Srila Jiva Gosvami’s extraordinary accomplishments in the field of grammar, poetics and philosophy earned him a distinguished position among the greatest scholars of all times. His Sat-sandarbhas are the mark that established the philosophy of Lord Caitanya as a unique vaisnava school of thought, which for the first time was being named ‘acintya-bheda-abheda-vada’. The word ‘sandarbha’ means a literary composition consisting in the arrangement or collection on a specific topic. In the beginning of the Tattva-sandarbha, Jiva explains that in its original format, the work consisted in notes written by Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami aften scrutinizingly studying the scriptures and the vaisnava commentaries. Those notes were not in any specific or systematic order, and what Jiva did was to arrange them according to different topics and fully elaborate on their explanations. The main resource used by him was the Srimad Bhagavatam, and for this reason the Sandarbhas are indeed a kind of thematic commentary on the Bhagavatam and are also known as Bhagavata-sandarbhas
The author himself also wrote a commentary on the Sat-sandarbhas, which is called ‘Sarva-samvadini’. As the name suggests, it discusses all the main philosophical views that were commonly raised in orthodox treatises, either to support one’s arguments or to defeat others. Jiva was sent to Varanasi to study, and there he became conversant with all the traditional philosophical systems of ancient and medieval Indian schools. More than in any other of his works, in the Sarva-samvadini he displays his full-fledged scholarship as a philosopher and debater, quoting from innumerable treatises and commentators. It is interesting to see how he quotes Sankara, Kumarila Bhatta, Vacaspati Misra - all renowned advaitavadis – and others to corroborate some of the arguments he propounds. This, on the one hand, evinces how there is a vast common ground that covers all different schools of Vedic thought, and on the other hand, it shows how liberal and open-minded was Jiva Gosvami to give due credit to those who are otherwise taken as rivals.
It is not clear whether Jiva was ever able to complete the commentary on all the Sandarbhas or the last portion was lost, but the fact is that in the present day only the commentary on the four first books is available. What follows is my own translation of the Sarva-samvadini on text 10 of the Tattva-sandarbha.
tatas tani na pramananity anadi-siddha-sarva-purusa-paramparasu sarva-laukikalaukika-jnana-nidanatvad aprakrta-vacana-laksano veda evasmakam sarvatita-sarvasraya-sarvacintyascarya-svabhavam vastu vividisatam pramanam ||10||
Therefore, they (direct perception, etc.) are not proper means to acquire knowledge. For us who desire to know that object whose constitutional position is beyond everything, which is the shelter of everything, and which is totally inconceivable and wonderful, only the Vedas, which are characterized by transcendental words, are the proper means, for they are the original source of all worldly and transcendental knowledge and are established in all human traditions since time immemorial.
sarva-samvadini : athaivam sabdasya pramanatve paryavasite ko’sau sabda iti vivecaniyam | tatra “bhramadi-rahitam vacah sabdah” ity anenaiva paryaptir na syat | yatha sva-mati-grhite pakse bhramadi-rahito’yam ayam eveti pratisvam mata-bhede nirnayabhavapattes tatha tasyapi sabdasya pratyaksavagamyatvena paranugatatvad apramanyapatteh | tasmad yo [sabdah] nija-nija-vidvattayai sarvair evabhyasyate, yasyadhigamena sarvesam api sarvaiva vidvatta bhavati, yat-krtayaiva parama-vidvattaya pratyaksadikam api suddham syat, yas canaditvat svayam eva siddhah, sa eva nikhilaitihya-mula-rupo maha-vakya-samudayah sabdo’tra grhyate | sa ca sastram eva | tac ca veda eva |
Now, since it has been concluded that sabda is a valid means of knowledge, it is required to discuss what sabda is. In this regard, simply by stating that sabda is the word devoid of the four defects (mistake, etc.) there would be no conclusion, for each person has his own distinct opinion and sticks to it by declaring it to be free from mistake, etc. Thus there would be no decision. Besides that, words are also apprehended by means of sense perception, and on account of being subsequent to it, they may happen to be devoid of authority. Therefore, the collection of great words that are employed by everyone to substantiate their own knowledge, by whose comprehension arises the total knowledge about everything, by means of which the acquired supreme knowledge purifies even the direct perception and the other means of knowledge, which is self established since time immemorial, and which is the root of all historical records - this is what is here accepted as sabda. Sabda is sastra, and sastra means Veda.
