Introduction to Shudda-advaita Darshan 3 страница

Asadvyapadeshadhikaran further removes the misunderstanding arising from the word Asat in Asadwa Idamangna Aasita. The word Asat must not be construed so as to derive from it the sense of Asatva of Karya. The real sense that can be attached to it is that of Avyakrutatva. The shruti does not mean “It was non-existent before’ but “It was unmanifest”. This sense is derived by connecting it with the remaining part of the sentence. This sentence unequivocably declares that Brahman has manifested itself its own form in the universe. This is stated in 2-1-

17. The point is made more explicit by citing an analogous case of Pat. So long Pat is folded, we can not possess definite knowledge about it; i. e. how long and broad it is. But if it be spread broadly we can know these details. In the same way, so long universe is latent in Brahman, we do not become conscious of its existence, but when it is revealed, we know it exactly what it is. So here the existence of the universe is regulated by certain miraculous powers of Brahman namely, powers of revelation and non-revelation. The universe before its existence was latent in Brahman; but when Brahman wills to evolve it out for its sport, it through the instrumentality of its power known as ‘revelation’ this. Therefore, does not prove that it is not real. The word Asat is used in the sense of Avvyakrut, unrevealed, it refers to the condition prior to the revelation of Jagat from Brahman. It has nothing to do with the cognition of falsity of Jagat.

If it is argued, that Brahman alone can not be a cause of the universe; because there is an expectancy of other auxillary causes; as in the case of a jar, a potter stands in need of such auxillary causes, as a wheel, a stick etc. Against this, the Sutrakara cites an analogous case of milk. He says that just as milk, while getting itself converted into the form of “Curds” does so if its own accord, without an expectancy of any other means, in the same way, Brahman also while itself getting transformed into the form of jagat, does not stand in need of any other help. In DevadiDevapi Loke 2-2-25 he expounds the same truth. In the world, we see that the gods and the yogis perform wonders by means of their own powers, without being helped by others. If this is the case with Gods and Yogis, then what wonder is there if an extraordinarily wonderful power of creating everything out of itself, unaided by others should be possessed by Brahman?

Brahman is endowed with all the powers. Nothing is wanting in Brahm. The Shruti Chandogya 3-14-2 declares Brahm to be everything. The sutra 2-1-30 is expressly clear on the Sardharmatva of Brahm. Not should it be said that as Brahman is destitute of senses, no Kartrutva must belong to it; because this point is already solved in 2-1-27. The Sutrakara bases all his evidence upon the authority furnished from Shrutis. He refuses to believe in evidence other then that of Shruti. The Shruti’s declare repeatedly that Brahm is Kartru. On the strength of the scriptural evidence we must admit the reality of the world.

On the strength of the authority of the Vedic passages and the Brahma Sutras, Vallabhacharya believes the world to be the Karya of God. This is summarized in v 27 in the line Prapancho Bhagavatkaryastadrupo Maayayabhavat. The world is the creation of Brahman. So Brahman is an efficient cause. This is explained clearly in his gloss Ayam Prapancho Na Prakrutah.. Not only that it is the work of Brahman, but it partakes of the nature of Brahman. This is so; because Brahman has manifested itself in the form of the world. In other words the world is the visible form of Invisible Brahman. It is a material cause also. To suggest this, the word Tadrup is used in the verse. If the nature of the world (i. e. effect) is not the same as that of Brahman (i. e. cause) then the existent might emanate from the non-existent. The question here arises, granted that the world is the work of Brahman how can such a world i. e. a finite and limited be created from one who is Beginningless and infinite. The answer is furnished by the word Mayaya in the verse. It is through the instrumentality of Maya, that this world has been brought out by Brahman. But what is this Maya? Is it jugglery? If it is so, then, the world being the creation of Maya, will be unreal. Shankaracharya understands the word Maya in the sense of jugglery, but Shree Vallabhacharya says that it is wrong to characterize Maya as jugglery. Maya is nothing but one of the powers of Brahman and it is subject to the will of Brahman. Whenever Brahman wills to create the world out of itself for its sport, It manifests the world by means of Maya i. e. Power. So, whenever out author uses the word Maya, it should be understood in the sense of power of Brahman, which is capable of assuming any form according to Brahman’s volition. The purpose of Brahman’s creation is for sport (pleasure).

