SECTION EIGHTEEN      

            Based on the stories in the different Puräëas, the Matsya Puräëa classifies them into three divisions. But how can their relative importance be known whereby the other (sambandha, abhideya and prayojana) can be understood? If we make a distinction on the basis of the three modes of nature, depending on such statements as "the mode of goodness produces knowledge" (Bg 14-17) and "the mode of goodness leads to realization of the Absolute Truth" (S.B. 1.2.24), then the conclusion is that the Puräëas and other such literature in the mode of goodness are the superior means for knowledge of the Absolute Truth.

            But even then, how can one reconcile the different views that are put forward with inconclusive arguments regarding the Absolute Truth? Bhagavän Vyäsadeva compiled the Vedänta Sütras to give the decisive conclusion of both the Vedas and the Puräëas, if the study of the Vedänta is proposed as the solution, followers of the sages that also wrote sütras may not accept this proposal. Moreover, the Vedänta Sütras are cryptic, terse and are prone to different interpretations, so whose version should be accepted as conclusive?

            The solution is if there is one scripture with the characteristics of a Puräëa, which is apauruñeya in nature, which gives the essence of all the Vedas, Itihäsas, and Puräëas, which is based on the Vedänta Sütras, and which is available in its complete form all over the country.

            Justly said Sir! You have just reminded us about the Çrémad Bhägavatam, which we honor as the emperor of all the pramäëas. 

 

 ÇRÉ JÉVA TOÑAËÉ COMMENTARY

             The Matsya Puräëa, Chapter 53, describes the number of verses in each Puräëa and the benefit of donating different ones on certain days. In that same chapter Süta Gosvämé speaks two and a half verses giving a formula to divide the Puräëas according to the three modes of nature. These three classes of Puräëas glorify different deities and commentators try to establish the respective deities as supreme, based on logic and scriptural references that seem conclusive. Consequently, the followers of the tämasika Puräëas, don't accept the authority of the räjasika and sättvika Puräëas and vice versa. But there cannot be many Absolute Truths and therefore the question of one Supreme conclusion remains unsettled.

            For the unbiased or open seeker of the truth Çréla Jéva Gosvämé shows how to settle the matter. He explains that sattva, or the mode of goodness, is certainly superior to passion and ignorance. As confirmed by the Supreme Lord Kåñëa in the Bhagavad-gétä (14.17):

            "From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passions, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion."

            The Çrémad Bhägavatam (1.2.24) also states, tamasas tu rajas tasmät sattvam yad brahma-darçanam, "Passion is better than ignorance, but goodness is best because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth." In this section of Bhägavatam Süta Gosvämé explains the worship that gives one the ultimate good. His conclusion is that only worship of Lord Kåñëa, who is in pure goodness, is beneficial. The two and half verses cited from the Matsya Puräëa in the previous annucheda stated that the sättvika Puräëas glorify Lord Hari or Kåñëa. Worship of other deities described in the räjasika or tämasika Puräëas are in the lower modes of nature and does not lead to realization of the Absolute Truth.

            Besides the statements of Çré Süta Gosvämé, in the Matsya Puräëa the nature of a Puräëa can also be determined by the way it opens. In the sättivika Puräëas the questioners approach the learned speaker and  specifically ask about the nature of the Absolute Truth, such as what is the nature of ultimate Reality, what is the supreme religion for all mankind, what is ultimately beneficial to man, how should one prepare for death, and so on. The questions give the speaker free rein to explain these topics and the self-realized teacher, being free from all gross and subtle material desires and only concerned about the welfare of the enquirers, instructs them fully in reply to their questions. His answers are specific and unambiguous. They leave no room for misinterpretation or confusion. The Çrémad Bhägavatam is the best example of this.

            By contrast, in the räjasika and tämasika Puräëas the student enquires about specific topics, but they are not ultimate questions. For example, in the Liìga Puräëa, the sages of Naimiñäraëya approach Süta Gosvämé and ask him to narrate the glory of Liìga (another name of Lord Siva). Süta Gosvämé, although he has perfect understanding and full realization of the Absolute Truth, is restricted to speak on the particular topic of Liìga. He does not have the freedom to explain the meaning of life. This being the case in the räjasika and tämasika Puräëas, they cannot be the reliable basis for understanding sambandha, abhideya, and prayojana.

            The different types of Puräëas exist because of the variegated desires and interests of the conditioned souls, but all the Puräëas have some description of the glory of Lord Hari, who is the Absolute Truth. The intention of  Veda Vyäsa is that gradually even the persons in the two lower modes will develop an interest in the Supreme Personality of Godhead while reading the tämasika and räjasika Puräëas.

            Here one may raise the objection that the statement explaining the division of the Puräëas according to the modes of nature is not found in the sättivika Puräëas and thus should not be taken as authoritative. The answer is that this division of the Puräëas is supported by numerous statements, including the sättvika scriptures such as Padma Puräëa, some of which are cited in the previous section. Further, it is not that the Puräëas in the lower modes do not give any valid knowledge, for even they have some description of the Absolute Reality. Also, the statements under consideration are not contradicted by any other verses of the Vedic literature. There is no reason therefore to doubt the authenticity of such a division.

            Thus by analysis we find that only the sättvika Puräëas need to be considered in our quest for the ultimate çabda pramäëa, which will in turn lead to understanding sambandha, abhidheya, and prayojana. The Padma Puräëa states: sattvikä mokñadäù proktäù, "The Puranas in the mode of goodness lead to liberation." But here also scholars and great thinkers have explained the sättvika Puräëas with different conclusions. For example some have glorified the path of yoga, others that of bhakti, and yet others recommend the path of knowledge as the best.

   Çréla Jéva Gosvämé then suggests the Vedänta Sütras, which contain the essence of the Vedas and the Puräëas except that the dedicated followers of sages, such as Gautama and Pätänjalé, who have also written sütras, may not accept the conclusion of the Vedänta Sütras. And even if they are convinced somehow, by proving the importance and logic of Vedänta Sütra, there is still a further complication. The sütras are terse and esoteric. They have been commented upon by äcäryas of various persuasions and who agrees with the opinion of Veda Vyäsa is impossible to discern.

            Finally, for the seeker who has come this far but is sinking in the marshy confusion created by the various scriptures and myriad opinions, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé points to the high ground of the Çrémad Bhägavatam. It has the ten characteristics of a Mahä-Puräëa (discussed in section 56); it is apauruñeya; it is the natural commentary on the Vedänta Sütras and thus has the conclusion of all the Vedas, Itihäsas and Puräëas; it is available in its entirety; it is respected by all äcäryas; it is more popular than any other Puräëa; it has an existent disciplic succession; and it is the ultimate accomplishment of Çréla Veda Vyäsa, being composed in His maturity.

            By establishing Çrémad Bhägavatam as the last word in scripture, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé fulfills the will of Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, who accepted Bhägavatam as the "Spotless Puräëa", the supremely authoritative text among all others. In the next section Jéva Gosvämé explains that Çrémad Bhägavatam is not composed by a mortal and is the natural commentary on Vedänta.