ya evanadi-siddhah sarva-karanasya bhagavato’nadi-siddham punah punah srsty-adau tasmad evavirbhutam apauruseyam vakyam | tad eva bhramadi-rahitam sambhavitam | tac ca sarva-janakasya tasya ca sad-upadesayavasyakam mantavyam | tad eva cavyabhicari pramanam | tac ca tat-krpaya ko’pi ko’pi grhnati | kutarka-karkasa mudha va tan na grhnantu nama, tesam aprama-padam katham apayatu ? na cesvara-vihita-vaidyakadi-sastram amatam | pramanabhavad itaravad yatiti cen, na | paresam tad-anugatatvad eva sastratva-vyavaharah | na ca buddhasyapisvaratve sati tad-vakyam ca pramanam syad iti vacyam | yena sastrena tasya isvaratvam manyamahe, tenaiva tasya daitya-mohana-sastra-karitvenoktatvat |
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is beginningless, perfect, and the cause of all causes, and from Him only emanate the beginningless, perfect, and superhuman Vedic words again and again in the beginning of every creation. Only these words can possibly be devoid of the four defects. Since the Lord is the creator of all beings, His words must be considered necessary for the good instruction of all. Only this is an infallible means for acquiring knowledge, and it is accepted by those who have received His mercy. Let the fools and those whose hearts were hardened by bad logic not accept it. How can someone remove their ignorance? The other sastras prescribed by God, such as the Ayurveda, etc. are not to be disregarded either. If someone objects that they lack authority just as other books, we say that it is not so, for they follow the Vedas and are thus commonly accepted as sastra. Nor it can be said that Lord Buddha’s words are also authoritative because he is also an incarnation of God, for the same scripture by which we accept his divinity also states that he is the compiler of a scripture meant to deceive the demons.
atra [vedasya pramanya-visaye] vacaspatis caivam aha [sankara-bhasya-bhamati-tikayam upodghate]—“na ca jyestha-[agrajata]-pramana-pratyaksa-virodhad amnayasyaiva tad-apeksasyapramanyam upacaritarthatvam veti yuktam | asyapauruseyataya nirasta-samasta-dosasankasya bodhakataya ca svatah-siddha-pramana-bhavasya sva-karye pramitau paranapeksatvat | pramitav anapeksatve’py utpattau pratyaksapeksatvat tad-virodhad anutpatti-laksanam asyapramanyam iti cet, na utpadakapratidvandvitvat |
Regarding the authority of the Vedas, Vacaspati Misra speaks the following words in the introduction of his ‘Bhamati’ sub-commentary on Sankara-bhasya: “It is not correct to say that the Vedic words are devoid of authority or have secondary meanings because they contradict direct perception, which precedes them and upon which they depend, for the Vedas are superhuman and impart knowledge devoid of all defects and doubts, and being a self established evidence, they have valid knowledge as their natural product, not depending on any other means. If someone objects that spite their independence in producing valid knowledge, they depend on direct perception as a means for its generation, and therefore they are not authoritative, for upon contradicting direct perception the Vedic words would fail to produce valid knowledge, the answer is that it is not so, for the Vedas produce knowledge devoid of any contradiction.
na hy agama-jnanam samvyavaharikam pratyaksasya pramanyam upahanti, yena karanabhavan na bhaved api tu tattvikam | na ca tattvikam tasyotpadakam atattvika-pramana-bhavebhyo’pi samvyavaharikebhyah [pramanebhyah] tattva-jnanotpatti-darsanat | yatha varne hrasva-dirghatvadayo’nya-dharma api samaropitas tattva-pratipatti-hetavah | na hi laukika naga iti va, nagah iti va padat kunjaram va tarum va pratipadyamana bhavanti bhrantah | na cananya-param vakyam svarthe upacaritartham kartum yuktam | uktam hi—na vidhau parah sabdarthah iti | jyesthatvam [agra-jatatvam] canapeksitasya badhyatve hetur na tu badhakatve, rajata-jnanasya jyayasah sukti-jnanena kaniyasa badha-darsanat | tad-anapabadhane tad-apabadhatmanas tasyotpatter anupapattih | darsitam ca tattvika-pramana-bhavasyanapeksitatvam | tatha ca paramarsam sutram— paurvaparye purva-daurbalyam prakrtivat [pu.mi. 6.5.54] iti | tatha—
purvat para-baliyastvam tatra nama pratiyatam |
anyonya-nirapeksanam yatra janma dhiyam bhavet || [ta.va. 3.3.2] iti ||”
“Nor does the scriptural knowledge hinder the authority of the empirical direct perception of ordinary life, in whose absence no real knowledge would be produced at all. Nor can the real knowledge derived from direct perception be the cause of Vedic knowledge, for we see that even empirical means that lack substance also produce real knowledge. For example, the quality of long or short duration is an attribute imposed on the letters and thus become causes of real knowledge. Common people do not become confused when the word ‘nAga’ is used for ‘elephant’, and the word ‘naga’ is used for ‘tree’. It is also not appropriate that a statement that has no other meaning be interpreted in a secondary sense besides its own primary meaning. It is said: na vidhau parah sabdarthah- ‘In a Vedic injunction there should be no other word meaning than the one intended.’ The quality of direct perception as a preceding means can be the cause of an undesired perception being contradicted, but not the very cause of the contradiction (the fact that pratyaksa precedes cognizance can eventually lead to misapprehension, but this itself does cause it), just as we see that the subsequent perception of an oyster shell contradicts the preceding misapprehension of it as being silver. If the preceding misapprehension is not contradicted, then the subsequent correct apprehension of what is contradicting it would not arise. It was already demonstrated that the real means of knowledge does not depend on any other means. As stated by the great sage Jaimini in his Mimamsa-sutras (6.5.54): ‘paurvaparye purva-daurbalyam prakrtivat’- ‘When there are two consecutive injunctions, the previous one is weaken, as in the case of the prakrti sacrifice.’
