One of the frequently asked questions to me is about the many different interpretations of śāstra. Even within the Gauḍiya samprādāya itself, we find a huge number of viewpoints about the same basic concepts, including about the methods of bhakti, and the goal of bhakti. Why is this so?
A similar question is posed by Śrī Uddhava to Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. He asks:
śrī-uddhava uvāca—
vadanti kṛṣṇa śreyāṁsi bahūni brahma-vādinaḥ | teṣāṁ vikalpa-prādhānyam utāho eka-mukhyatā ||
O Kṛṣṇa, the knowers of the Vedas speak of many means for attaining the highest good. Are these means optionally considered primary, or is only one of them the primary (means)? SB 11.14.1
Here, Śrī Uddhava asks whether the methods, sādhanas, in the scriptures, are each primary but optional – in the sense that one may choose one of them according to one’s liking, or whether only one is primary. I am paraphrasing Śrī Viśvanātha’s commentary on these verses.
He explains the reason for the question:
bhavatodāhṛtaḥ svāmin bhakti-yogo’napekṣitaḥ |nirasya sarvataḥ saṅgaṁ yena tvayy āviśen manaḥ ||
O Lord, bhakti-yoga, performed without any material desire, (alone) has been presented as the topmost by You. Giving up all attachment through such bhakti-yoga, the mind becomes fully absorbed in You. SB 11.14.2
Here, Śrī Uddhava reminds Bhagavān that according to Him, bhakti yoga is the primary means. So the sense of the question is – is bhakti the primary means only in your opinion or is it generally accepted by all?
Bhagavān responds with a series of verses in which He explains the reason for the disagreements between different commentators —
evaṁ prakṛti-vaicitryād bhidyante matayo nṛṇām | pāramparyeṇa keṣāñcit pāṣaṇḍa-matayo ’pare ||
In this manner, because of the diversity of their natures, the conceptions of people differ. [The conceptions] of some are received through the instructions of teachers in a paraṁparā, while others are opposed to the Vedas. SB 11.14.8
And here we see the answer. It is the vāsanās, the mental dispositions of individuals (Śrī Viśvanātha glosses prakṛti here as vāsanā), which cause the same śāstra to be interpreted differently.
Verses 11.14.5-7 explain where these dispositions arise from:
bahvyas teṣāṁ prakṛtayo rajaḥ-sattva-tamo-bhuvaḥ
Their dispositions are many, arising from rajas, sattva and tamas.
These mental dispositions are the reason for diverse interpretations of the Vedas:
yathā-prakṛti sarveṣāṁ citrā vācaḥ sravanti hi
According to their respective dispositions, diverse statements flow from them.
Śrī Viśvanātha comments:
pāramparyeṇa gurūpadeśa-paramparayā pāṣaṇḍa-matayaḥ atitamaḥ prakṛtitvāt veda-viruddhārtha-matayaḥ, tena bhāgīrathyā jalaṁ śuddhaṁ madhuram api tat-taṭa-varter aṇḍa-nimba-ciñcā-kapittha-viṣa-vṛkṣādibhiḥ sva-sva-mūla-dvārā gṛhītaṁ virasaṁ viruddha-rasaṁ ca yathā bhavet, tathaiva teṣāṁ teṣāṁ vyākhyātṝṇāṁ mukhaṁ prāpya vedārtho viraso viruddha-phala-pradaś ca bhaved iti bhāvaḥ ||8||
Pāramparyeṇa means ‘through a paramparā of instructions from guru’. Pāṣaṇḍa-matayaḥ refers to conceptions that are opposed to the Veda, because [of the] natures of extreme tamas [of those who hold them]. Even though the water of the Gaṅgā is pure and sweet, when trees on its banks, such as castor, neem, tamarind, kapittha, and poisonous trees, draw it through their own roots, it acquires unpleasant and distorted tastes. In the same way, when the meaning of the Veda comes through the mouths of different [pāsāndi] commentators, it becomes distorted and produces results opposed to the Veda.
These differing conceptions may be transmitted through a succession of teachers, while others are pāṣaṇḍa-matas, conceptions opposed to the Veda arising from extremely tāmasic dispositions. For the latter category, Śrī Viśvanātha gives a simple analogy to understand the reasons for varied opinions of those who are opposed to the Vedas. The Veda is compared to the waters of the Gaṅgā. As trees that draw the Gaṅgā water can convert that some water into varied and undesirable tastes, the same Veda can pass through the mouths of tāmasic commentators and become distorted in its meaning. And so it is that apasiddhāntas proliferate, and the meaning of even the simplest of Vedic precepts can become lost. An important example in this regard is how the word anādi, which means “without beginning”, has now come to be understood as “a long time ago”.
