Corpus Ranking & Conflict Resolution

§10.1 The problem of textual conflict

The corpus is enormous and it contains statements that, taken at face value, conflict. A method that denied this would be useless. The tradition does not deny it; it ranks.

§10.2 The Prasthāna-trayī filter

All secondary literature must pass through the triple canonical filter:

• Śruti-prasthāna — the principal Upaniṣads.
• Nyāya-prasthāna — the Vedānta-sūtra of Bādarāyaṇa Vyāsa.
• Smṛti-prasthāna — the Bhagavad-gītā.

Every ācārya who founded a school commented on all three; that is what founding a school consisted of. Within the Brahma-Mādhva-Gauḍīya line the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is held to state the same conclusion in expanded form, a position argued at length by Jīva Gosvāmī in the Tattva-sandarbha.

§10.3 The canonical ranking hierarchy

1. T1 · Śruti — Upaniṣads and Saṁhitā. Highest. A direct statement here is not overturned by anything below it.
2. T2 · Vedānta-sūtra. The reasoning instrument. Determines how T1 is to be read when T1 appears to conflict with itself.
3. T3 · Bhagavad-gītā; Viṣṇu-sahasranāma. Smṛti of the highest order; treated as settling questions T1 leaves open.
4. T4 · Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this lineage, the natural commentary on T2 and the expansion of T1–T3. Where it appears to conflict with T1, the conflict is a signal to re-read, not to choose.
5. T5 · Other Purāṇa and Itihāsa. Real evidence, ranked by the guṇa classification (§10.4) and by agreement with T1–T4.
6. T6 · Āgama, Tantra, Nīti, and the technical śāstras. Authoritative within their own domain; not authoritative on tattva against T1–T4. The Bharadvāja Saṁhitā of §7.3 sits here.
7. T7 · Later works, regional literature, oral tradition. Valuable, frequently beautiful, never load-bearing for a contested tattva question.

§10.4 The guṇa classification of the Purāṇas

The Purāṇas are traditionally sorted by predominant mode — sāttvika, rājasika, tāmasika — and the sorting is standardly derived from statements in the Padma Purāṇa (Uttara-khaṇḍa 236.18–21 in the circulating vulgate; Grade C pending collation, register entry D-24). This device is used constantly and abused nearly as often, so its correct scope must be stated.

The related doctrine of asura-vimohana — that the Lord arranges bewildering presentations for those disposed to be bewildered — is subject to exactly the same restriction and for the same reason. It explains why a body of literature exists. It is not a licence to attribute bewilderment to any text one dislikes.

§10.5 The conflict protocol

When two passages appear to contradict, run this in order. Stop at the first step that resolves.

1. Verify both texts. A startling number of apparent contradictions are between a real passage and a misquotation. Check the locator in a printed edition first. This step resolves more disputes than the remaining seven combined.
2. Establish subject by the six marks (§8.2). Often the passages are not about the same thing and there is no conflict to resolve.
3. Check for arthavāda. Is one passage praise embedded in a section on another subject? Praise does not transfer subject-hood.
4. Check register (§5.2). A statement true ādhidaivika and a statement true pāramārthika are not in conflict.
5. Apply the evidence hierarchy (§8.3). Direct statement outranks contextual inference outranks name.
6. Apply the corpus ranking (§10.3). Tier governs where the marks are silent.
7. Consider audience and mode (§10.4) — as explanation of emphasis, subject to Rule C-02, never as sole dismissal.
8. If unresolved, record it as unresolved. Enter it in the open register (Appendix D) with both readings stated. Do not manufacture a resolution. An honest unresolved entry is worth more to this platform than a confident wrong one, because the first is repairable by someone else and the second is not. Manufacturing a resolution is failure mode M18.