In the second place, in the second line of the same verse, our author differentiates jagat ‘world’ from Samsar ‘metempsychosis’. These two are often identified with each other by some thinkers but it is wrong. There is a difference between Jagat and Samsar. The Samsar is the work of the human soul owing its existence to nescience. Due to nescience the soul forgets her real nature and also relation with Brahman, and consequently imagines herself as the door. Whenever a man does anything, he feels in his mind that it is done by him independently of any one. Thus he attaches much importance to himself, forgetting the Divine power who is above him. Whenever he gets or acquires, anything he thinks it is due to his efforts and skill. This is because he is under influence of nescience. This nescience is also Brahman’s power. In fact, Brahman is the doer of everything, but as stated above, the man is so overpowered by nescience, that he wants to take credit upon himself for everything which is done by him, which in fact is due to the divine will. So Prapanch is due to Maya and Samsar is to nescience. Our author elucidates the difference between the two below:

We learn that, it is Samsar which is unreal and not jagat. Jagat as said above is the work of Brahman, who creates it for its pleasure. Without diversity, pleasure is not possible. So the various objects and souls are created. Again the souls are subjected to the influence of nescience, so that they experience the condition of metempsychosis. When they realize their real form and relation of Brahman, by means of knowledge, nescience is removed and metempsychosis is destroyed. Thus samsar has Uttpatti origination and Lay destruction; whereas jagat has only Avirbhav manifestation and Tirobhav disappearance. Samsar has its end, but jagat has no end. The withdrawing of Jagat in Brahman is called an end but really speaking it is no one way of Brahman to indulge in sport. Just as it creates the world for its sport, so also it withdraws it into Itself for its sport. The first is the external sport i. e. sport into its visible form, ‘world’. The second is internal form i. e. in its invisible form. Our author thus attempts to give us an idea of Brahman, by a method known as “Karya Lakshana’. But the karya lakshana does not enable a man to have any clear idea about the real nature of Brahman. Because it is only an indirect way of describing it so he makes an attempt to describe Brahm by Swaroop Lakshana also Verse 25-26, describes Brahman’s original form. There is it said Brahman is all-pervading like the sky. It is enveloped by its maya. It is Saakar because it has limbs such as hands, feet, eyes and mouths in all directions. It stands pervading everything. It has infinite forms. Though it assumes infinite forms, itself is indivisible. Brahman is possessed of three qualities Sat, Chit and anand. From the Sat part emerges the world, from chit the human souls and from anand, the antaryamin. In the world, Chit and anand are not revealed and in the human souls, anand is not revealed. In the Antaryamin form, although anand is revealed, it is only in a limited measure. In fact, the Brahman reveals Itself under the forms viz world, human souls and the inner souls.

In verses 31 to 33, the effects of two powers viz knowledge and nescience are mentioned. In the first place it should be clearly understood that they are the powers of God created by his own power only. Under the influence of nescience the souls suffer humiliation, misery and state of bondage. Under the influence of the knowledge power, they get freedom from all kinds of wordly ills and realize the oneness of God. In the state of devotion, neither knowledge nor nescience can exercise their influence upon the souls. Then they become functionless. In that condition, they experience the bliss of Brahmanand which is higher then freedom.

Nescience (Avidhya):

Nescience has five constituents, each one of which is called Adhyas. They are Dehadhyas, Indriyadhyas, Pranadhyas, Antahkaranadhyas, and Swaroop Vismruti. Adhyas means superimposition. When one thing is imposed on another, it is called super-imposition. Nescience creates such illusion on the soul, that the soulm who in fact is a part and parcel of Brahman, forgets her own real form and identifies herself with the body, the senses breath, and the inner organ and forgets away her entire nature. Under the influence of Dehadhyas, the soul thinks that she is body. That is one kind of ignorance. Due to this, the man will say, ‘I am fat or I am thin’. Really speaking fatness or thinness pertains to the body but the soul thinks that it belongs to her. Similarly when one says ‘I am blind or I am deaf’ the quality of blindness or deafness that pertains to senses is attributed to the soul. The ultimate result of nescience is to make the soul completely forget him. These Adhyasas are the chains forged by nescience to keep the soul imprisoned in the wordly state. So long these chains are not broken; freedom cannot be secured by the soul. The chains are to be broken by knowledge. Knowledge will not destroy the nescience and show the path of freedom but it will also break the shell of the adhyasas.

