History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c91.220

v7.c91.220

From condemning the Jainas and Bauddhas some Purāṇas, entirely unmindful of what the Gītā declared (in note 1584), proceeded so far as to say¹⁵⁹⁸ that a brāhmaṇa who is not a Vaiṣṇava is a heretic, that Viṣṇu himself assuming the form of Buddha proclaimed a false śāstra, and that all śāstras such as the Pāśupata, Vaiśeṣika of Kaṇāda, Nyāya of Gautama, Sāṅkhya of Kapila, Cārvāka of Bṛhaspati are *tāmasa*; that the *māyāvāda* (of Śaṅkara) is a false śāstra and is disguised Bauddha (doctrine) and the extensive śāstra (Pūrvamīmāṁsā) of Jaimini is condemned, since it made gods as of no use (in his system). The words of the Padma-purāṇa are, 'Listen O Goddess, while I declare to you in order the *tāmasa śāstras*, by merely remembering which even wise men become sinners. First of all I promulgated Śaiva śāstras such as the Pāśupata system; then the following were declared by brāhmaṇas that were possessed (or engrossed) by my *śakti* (power), viz Kaṇāda proclaimed the great Vaiśeṣika system, the Nyāya and Sāṅkhya systems were declared respectively by Gautama and Kapila, the much despised Cārvāka doctrine was declared by Bṛhaspati, while Viṣṇu, assuming the form of Buddha, promulgated, for bringing about the destruction of *daityas*, the false doctrine of Bauddhas that go about naked or dressed in blue garments, I myself, O goddess, assuming the form of a brāhmaṇa declared in the Kali age the false śāstras of the doctrine of Māyā which is *bauddha* in disguise. The brāhmaṇa Jaimini composed the great system of Pūrvamīmāṁsa, which is unmeaning on account of its atheistic discourse'. Vijñāna-bhikṣu in his Sāṅkhya-pravacanabhāṣya (who flourished about 1550 A. D.) quotes eleven verses from the Padma VI. 263 and holds the peculiar view that no śāstra that is *āstika* (admits a soul) is unauthoritative nor is there any contradiction, each śāstra being of full force and true in its own sphere. The original Sāṅkhya sūtra, on which he comments, tries to establish the impossible thesis that the teachings of the Sāṅkhya are not in real or irreconcilable contradiction with the doctrine of all-pervading oneness of *brahma* or with the doctrine that *brahma* is bliss (*ānanda*) or the system of theism (i. e. a personal God). Sectarian exclusiveness and bigotry went so far that the Brahmāṇḍa¹⁵⁹⁹ contains a dialogue between sage Agastya and Rāma in which it is said that the 108 names of Kṛṣṇa (who is acknowledged by all to be an incarnation of Viṣṇu) are so potent that the merit secured by repeating thrice the 1008 names of Viṣṇu is secured by repeating only once one of the 108 names (of Kṛṣṇa).¹⁶⁰⁰