Kumarila Bhatta confirms it in his Tantra-vartika (3.3.2) : ‘When a preceding and a subsequent cognizance are independent of each other, the latter should indeed be recognized as stronger than the former.” (end of Vacaspati’s quotation)
atra samvyavaharikam iti sarvatrikam eva vyavaharikam iti jneyam | kvacid upamardasya [arvacina-jnanasya] darsitatvad eva sastratva-vyavaharah | drsyate canyatra—suryadi-mandalasya suksmataya pratyaksikrtir apy anumana-sabdabhyam badhita bhavatiti durastha-vastunas tadrsataya [sthulasya suksmataya] drstatvac chastra-prasiddhatvac ca | tad evam sthite sri-vaisnavas tv eva vadanti | vedasya na prakrta-pratyaksadivad avidyavad visaya-matratvena yavad evavidya tavad eva tad-vyavaharah | sati vyavahare pramanyam ceti mantavyam, apauruseyatvan nityatvat, sarva-mukty-eka-kalabhavena [sarvesam jivan-muktanam yavat sadyo-videha-muktih prapance avasthane] tad-adhikarinam satatastitvat, paramesvara-prasadena paramesvaravad evavidyatitanam cic-chakty-eka-vibhavanam atmaramanam parsadanam api brahmanandoparicara-bhakti-paramanandena samadi-parayanader darsayisyamanatvat, srimat-paramesvarasya sva-veda-maryadam avalambyaiva muhuh srsty-adi-pravartakatvac ca | yesam tu purusa-jnana-kalpitam eva vedadikam sarvam dvaitam, tesam apauruseyatvabhavat tata eva bhramadi-sambhavat svapna-pralapavad-vyavahara-siddhav api pramanyam nopapadyata iti tan-matam avaidika-visesa iti |
Here the word ‘samvyavaharikam’ should be understood as ‘what is commonly experienced in ordinary life’. Because the scriptures sometimes demonstrate the suppression of the previous apprehension, they are designated as ‘sastra’. It is also seen in other instances that the perception of the sun globe and other celestial bodies as being small is contradicted by inference and sabda, for it is observed that a large object situated at a long distance appears to be small, and because their real dimensions are well known in the scriptures. Being so, the glorious devotees of Lord Visnu declare that the Vedas do not merely deal with objects that are the product of ignorance, as those apprehended by mundane direct perception and inference, for as long as there is ignorance, so long one will be engaged in it. The Vedas being applied even in ordinary life, their authoritativeness must admitted, for they are superhuman and eternal, and because there are always persons who are eligible to study them, as they do not attain final liberation all at the same time. As it will be shown later on, those who by the mercy of the Supreme Lord are beyond ignorance just like Him and enjoy the very same spiritual opulence created by His energy, who rejoice within themselves with the blissfulness of devotional service, which is above even the bliss of the impersonal liberation, they also engage in reciting the Sama Veda, etc. It is also a fact that the very Supreme Personality of Godhead also repeatedly performs the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the cosmos abiding by the tenets of the Vedas, which emanate from Him. As for those who consider the Vedas and other sastras as man-made imaginative knowledge full of dualities, they do not accept them as authority even in accomplishing ordinary affairs, just like words spoken in dreams, for they do not see them as superhuman, and thus conclude that they possibly have the four defects. This is another kind of non-Vedic view.
