History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.359
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.359
- Language
- English
v7.c94.359.1
One of the earliest occurrences of the word *tarka* is in the Kaṭhopaniṣad²⁴¹¹ where it is declared 'This knowledge (about the Self) cannot be obtained by (mere) ratiocination' and the previous verse states that the Self is subtler than the subtlest and not capable of being understood by mere inference or reasoning. The word 'mantavyaḥ' in the passage²⁴¹² 'Ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo' (in Bṛ. Up. II. 4. 5 and IV. 5. 6) is held by the objector (in bhāṣya on V. S. I. 1. 2) and also by Śaṅkarācārya as referring to *tarka* on V. S. II. 1. 4. Tarka is accepted as an *aṅga* of Yoga in the Maitrāyaṇī Up. (vide note 2327 above), which further quotes a passage stating that by the control of speech, mind and prāṇa one apprehends *brahman* with the help of tarka.²¹¹³ The Gautamadharmasūtra²¹¹⁴ remarks 'tarka is the means for securing justice (among contending parties)'. One of the replies given by Yudhiṣṭhira to the Yakṣa guarding a lake is 'ratiocination is unstable (leads to no certain conclusions), the Vedic texts differ (among themselves), there is no single sage whose opinion is held authoritative (by people or other sages); the essence of Dharma is placed in a cave (i. e. is enveloped in darkness and cannot be seen clearly), that is the path (to be followed) by which the majority of people proceed'.²¹¹⁵ This appears to make man in the mass the ultimate tribunal on all questions of value.
v7.c94.359.2
In its peroration at the end, the Manusmṛti observes 'one who desires to secure the pure Dharma must know well the three viz. direct perception (or experience), inference, and śāstra based on various traditions; none but that man who considers the sayings of sages (i. e. the Veda), the instruction on Dharma (contained in the Smṛtis) with the help of reasoning that does not (directly) conflict with Veda and śāstras knows what Dharma is'.²¹¹⁶ This is the position of most orthodox Sanskrit writers about Tarka. Their reasoning appears to have been this. If one were to rely on mere reason, the result would be uncertainty and anarchy. Every theorist states that his system is based on reason; but the answers arrived at on the basis of reason as to questions of vital importance to ordinary men are bewilderingly different. Thinkers brought up in different environments and of different experiences have different logics and propound even different moral laws. Whom should an ordinary man follow? The Vedas and Smṛtis embody the principles of conduct in all spheres of life arrived at by eminent and selfless sages during the course of thousands of years i e. they embody the experiences and the reasonings of numerous wise men. Therefore, if a modern man says that reason leads him to hold opinions opposed to the Veda, most people are not prepared to accept a single man's opinion pitted against the views of numerous ancient sages. This point need not be elaborated further.
v7.c94.359.3
On many important questions viz. whether there is God or a Supreme Intelligence guiding the universe, or whether there is an individual self, or what the future of a man when he dies is, the wisest among men have given widely differing answers.²⁴¹⁷ On such questions final answers acceptable to all or most people cannot be given by reason alone. Though the orthodox position is as stated above, it has been shown above (e. g. on pp. 1267–1269) how Vedic practices have been discarded by the weight of popular opinion from time to time. It is laid down by Smṛti writers themselves that blindly following the words of Śāstra would lead to loss of Dharma and that in case of conflict between two Smṛtis reasoning should be resorted to and popular opinions and practices should be considered. Vide H. of Dh. vol. III, pp. 866–868 for this. The Mahābhārata enjoins²⁴¹⁸ 'one should not try to solve incomprehensible matters by ratiocination.' In the dialogue between the famished sage Viśvāmitra (who desired to eat the tail of a dog) and a cāṇḍāla the great Epic winds up by saying 'therefore a learned man whose soul is pure should act after relying on his intelligence in the matter of deciding what Dharma and adharma are'.²⁴¹⁹ It should not be supposed that Śaṅkarācārya and other great Indian writers wanted to throw reasoning overboard altogether.
v7.c94.359.4
What they emphasized was that mere reasoning of one or more men should not as a rule be followed if the conclusions arrived at by reasoning are in direct conflict with Vedic and smṛti texts. Śaṅkarācārya clearly states his position on V S II. 1. 1. and 11.²⁴²⁰ Beliefs (such as those of Jains and Buddhists) were held to be heterodox, because they did not acknowledge the authority of the Veda and the sacred tradition, though they often observed Hindu practices and married with Hindus; but within this limit there was room enough for an enormous and bewildering variety of convictions, rites and practices that claimed to be orthodox. This may be illustrated by the attitude of some Upanisads For example, the Muṇḍaka Up. (I 1. 4-5) speaks of two vidyās, *parā* and *aparā*, includes under *aparā* the four Vedas and the six *aṅgas* and *parā* (highest) *vidyā* is that by which the imperishable *brahman* is attained. In the Chān Up (VII. 1. 1-5) when Nārada approached Sanatkumāra for instruction, the former recounted what he had already learnt viz. the four Vedas, Itihāsapurāṇa and other lores; then Sanatkumāra tells him that all that he has studied is mere name and then explains what is better than all those. Muṇḍaka (I. 2 7) condemns *yajñas* as leaky vessels. It is extremely surprising that the Chān. Up. in I. 12.
v7.c94.359.5
2-5 compares the procedure of the five priests and the sacrificer touching each other and creeping from the *sadas* towards the *cātvāla* where the Bahispavamāna chant is to be sung with a procession of dogs, each dog holding the tail of the preceding dog in his mouth. Vide for the creeping of priests noiselessly and silently Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa VI. 7. 9-12 and Āp. Śrauta-sūtra XII. 17. 1-4 and H. of Dh. vol. II. pp. 1166 and 1169. Though this is so, the Upaniṣads are called Vedānta, are looked upon as orthodox and as the highest end of the Vedic religion and literature. Most ancient Upaniṣads, however, quote Vedic Saṁhitā texts as authorities For example, Bṛ. Up. I. 4. 10 and Ait. Up. II. 5 quote Ṛg. IV. 26. 1 and IV. 27. 1 respectively, Bṛ. Up. II. 5. 16-17 quote Ṛg I. 116. 12 and I. 117. 22 and Bṛ. Up II. 5. 19 cites Ṛg. VI. 47. 18; Kaṭha IV. 9 is the same as Atharvaveda X. 8. 16, Praśna I. 11 is quoted from Ṛg. I. 164. 12. The Muṇḍaka III. 2. 10 provides that brahmavidyā is to be expounded to śrotriyas (those who have studied the Veda). Herein the Upaniṣads rely upon the principle of adhikārabheda.