Knowledge also has five constituents, namely renunciation, knowledge, discipline, penance and devotion. Renunciation means aversion to worldly pleasures. Knowledge is explained as “Nitya-anitya Vastu Vivek Purvakam Parityag” i. e. abandonment of things, accompanied by discrimination of the permanent from the non-permanent. Discipline is Ekante-ashtang yog and Tapah is ‘VicharPurvakamalochana” i. e. meditating upon God or it is Ekagrasthiti i. e. the state of concentration. Devotion is love. Each one of these masks a stage in the advance on the path of progress. In the first stage of knowledge, the man learns futility of the worldly pleasures, and so grows averse to them. Then he does know what is worth having and what is not worth having. Only those things which are of permanent value are worth having to him. He will therefore set his mind upon such things only i. e. he will prefer spiritual life to the life of the worldly pleasures. This way he endeavours to control the minds. When the mind is perfectly controlled, he will concentrate his mind upon the Lord. After that in the last stage he loves God. The stage of love is the last phase of knowledge. Then the knowledge is complete. Such knowledge will remove nescience and make the soul free from metempyschosis.

It is said that as the world has emanated from Brahman so the souls have emanated from Brahman. The human soul is infinitesimally small. Like perfume it pervades the whole body. Ordinarily it is atomic but when it acquires likeliness of Brahman, it becomes all pervading. The main characteristics of the soul are discussed fully in the Brahma sutras. We give below what Vallabhcharayaji says there about the nature and size of the soul and its relation to Brahman.

The objector again challenges the argument of Jiva’s Anutva on the ground of Tatvamasi. In this, the identity between human soul and Brahman is established by resorting to what is called Bhagtyaaglakshana. The objector’s point is that, if the identity of Jiva with Brahm becomes obvious from this, how can Jiva be regarded atomic? This objection is removed by the Sutrakara in 2-3-29. The identity expressed in Tatvamasi relates to their Guna’s. The prominent quality of Brahm is Anand. The Jiva has this quality latent in it. When this particular quality becomes manifest in Jiva, it acquires the position in which it resembles Brahman. This is what is meant by Tatvamasi. It is the quintessence of their Guna’s that is mentioned here. The sutra 2-3-30 says the same thing. It is true that Jiva itself has got no anand in the state of worldly existence. But this does not mean that it is bereft of it altogether. The quality of anand is therem but it is not manifest. As Pumsatva of a man, which is latent in his childhood becomes patent in its advanced condition when it once more becomes part and parcel of Brahman. This point is expressed in 2-3-31. If, however, it is argued that even in the condition of mundane existence, Jiva has got this anand, there; we must admit that this anand does always exist. In that case, nobody can deny its existence. The admission of such an argument will conduce us to draw further conclusion that, if it is so, then there will be no metempsychosis at all. In the absence of metempsychosis, there will be no stage of emancipation. So it must be admitted that jiva does not possess anand. It is the chief attribute of Brahm. In other words jiva is Brahm minus Anand.

Next the question of Jiva’s kartrutva is considered. We have seen above that according to Samkhyas, activity belongs only to Prakriti; but this theory of the Samkhyas is refuted by the Sutrakara in the first pada of 2nd chapter. Here he declares that the quality of activity is to be associated with Jiva.

Relation between Jiva and Brahman:

1. Jiva is a portion of Brahm. It should not be doubted that as Brahm is Niravaya, Jiva cannot be its part. Brahman’s form is not like worldly forms. The Shrutis do not assert that Brahm is formless. On the contrary they say that Brahm has a form which differs from those of ordinary beings, whose forms are composed of bones, blood, skin etc. Brahm’s form consists of Anand. And as Anand, it is sakar. This is the meaning of Nirakar and Sakar Shruti’s. So no contradiction appears in saying that Jiva is a part of Brahm. This may again be disputed on the supposition that, if it be so believed in, then there will be no difference between Jiva and Brahman. This is also answered by the fact that, even though Jiva is a part of Brahm, in Jiva state of metempsychosis, he differs from Brahman because Jiva in its latter condition, after its separation from Brahman, does not possess Anand, as patent as in the case of Brahm. This Amsatva of Jiva is emphasized by the Sutrakara in 23-43.

