In a previous article, I had discussed the meaning of the word ‘acintya’ in Caitanya Vaiṣṇava theology. There, I had shown that the word ‘acintya’ in the term ‘acintya bheda-abheda’ has the following related meanings:

1. confounds [extra-scriptural] logic.
2. Incapability of conceiving bheda or abheda between śaktis and śaktimān
3. Known only through śāstra

A reader reminded me that I owe readers an article on a related topic that I had mentioned there. I had written the following, “another question was about how logic is allowed to be over-ridden by śāstra, given that logic is critical for understanding the meaning of śāstra. I will answer the second question in another article. ” I will take this question up here.

śāstra alone is conclusive in ascertaining the Supreme Reality

Śrī Jīva Goswami cites a series of verses in Anuchheda 11 of the Tattva Sandarbha, to establish that śāstra alone is the conclusive pramāṇa to ascertain the truth about the Supreme Reality:

tac cānumataṁ—

The fact that the Vedas are a valid source for ascertaining Ultimate Truth is confirmed by the following scriptural statements:

tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt [bra.sū. 2.1.11] ity ādau,

“Logic in and of itself is inconclusive” ( VS 2.1.11 );

acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet [ma.bhā. 6.5.12] ity ādau,

“One should not strive to apprehend that which is inconceivable through reason or logic [alone]” ( MB 6.5.22);

śāstra-yonitvāt [bra.sū. 1.1.3] ity ādau,

“Scriptures are the [only] source of valid knowledge of the Absolute Truth” ( VS 1.1.3 );

śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt [bra.sū. 2.1.27] ity ādau |

“This is confirmed by the Vedas because they are the source of knowledge of the Absolute Truth” ( VS 2.1.27); and

pitṛ-deva-manuṣyāṇāṁ vedaś cakṣus taveśvara |

śreyas tv anupalabdhe’rthe sādhya-sādhanayor api || [bhā. 11.20.4] ity ādau ||11||

“O Lord, in the matter of perceiving subtle realities that lie beyond the range of sense perception, and in the matter of determining ultimate purpose and the means for realizing it, Your Veda is the supreme guiding vision for the forefathers, devas , and human beings” ( SB 11.20.4 ).

The Sarva-samvādinī commentary on the above section

Below, I translate the Sarva-samvādinī commentary on this section. In translating, I consulted Śrī Ānanda Gopāla Vedānta-tirtha’s Sanskrit commentary on the the Sarva-samvādinī. Śrī Jīva Goswami writes:

tad evaṁ sarvatraiva sarvathaitvāpta eva vedaḥ | kintu sarvajñeśvara-vacanatvenāsarvajña-jīvair durūhatvāt tat-prabhāva-labdha-pratyakṣa-viśeṣavadbhir eva sarvatra tad-anubhave śakyate, na tu tārkikaiḥ |

In this manner, the Veda alone is reliable everywhere and for all times. [Then why is it not known to everyone? He replies:] Because it is the speech of the all-knowing Īśvara, it is difficult to understand logically by the jīva who is not all-knowing. As such, only those great persons to whom the tattva of Īśvara is revealed due to the obtainment of His grace, are able to experience it everywhere. In contrast, the logicians cannot access it.

Two main concepts are to be understood here. First, the Vedas are the speech of Bhagavān. Second, without His grace, it is not possible to understand them properly nor experience the reality they expound. Surprisingly, this is a point that even some Vaiṣṇavas do not seem to understand- they go on relentlessly arguing on the internet, instead of humbly learning śāstra from a realized teacher and experiencing its truths. They in effect act like logicians trying to independently access the truth.

Śrī Jīva Goswami supports his thesis with the following verse:

tad uktaṁ puruṣottama-tantre—

śāstrārtha-yukto’nubhavaḥ pramāṇaṁ tūttamaṁ matam | anumādyā na svatantrāḥ pramāṇa-padavīṁ yayuḥ || iti |

This is stated in the Puruṣottama-tantra:

That experience which is consistent with the meaning of śāstra is the best pramāṇa. Logic and others are not independent, and are not pramāṇas [in this matter].