Bhagavān gives examples of His own–
man-māyā-mohita-dhiyaḥ puruṣāḥ puruṣarṣabha | śreyo vadanty anekāntaṁ yathā-karma yathā-ruci ||
dharmam eke yaśaś cānye kāmaṁ satyaṁ damaṁ śamam | anye vadanti svārthaṁ vā aiśvaryaṁ tyāga-bhojanam||
kecid yajñaṁ tapo dānaṁ vratāni niyamān yamān || SB 11.14.9-11.14.10O best among men, their intelligence bewildered by My māyā, men speak of the highest good in many different ways, according to their respective actions and interests. Some [say that] dharma [is the highest good], while others [say] fame, enjoyment, truthfulness, control of the senses, or control of the mind. Still others [say] that one’s own interest, lordship, renunciation or enjoyment [is the highest good]. Some [speak of] sacrifice, austerity, charity, vows, following rules and prohibitions [as the highest good].
Śrī Viśvanātha explains these different categories as follows:
dharmaṁ karma-mīmāṁsakāḥ | tad uktam,
mokṣārthī na pravarteta tatra kāmya-niṣaddhayoḥ |
nitya-naimittike kuryāt pratyavāya-jihāsayā || ity-ādi |The karma-mīmāṁsakas consider dharma [to be the highest]. As it is said: “One who desires liberation should not engage in kāmya karma and niṣiddha karma. He should perform the nitya and naimittika karma to avoid the sin [of not performing them].”
yaśaḥ kāvyālaṅkāra-kṛtaḥ | yathāhuḥ—
yāvat kīrtir manuṣyasya puṇya-lokeṣu gīyate |
tāvad varṣa-sahasrāṇi svarga-loke mahīyate || iti |The authors of alaṅkāras in poetry consider fame [to be the highest]. As it is said: “For as long as a person’s fame is sung in the planets of the pious, for that many thousands of years he is honored in heaven.”
kāmaṁ vātsyāyanādayaḥ | satyaṁ damaṁ śamam iti śānti-śāstra-kṛtaḥ | anye dṛṣṭārtha-vādino daṇḍa-nīti-kṛtaḥ | vai prasiddham | aiśvaryam eva svārthaṁ vadanti | ataḥ sāmādy-upāyā eva śreyaḥ-sādhanam iti teṣāṁ matam | tathaiva tyāgaṁ bhojanaṁ ca lokāyatikāḥ | yajñādikaṁ vaidikā niyamān yamān tapo-vratādi-niṣṭhāḥ ||10||
Vātsyāyana and others consider sensual enjoyment (kāma) [to be the highest ]. The compilers of the śānti-śāstras consider truthfulness, control of the senses, and control of the mind [to be the highest]. Others, who concern themselves with the visible benefits [of this world], who compile daṇḍa-nīti, consider power as one’s true self-interest. Consequently, they consider means such as negotiation (sāma) etc. to be the means for attaining the highest good. Similarly, the Lokāyatas advocate renunciation and enjoyment. The followers of the Veda consider yajña [as the highest], while those devoted to austerities and vows consider niyama and yama, rules and prohibitions, [as the highest].
The problem is of course that these paths bring temporary results and ultimately culminate in suffering. Bhagavān concludes–
ādy-antavanta evaiṣāṁ lokāḥ karma-vinirmitāḥ | duḥkhodarkās tamo-niṣṭhāḥ kṣudrā mandāḥ śucārpitāḥ ||
The results attained by them through these means all have a beginning and an end. They bring suffering, delusion, are insignificant and fleeting, and are full of sorrow. SB 11.14.11
Bhakti alone brings happiness, and bhakti alone is the essential meaning of the Vedas. Bhagavān explains this in verse 11.14.12:
mayy arpitātmanaḥ sabhya nirapekṣasya sarvataḥ | mayātmanā sukhaṁ yat tat kutaḥ syād viṣayātmanām ||
O noble one, one who has completely offered himself to Me and is free from all other desires experiences happiness that arises from Me who am the object of prema (ātmanā). How could such happiness be attained by those whose minds are absorbed in māyika objects? SB 11.14.12
Śrī Viśvanātha points out that here, māyika objects include even practices such as control of the mind, control of the senses, and cultivation of knowledge, because they are sāttvika and therefore within māyā.
In this way, the existence of many interpretations of śāstra does not mean that śāstra has no definite meaning, nor that all interpretations are valid. The task is to receive knowledge in an authentic paraṁparā and correctly ascertain the tātparya, the intended meaning of the speaker of the śāstra. Only then can one hope to attain the results of sādhana.
Leave a Reply