nanv arvag-jana-samvadadi-darsanat katham tasyanaditvady ucyate—ata eva ca nityatvam [ve.su. 1.3.29] ity atra sutre sankara-sariraka-bhasya-pramanitayam srutau sruyate—yajnena vacah padaviyam ayan tam anvavindy rsisu pravistam [r.ve. 10.71.3] iti | smrtau ca—
yugante 'ntarhitan vedan setihasan maharsayah |
lebhire tapasa purvam anujnatah svayambhuva || [ma.bha. 12.203.17] iti |
Someone may object that since we see things like the narrations and conversations of recent personalities (like the demigods and sages) therein, how can the Vedas exist since time immemorial, be superhuman, etc? In reply to this, the Vedanta-sutras (1.3.29) state: ata eva ca nityatvam, “Therefore the eternity of the Vedas is established.” In the commentary to this sutra, Sankaracarya quotes the evidence from the sruti: yajnena vacah padaviyam ayan tam anvavindy rsisu pravistam(Rg Veda, 10.71.3), “Through sacrifice they found the path of the Vedic words, which were within the sages, and carried them.” In the smrti it is also said: “Being first instructed by Lord Brahma, by the performance of penances the great sages obtained the Vedas, which had disappeared the end of the yuga.” [ma.bha. 12.203.17]
tasman nitya-siddhasyaiva veda-sabdasya tatra tatra pravesa eva, na tu tat-kartrkata | tatha canadi-siddha-vedanurupaiva pratikalpam tat-tan-namadi-pravrttih | tatha hi—samana-nama-rupatvac cavrttav apy avirodho darsanat smrtes ca [ve.su. 1.3.30] ity atra tattva-vada-bhasya-krdbhih sri-madhvacaryair udahrta srutih | suryacandramasau dhata yatha-purvam akalpayat [r.ve. 10.190],
yathaiva niyamah kale suradi-niyamas tatha |
tasman nanidrsam kvapi visvam etad bhavisyati || iti |
smrtis ca—
anadi-nidhana nitya vag utsrsta svayambhuva |
adau veda-mayi divya yatah sarvah pravrttayah ||
rsinam namadheyani yas ca vedesu srstayah |
veda-sabdebhya evadau nirmame sa mahesvarah || [ma.bha. 12.217.49]
Therefore the eternal and perfect Vedic words are simply introduced at particular times, but they never have an author. Similarly, the appearance of the respective names and forms of all created things and beings in every kalpa is also according the very same eternal and perfect Vedas. As the Vedanta-sutras[1.3.30] state: “The very same names and forms are repeatedly manifested without any contradiction. This is proved by the sruti and smrti.” In connection to this sutra, in his commentary defending the tattva-vada, Madhvacarya quotes the sruti: “The creator created the sun and the moon exactly as they were in the previous creation.” [RgVeda, 10.190], “Just as there is a law ruling over time, so there is a law ruling over the demigods and everything. Therefore this universe will never become at all different than what it is.” In the Mahabharata (12.217.49) is it said: “The eternal Vedic words have no beginning or end, and they were first transmitted by self-manifested Supreme Lord. In the beginning there was the transcendental sound of the Vedas, from which everything began. The created things and the names of the sages are all mentioned in the Vedas. In the beginning, the Supreme Lord engaged in creation through the words of the Vedas.”
atra sabda-purvaka-srsti-prakrame srutis cadvaita-sariraka-bhasye darsita—eta iti vai prajapatir devan asrjata, asrgram iti manusyan indava iti pitrn ity adika | tatha sa bhur iti vyaharat sa bhumim asrjata [tai.bra. 2.22] ity adika ca | tatha sri-ramanuja-saririke (1.3.27) darsita ca—vedena nama-rupe vyakarot satasati prajapatih iti | ata evautpattike sabdasyarthena sambandhe samasrite nirapeksam eva vedasya pramanyam matam | sabda iti cen natah prabhavat prayaksanumanabhyam ity atra samvadadi-rupa-prakriya tu srotr-bodha-saukarya-kariti samanjasyam eva bhajate | tasmad vedakhyam sastram pramanam tat-tal-laksana-hinatvat tad-viruddhatvac cavaidika tu sastram na pramanam ||10||
In connection to the gradual process of creation with the Vedic words, Sankaracarya quotes the following passage from the sruti (Panca-vimsati Brahmana, 6.9.15): "Pronouncing the word ‘ete’, Lord Brahma created the demigods. Pronouncing the word ‘asrgram’, he created the human beings. Pronouncing the word ‘indava’, he created the forefathers.” It is also stated in the Taittiriya Brahmana (2.22): “Lord Brahma uttered the word ‘bhur’ and thus created the earth.” In his commentary on the Brahma-sutras, Ramanujacarya quotes the Taittiriya Brahmana (6.8): “By the Vedas, Lord Brahma created all true and false names and forms.” Therefore, the Vedas are considered an independent authority, for in them the meanings and the words are intrinsically related to each other. The Vedanta-sutra (1.3.28) says that “if it be said that the words of the Vedas are non-eternal because they contain names of temporary personalities like the demigods, the answer is that it is no so, for their creation is made with the Vedic words, and both the sruti and smrti confirm it”. Here it is appropriate to say that the conversations and narrations in the Vedas are means for making them easier for the hearer to understand. Therefore, the scriptures called Vedas are authoritative, but not the non-Vedic texts, which are devoid of the characteristics of the Vedas and contradict them.