He cites more statements to support this:

tathaiva mataṁ brahma-sūtra-kāraiḥ—tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt [bra.sū. 2.1.11], śrutes tu śabda-mūlatvāt [bra.sū. 2.1.27] ity ādau | tathā ca śrutiḥ—naiṣā tarkeṇa matir āpaneyā proktā’nyenaiva sujñānāya preṣṭha [ka.u. 1.2.9], nīhāreṇa prāvṛtā jalpyāś ca [ṛk saṁ 10.82.7] ity ādyāḥ | jalpa-pravṛttās tārkikā iti śruti-padārthaḥ |

This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sūtra – “Logic in and of itself is inconclusive” ( VS 2.1.11 ); “This is confirmed by the Vedas because they are the source of knowledge of the Absolute Truth” ( VS 2.1.27); “O dearest one, this wisdom pertaining to the Absolute cannot be obtained by logic. Only when knowledge is received from a guru does it lead to the true understanding. ( Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.2.9)”; “[the jivas] are covered by the fog [of ignorance] and given to [fruitless] argumentation”. The word jalpyāh means logicians engaged in jalpa.

Endless arguing is a sure sign of ignorance!

To support the concept that logic created entirely by human minds and not grounded in the Veda is not a reliable pramāṇa, he cites the following verse:

ata eva varāha-purāṇe—

sarvatra śakyate kartum āgamaṁ hi vinānumā |tasmān na sā śaktimatī vināgamam udīkṣitum || iti |

Therefore the Varāha-purāṇa states,

Inference can lead everywhere [i.e. any conclusion is possible] when the Vedas are excluded as a pramāṇa. Therefore, that inference is not powerful enough to reliably describe reality independently of the Veda.

The main limitation of logical inference is that it is inconclusive. This is because it can always be refuted by superior logic. To support this, he cites an Advaitavadin (likely Shri Vacaspati Mishra):

advaita-vādibhiś coktam—

yatnenāpādito’py arthaḥ kuśalair anumātṛbhiḥ abhiyuktatarair anyair anyathaivopapādyate

This is stated by a venerable advaita-vādi:

A position that is asserted even with meticulous attention by expert logicians can be shown to be otherwise by those who are even more clever.

Śrī Babaji writes that this statement is from Bhartṛhari’s Vākya – padīya (1.34). He notes in his commentary that this verse is also quoted by Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī in the Bhakti – rasāmṛta – sindhu.

Now Śrī Jīva Goswami cites Śrī Śankarācārya who provides an interesting argument that follows from the above:

advaita-śārīrake’pi—“na ca śakyante atītānāgata-vartamānās tārkikā ekasmin deśe kāle ca samāhartuṁ yena tadīyaṁ mataṁ samyag-jñānam iti pratipadyemahi | vedasya ca nityatve vijñānotpatti-hetutve ca sati vyavasthita-viṣayārthatvopapatteḥ | taj-janitasya jñānasya ca samyaktvam atītān āgata-vartamānaiḥ sarvair api tārkikair upahnotum aśakyam” [bra.sū. 2.1.11, śā.bhā.] iti |

This is also stated in the Advaita-śārīraka commentary:

And, it is not possible to gather the past, present and future logicians in one place and time, by which their single opinion, as correct knowledge, can be established by us. The Veda is eternal and the cause of generating experience. Hence, it provides consistent knowledge that conforms with reality. As such, the correctness of knowledge generated by the Veda cannot be denied by all past, present or future logicians.

Given that a logician can be defeated by another, the way to arrive at a conclusive opinion is to gather all logicians from all phases of time in one place, and let them fight it out! The winning opinion could be considered as truth, but such a gathering is impossible. In contrast, the Vedas are eternal, and the knowledge they propound is unchanging in all phases of time.

yat tv āgame kvacit tarkeṇa bodhanā dṛśyate, tat tatraiva śobhanam, āgama-rūpatvāt, bodhana-saukaryārtha-mātroddiṣṭa-tarkatvāt | yadi ca yat tarkeṇa sidhyati, tad eva veda-vacanaṁ pramāṇam iti syāt, tadā tarka evāstām, kiṁ vedeneti vaidikammanyā api te bāhyā evety ayam abhiprāyaḥ sarvatra | ata eva teṣāṁ śṛgālatvam eva gatir ity uktaṁ bhārate [ma.bhā. 12.180.47-49] |

In contrast, that understanding which is seen to be derived in the āgama by logic, is appropriate there alone, [because the logic] has the form of the āgama, and because it is intended solely for ease of understanding. And if only that Vedic statement which can be proven by logic alone ought to be accepted as the pramāṇa, then let logic itself be the pramāṇa, what is the need of the Vedas? Such people [who think like this], even though they might think themselves to be Vedic, are out of the Vedic fold. This is the intended sense everywhere. Therefore, for such people, the destination [after death] is of a jackal as stated in the Mahabharata.

