can not understand the real purpose or religion, but this logic should not be contrary to the Vedas, veda-çästrävirodhinä. Those who do not resort to the logic supported by çästra can never understand religion, netaraù. Therefore Lord Kåñëa personally recommended logic as one of the means of gaining knowledge (Bhäg.11.28.9):
pratyakñeëänumänena nigamenätm-saàvidä
ädy-antavad asaj jïätvä niùsaìgo vicared iha
By direct perception, logical deduction, scriptural testimony and personal realization, one should know that this world has a beginning and an end and so is not the ultimate reality. Thus one should live in this world without attachment.
Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu was Himself a logician before He manifested His devotional mood. He even wrote a book on neo-logic. He threw it into the Gaìgä because His friend Raghunätha Çiromaëé felt that the Lord's book would become so popular people would have no regard or his book called Dédhiti. In neo logic, Dédhiti is considered supreme. So one can imagine the supremacy of the Lord's own book. He instructed Sanätana Gosvämé that expertise in logic is one of the characteristics of a topmost devotee (Cc. Mad.22.65):
çästra-yuktye sunipuëa, dåòha-çraddhä yäìra`uttama-adhikäré' sei täraye saàsära
One who is expert in logic, argument, and the revealed scriptures and who has firm faith in Kåñëa is classified as a topmost devotee. He can deliver the whole world.
Thus logic and argument are not completely useless, but are very important. Logic can help us to understand the conclusion of the scriptures and to resolve apparent contradictions, for it is not uncommon to see contradictory statements in scriptures. That is why Srila Krsnadas Kaviraja says controversy should not be avoided for it strengthens the mind. And logic is the primary tool for resolving controversy, but it must be based on the sastra. That is to say it must fulfill the siddhanta.
For example, the Vedas say akñayyam ha vai cäturmäsya yäjiëaù sukåtaà bhavati, “One who observes the vow of Cäturmäsya attains imperishable merit.” Yet in another place we find, tat yatheha karma-jito lokaù kñéyate, evamevämutra puëyajito loko kñéyate (Chändogya 8.1.6). “Just as the results of material activities do not endure, so are the results attained in heaven by the performance of good deeds.” Naturally, both statements cannot be absolute. A secondary meaning must be applied to one of the statements in order to reconcile the contradiction.
By understanding the speaker's intention, deliberating on the results of sakäma karma, and studying the many statements indicating the temporary nature of heavenly existence, one can understand that the first statement is not absolute. It is meant to inspire lazy people to observe Cäturmäsya. If they make this sacrifice they will gradually reach the level of pure knowledge. In the Bhagavad-gétä Lord Kåñëa confirms this principle (Bg.4.33) when he says "All sacrifices of work culminate in transcendental knowledge."
People in general are attached to the fruits of their activities and if one preaches that they should engage in the activities of pure devotion they may lose faith even in karma-yoga. Therefore Lord Kåñëa advises (Bg. 3.26) na buddhi-bhedaà janayed ajïänäà karma-saìginäm. . . "Best not to disrupt the minds of the ignorant, but get them to work in the spirit of devotional service."
So it is clear that mere citing of references will not establish the conclusive truth. One has to analyze the scriptures thoroughly to understand the true intent behind the numerous recommendations and the various apparent contradictions. One must successfully remove all apparent contradictions by properly understanding the strength of different scriptural statements and reconciling them in clear, unambiguous conclusions that fulfill the ultimate spirit and intent of the scripture. Then the results may be said to be authoritative. To do this one must apply logic.
All scriptural statements do not carry equal weight or authority. Some override others. For example, in the Kåñëa-Sandarbha, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé shows that the statement kåñëas tu bhagavän svayam (Bhäg.1.3.28), "But Kåñëa is the original Personality of Godhead," is the emperor statement, or mahä väkya, for the entire Çrémad Bhägavatam. It overrules all statements which describe Kåñëa as an incarnation of someone else. This conclusion is not reached whimsically, but only after the most rigorous analysis involving logic, relevant grammatical rules, and with reference to the pertinent scriptural references.
In the four chapters of the Vedänta Sütra, the first is called Samanvyädhyäya, or the chapter on reconciliation. This hints at the amount of apparent contradictions in the Upaniñaòs. These are all reconciled through use of logic. Throughout the Sandarbhas Jiva Gosvami makes extensive use of logic and his conclusions in every case does not contradict the intent of the scripture. Hence logic that's faithful to the siddhanta has an important role and thus Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has rightly accepted logic as one of our pramanas.