2. Another objection to the Amsatva of Jiva of that, if Jiva is a Part of Brahman, then, the misery and unhappiness of Jiva will make Brahm also miserable and unhappy. It is the common experience of all persons that if a part is affected, then, the whole of which it forms a part is also affected. If a foot receives injury, will not the body suffer? The sutrakara allows the legality of this objection, but to strengthen his position, he cites a case of Prakash light. We know that heart of a lamp causes burning sensation in others but itself

is immune from this effect. In the same way, Brahm is free from the experience of misery and unhappiness. Just as any Dosh in Prakash does not affect it, in the same way the Dosh of Jiva, which is a portion of Brahm does not affect Brahm. This point is cleared in B. S. 2-3-25.

3. The upholders of the Maya doctrine regard the soul as phenomenal appearance or reflection of Brahman. But that is not Vallabhacharyaji’s view. According to him, it is a part of Brahman. In the Avaran Bhang commentary, 6 views among the holders of the reflection theory are indicated and refuted. These six views may be indicated briefly as under: -

a. Prakriti has two aspects: - Maya and Avidya. The reflection of Chaitanya in Maya is called Ishwar and that in Avidya nescience is called Jiva.

b. Prakriti is Trigunatmika. Its form Maya is Satva Pradhan and Avidya is Rajstham Pradhan. The reflection of Chaitanya in Maya is Ishwar and that in Avidya is called Jiva.

c. Prakriti is possessed of 2 powers- one is called Vikshep Shakti: The power of projecting and the other Avran Shakti: the power of obscuring. The first is called Maya and the reflection of Brahm into it is called Ishwar. The second is called Avidya and the reflection of Chaitanya into it is called Jiva.

d. The reflection of Chaitanya in Avidya is called Ishwar and that in Antahkaran is called Jiva.

e. The reflection of Chaitanya of Maya is Ishwar and that in Antahkaran is Jiva.

f. The reflection of Chaitanya in Avidya is Jiva.

All these theories have been refuted by Purushottamji. Shri Vallabhcharya repudiates all these theories by only one sentence “MayaJavNikacchaanna Naananya Pratimbimbate”. A veiled object cannot have reflection. Brahman, according to the assumption of the Mayavadin is veiled by Maya. So he cannot have reflection. Moreover, the object which is to be reflected requires some space in which it should be reflected although the place where the object is located, cannot give reflection. Brahm is everywhere. There is no place without Brahm. When there is no empty space without Brahm, there can be no reflection of Brahm. If against this, it is said that the sky stands above us pervading all things and yet it is reflected in waters. The sky is not located in one place. To this, the author replies, the reflection of the sky is possible, because waters are not in the sky. Really speaking even here it is not the reflection of the sky, which has got a definite Rup. Brahman, according to Mayavada is formless. And it is the law of reflection that only an object which has shape or form should be reflected.

So Brahman cannot throw reflection into Maya. Again, according to the Shruti passage Dwasuparna, Brahman and Jeeva are like two brids perched upon on bough, i. e. they have one place. No object can cast its reflection in the very place in which it is located. So jiva cannot be Brahman’s reflection. Again reflection is perceptible to the eyes, but Brahman, whose reflection is supposed to be Jiva, is not perceptible to the eyes but Brahman, whose reflection is supposed to be Jiva, is not perceptible to the eyes. It is adrushya and not Chakshurgrahya. Moreover, reflection can only reveal the form of the object and not its action.

Having rendered the reflection theory null and void, our author proves that Brahm is the material cause of the world and the souls.

So on such grounds the reflection theory is discarded by our author. The world and the souls have emanated from Brahman. Therefore Brahman is the cause and the world and the souls are its effects. To say that Brahman is a material cause does not give us adequate idea bout the very form of Brahman. So our author gives Swaroop lakshana of Brahman in verses 65, 66 and 67. There, it is said that Brahm’s form consists of existence, consciousness and bliss. Brahm is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, changeless, and destitute of merits, devoid of any kind of Distinctions etc.

Branches, leaves, flowers and fruits are the various distinctions appearing in a tree. They are SwagatBheda. Although they exist in one and the same tree, still, the branches are different from leaves etc. but such distinctions do not exist in Brahman. Similarly there are no distinctions of the class (Sajatiyabheda). One tree is different from another tree, although belonging to the same species. But in Brahman, there are no such distinctions, because Brahman is one in all the souls. It is also devoid of the Vijaatiyabhed. A mango tree is a tree and a nimb tree is also a tree, but both these trees do not belong to the same class. The material objects i. e. Jad padarthas are different from souls (Chit). But both these are the forms of Brahman. In fact no differences exist in Brahman. So Brahman is SajatiyaVijaatiyaSwagatadwaitaVarjit. Further, it is said that it is a substratum of all, and different from all worldly objects. It is the master of Prakriti and Spirit etc.