Above, he touched upon logic that is present in the Vedas themselves. Now, he will mention the logic that is used to ascertain the meaning of the Vedas:

yat tu śrotavyo mantavya [bṛ.ā.u. 2.4.5] ity-ādiṣu mananaṁ nāma tarko’ṅgīkṛtaḥ, tatraivam uktaṁ yathā kūrma-purāṇe—

pūrvāparāvirodhena ko nv artho’bhimato bhavet |

ity-ādyam ūhanaṁ tarkaḥ śuṣka-tarkaṁ ca varjayet || iti |

On the other hand, about that logic, named manana, which is accepted in statements such as “yat tu śrotavyo mantavya- but that which is to be heard, and reflected upon”, this is stated in the Kūrma-purāṇa:

The logical thought process by which the meaning of a scriptural passage is understood without contradicting the statements preceding and following it is known as the “primal,” or highest, order of deliberated logic. Dry logic, however, should be abandoned.

Such logic is acceptable. Logic, that does not fit into this definition, should be abandoned.

Śrī Babaji’s commentary on this Anuchheda

Below, I provide Śrī Babaji’s illuminating commentary on this topic.

“Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī also cites the Mahābhārata’s statement that because logic is limited, one should not depend exclusively on it to try to understand inconceivable realities. For example, by mere logic one will certainly fail to understand the childhood pastimes of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, such as His dāma – bandhana – līlā , in which His mother bound Him with rope. When Mother Yaśodā tried to tie Kṛṣṇa to a grinding mortar, her rope was too short. She was amazed to find that even when she joined together all the ropes she could find in her home, the cumulative length was still too short. Yet, the black sash around Kṛṣṇa’s waist did not break, nor did His waist become inflated.

Such inconceivable behavior by the Absolute Person is entirely beyond the reach of all logical faculties; one can understand it only by accepting the authority of Vedic testimony, śabda – pramāṇa . In this case, the narration is meant to demonstrate, among other things, the nature of Bhagavān’s transphenomenal form, that it is simultaneously and inconceivably both localized and all – pervading. To be more precise, because His form transcends space and time altogether, it is not subject to the logical categories derived from space – time considerations.

Still, although logical reasoning is not a reliable independent method in the quest for knowledge of the Absolute, this does not mean that all logic is useless. The very idea that logic is not fully reliable is itself known through the use of logic supported by scriptural references. We should certainly use reason in trying to understand the statements of the Vedas. The Bṛhad – āraṇyaka Upaniṣad thus states, “The Self, my dear Maitreyī, is to be realized, and so it should be heard about, reflected on, and deeply meditated upon” ( ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyi , BAU 2.4.5 ). Here the word mantavya refers to logical reflection. We should apply logic to properly understand the Vedic injunctions, but we should reject logic that runs counter to their conclusions. Mere logic can never supersede the opinions of the Vedas, which are free of human defects.

The point is, as indicated in the Upaniṣadic statement above, that appropriate logical reflection ( manana ) upon scriptural truths leads to intuitive insight, which becomes the basis for deep meditation ( nidhidhyāsana ). Thus, logic that is consistent with scriptural revelation serves to turn consciousness toward the direct apprehension of Reality as signified by Its sound revelation.

While discussing this topic in Sarva – saṁvādinī , Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī quotes an untraceable verse from Kūrma Purāṇa :
The logical thought process by which the meaning of a scriptural passage is understood without contradicting the statements preceding and following it is known as the “primal,” or highest, order of deliberated logic. Dry logic, however, should be abandoned.

Dry logic refers to arguments contrary to scriptures or not supported by scriptural statements. Mere logic can deliver no ultimacy in the field of metaphysics. Dry speculative philosophical musings amount to no more than a futile mental exercise with no tangible result. No matter how profound and mesmerizing one’s logic, it is inevitable that some other powerful logician will eventually refute it. The Vedas enjoin, therefore, that those who seek the Absolute Truth should abandon dry logic, but not all logic. Indeed, in Gītā 10.32 , Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself declares that logic aimed at understanding the Absolute as it is presented in scripture is one of His opulences: “Among logicians, I am that reasoning which establishes the Absolute Truth” ( vādaḥ pravadatām aham ). Thus, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī is right in accepting anumāna as one of the principal means of gaining valid knowledge.

Summary

śāstra alone is the conclusive pramāṇa to ascertain the truth about the Supreme Reality.

śāstra teaches that Bhagavān cannot be confined to the realm of logic.

Logic outside the bounds of śāstra is inconclusive because it can be defeated by superior logic.

The logical thought process by which the meaning of a scriptural passage is understood without contradicting the statements preceding and following is acceptable.