When we accept
the existence of God as a knowable Being, the next inquiry should be regarding
the efficacy of the means to ascertain any positive knowledge about Him. To
clearly specify the authentic means for progressing in the path of Brahman
realization, Śrīla Bādarāyaṇa in the very beginning of his Vedānta treatise
declares that śāstra is the only way by which one can research about the
Supreme. The central idea from the Vaiṣṇava perspective is that God is a
person, and this implies that He possesses innumerable transcendental
attributes which are manifested according to His supreme will. Being so, Lord Kṛṣṇa
reserves the right to make the rules for creation, maintenance and annihilation
of the material world, as well as the proper means to get rid of it and attain
pure love for Him. The Vedas are the emanation of the Supreme Lord’s breath,
therefore apauruṣeya or divine. The smṛti and the Vedānta are all compiled by
the Lord Himself in the form of Dvaipāyana Vyāsa and thus there is no question of flaws in the
scriptures, although one may find apparent contradictions from the mundane
perspective, which can ultimately be reconciled through the lucid
interpretation of the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas. There are several means for acquiring
knowledge, but śabda-pramāṇa is the one chosen and given by God for those who
desire to obtain knowledge about Him, and accepting this fact is the first step
towards the comprehension of the final goal presented in all scriptures. Why is
it so? Why not by other means, which might be more appealing to some people or
can make more sense to others? Again, because God is a person and He decided
that this is the way. Therefore, at least theoretically one should take to this
principle from the very outset to be able to delve deeply into the conclusive
Vedic knowledge. This is not an exclusive or innovative creed adopted in India,
for the Christians and the Muslims similarly accept the bible and the Koran as
the words of God or the scriptures composed through divine inspiration, and
give proper value to revelation in their theological systems. Moreover, unless
we take to this conclusion, words like ‘aupaniṣada’ (the One Who is known
through the Upaniṣads) would become meaningless.
Then, what is
the relevance of the reasoning power, such as that used in logical inference?
That is relevant as far as it is subordinated to śabda, as the smṛti states :
pūrvottarāvirodhena
ko’trārtho’bhimato bhavet
ity ādyam ūhanaṁ
tarkaḥ śuṣka-tarkaṁ tu varjayet
“Without contradicting the
previous and subsequent statements, what must be the intended meaning in this
scriptural passage?— Such deliberation is real logic. Mere dry logic should be
given up.”
Here, dry logic refers to the
process by which one tends to draw conclusions based on premises proceeding
from one’s own mental speculation or external perception instead of those
clearly defined by the scriptures.
If we thus accept the scriptural statements
about God as the definite and flawless description of Him, then we have to
accept His transcendental form, qualities, names, entourage, omnipotence,
omniscience, etc. and worship Him accordingly, for the śastras abound in such
descriptions.