Brahman according to Vallabhacharya is not Nirguna and Nirakar. Shankarcharya considers Nirgun Brahmn as the higher entity and Saguna Brahm as lower entity. Thus he differentiates between two kinds of Brahman. Saguna Brahm in his system is meant for worship only till the state of knowledge is reached. After the state of knowledge Saguna Brahm is no longer needed. Vallabhacharya has only one conception of Brahm. His Brahm is both Nirguna and Saguna. It is niguna because of devoid of wordly qualities and it is saguna because it is possessed of divine qualities. Similarly Brahm is Nirakar and Sakar. Its form is made of Bliss. It has the limbs like hands, feet etc. but they are all bliss. This apparent contradiction between two kinds of Brahman is removed by Vallabhacharya in his commentary called Anubhasya on Brahma Sutras. Here we shall give its gist.

“The fourth adhikaran considers the form of Brahman. Primafacia, an attempt is made to reconcile the conflicting statements on the subject of the form of Brahman and pronounce uncontroversial judgement upon them, revealing the true nature of Brahman. As Brahman is the cause of everything, two fold nature of Brahman is not possible. Everywhere only one Brahman is described. Nor should it be said that Prapanch Rahit Brahm and Prapanch Sahit Brahm are two distinct ones. Kath. 4-1-1 lays down the prohibition of difference. The followers of certain shakhas are however of opinion that these conflicting statements point out that outwardly we perceive difference but really speaking such a difference does not exist.

Illustration of “Sun’s light” serves very good analogy for a right explanation of the nature of Brahman. Just as Sun’s light is both the object of cognition and of non-conginition, so is Brahman. Brahman reveals its nature unto us by means of Its grace and not otherwise. Should any one argue on the strength of Shruti (Gha. 4-5-13) that according to this, Brahman’s form is “PragyaGhana” i. e. “Embued with knowledge” and therefore the attributes of Jada and Jiva are not found in Brahman; and consequently the statement regarding Brahman’s being possessed of the attributes of Prapanch is subsidiary only. This argument is answered in the next adhikarana. The attributes such as “Sarvakamatva” etc are not due to “UPadhi”. Brahman being a substratum of all contrary qualities, It does not need anything. The question then here arises, how to explain the contrast between “NishPrapanch” or “Nirvishesh Shruti’s” and “Saprapanch” or “Savishesh Shrutis”? The Sutrakara attempts the solution of this puzzle in 3-2-22. Here he says that the object of the Nirvishesh Shruti’s is the negation of worldly qualities. The object of the Nirvishesh Shruti’s is not to convey to us the entire negation of any form or qualities in the case of Brahman. Their implication is that Brahman has no worldly form or qualities. This does not mean Brahman has no form. It has got a form; but it is divine and transcendental. The Shruti passages have to be understood in this sense only.

In the next adhikarana the same point is further stressed. As Brahman is capable of being seen, one cannot hold that it is Nirakar. Shruti and Smruti passages declare that Brahman’s form is seen by its votaries “Yamevaish Vrunute Tem Labhyaha” (Mundak. 3-2-3). Bhagwad Geeta (1114), Bhagwad Geeta (11-54). In all these passages, it is said that if Brahman is pleased with the votary, It reveals its form to him. This goes to prove that Brahm possesses form. The Sutra (3-22) sums the controversy, the two kinds of Brahman, by an apt illustration of a serpent. It informs us that because two kinds of Shruti’s, of opposite character are met with, in the Vedic text; we should not suppose that there is an express exhortation made about two Brahmans. Inspite of this, they favour the doctrine of Brahman being one. The confusion of sense arising here can be removed by understanding the example of a serpent. A serpent is ordinarily straight, yet at times, it assumes circular form by twisting itself into many coils. It assumes various positions-straight, crooked or circular. This does not prove that, there are many serpents. Similarly Brahm may assume many forms and changes, yet from that we are not justified to draw deduction that there are many Brahmanas. The descriptions of both Nirvishesh and Savishesh Brahma’s apply to one Brahm. Brahm who is both Nirakar and Sakar is one and the same. Not only this, but even the attributes of Brahm are also Brahm. They are not separate from it. The 10th adhikarana, on the strength of these reasons propounds that Brahman is the highest entity. The Shruti expressly denies the existence of any other object, higher than or equal of Brahman.

Work, Knowledge and Devotion:

Let us now turn to the question of means in the system of Shree Vallabhacharyaji. In all, there are three principal means – work, knowledge and devotion. An exhaustive treatment of these and their relative importance will be given in the second chapter of this work. Here we shall make a passing reference to them and try to understand how Shree Vallabhacharya views each one of them. Shree Vallabhacharya belongs to the devotional school; so, naturally, he will assert that devotion if the supreme means for the attainment of Summum Bonum. We have already discussed this point in the beginning of our treatise. The same question has been discussed in the Brahma Sutras by Badarayan Vyas. Let us hear the arguments used by Badarayan. He starts the whole discussion there, after first laying down that work is identical with Brahman.

Just as knowledge is Brahman, so is work Brahman. This is confirmed by “Tatha Hi Purushartho

Bhagwanen”. Jaimini denies this position. He is of opinion that Karma alone leads to the realization of fruit and not Gyan. So as a means Karma is better than Gyan. To Jaimini God is nothing but Karma. He states his theory of Karma as under:

1. Achar Darshanam (2-4-3). Even the knowers of Brahman, such as Vasistha etc have been heard practicing sacrificial ceremonies such as Agnihotra etc. This establishes the fact that Gyan is impotent to sublate the force of Karma.

2. The Shruti “Janako Ha Vaideho BahuDakshinen Yagyeneje” mentions an example of Janak, who performed sacrifices, although he was far advanced in knowledge and had no need of work. This means that even a Gyani must do karma.

3. Samanvayrambhanat 3-4-5: The combination of Gyan and Karma has been enjoined in Shruti passages such as “Tam Vidhyakarmani Samanvaarmete”. From this, it is clear that both Gyna and karma have to be resorted to.

4. “Tadvato Vidhanaat” 3-4-6: In has been laid down that knowledge of Brahman entitles one to perform karma.

5. “Niyamansch”: A strict rule is prescribed in scriptures namely that Agnihotra must be performed as long as there is life. If one fails to abide by this, he incurs sin, which can be purged off by performing only contrition ceremonies which are mentioned in the Smriti works.

The following points are advanced by Badarayan to controvert Jaimini’s theory of Karma.

1. In “Adhikopadeshaattu Badarayanesyaivam Taddarshanaat 13-4-8: he says that Brahman is superior to Karma. This is declared even by a shruti passage (Bruh. 4-4-22). Vallabhacharya asserts that Brahman is not karma or Gyan or both, but he transcends both these conceptions. To identify Brahm with Karma or Gyan or both these is to circumscribe the power of Brahman to only one or two powers out of infinite powers. This is also the attitude of Badarayana and it is indicated in this sutra. As bhakti is connected with Brahman directly, it is the most reliable means for the attainment of Brahman. In the presence of Bhakti, Gyan and Karma prove in-effectual.

2. The Sutra “Tulyam Darshanam” 3-4-9 points out equality of Achar (practice) i. e. among Gyani’s both kinds are seen

a. Those who have resorted to Karma and

b. Those who have renounced karma.

This frustrates the theory of Jaimini who holds that knowledge is subsidiary to Karma. Next Sutra 3-4-10 lends further support to it. The Shruti does not authoritatively assert that all knowers of Brahman must practice abandonment of Karma. On the contrary we have innumerable passages scattered about here and there in the Vedic Literature, that strengthen our impression about the abandonment of Karma. Compare this especially with 4-5-15. Here one may be inclined to raise a question, namely, why Janak did perform Karma and Shukra did not? Its answer is furnished in “Vibhagaha Shatvat”. Performance of Karmas depends upon one’s adhikara. One Gyani needs karma and another does not need it. Adhikara alone decides it. A further question here may arise namely how is the question of adhikara to be ascertained? The sutra “Adhyayanmaatravatah” 3-4-12 furnishes an apposite answer to this. Only those that betake to the study of Vedas are privileged for the performance of Karma. But one who is a knower of Brahman does not need it.

3. “Naavisheshat 3-4-13. Refutes karmavadins argument that shruti have laid that positive injunction about the performance of karma. In the passage, “Na Karmana Na Prajayaa Na Dhanen Tyaagenaike Amrutatvaamaanashu”, we are told that for moksha, karma is not needed. It specifically shows the importance of Karma Tyaag.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 234 5 6 7 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