E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Related Pages
Font Size    

Chapter III, Section 4

INTRODUCTION

In the last Section the Vidyas or Upasanas (meditations) which are the means to the knowledge of Brahman were discussed.

In this Section the Sutrakara enters into an enquiry whether the knowledge of Brahman is connected with ritualistic work through one who is entitled to perform the works or is an independent means to accomplish the purpose of man.

Sri Baadarayana, the Sutrakara, begins by stating the final view in the first Sutra, Thence etc. He is of opinion that through the independent Knowledge of Brahman enjoined in the Vedanta-texts the purpose of man is effected.

In the present Section it will be shown that Knowledge of Brahman is independent of Karma and that is not subordinate to sacrificial acts.

Baadarayana establishes that the attainment of the final emancipation is the direct result of Brahma Vidya of knowledge of Brahman, that works or sacrifices are only indirect aids to contemplating by purifying the heart, that Karma does not directly lead to the final beatitude, that the seeker of Brahman may even do away with Karma and may attain freedom solely by contemplation on Brahman and that even in that case he should not abandon the duties enjoined by the scriptures.

SYNOPSIS

Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not Kratvartha, i.e., subordinate to action (sacrificial acts) but independent.

Adhikarana II: (Sutras 18-20) confirms this conclusion that Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures, that the state of the Pravrajins is enjoined by the sacred law and that for them Brahma Vidya only is prescribed, and not action.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 21-22) determines that certain clauses forming part of Vidyas are not mere glorificatory passages (Srutis or Arthavadas) but themselves enjoin the meditation.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 23-24) The stories recorded in the Upanishads are not to be used as subordinate members of acts. They do not serve the purpose of Pariplavas and do not form part of the ritualistic acts. They are meant to glorify the Vidya taught in them. They have the purpose of glorifying as Arthavadas the injunctions with which they are connected.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 25) For all these reasons the Sannya sin need not observe ritualistic acts as knowledge serves their purpose. They require no actions but only knowledge.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 26-27) Nevertheless the actions enjoined by scripture such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, etc., are useful as they are indirect means of knowledge.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 28-31) Certain relaxations allowed by scripture of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need. Restrictions as regards food may be abandoned only when life is in danger.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 32-35) The duties of the Asramas are to be performed by even one who does not strive after liberation or who is not desirous of knowledge.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutras 36-39) Those who stand midway between two Asramas are also entitled to knowledge. Those also who owing to poverty and so on, are Anasramins, have claims to Vidya.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 40) A Sannyasi who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy cannot revoke his vow. He cannot revert back to his former stages of life.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 41-42) Expiation of the fall of an Urdhvareta, of one who transgresses the vow of life-long celibacy.

Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 43) Exclusion of the fallen Urdhva retas or life-long celibate. He must be shunned by Society.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutras 44-46) Those meditations which are connected with subordinate members of the sacrifice are the business of the priest, not of the Yajamana or sacrificer.

Adhikarana XlV: (Sutras 47-49) Bri. Up. III.5.1 enjoins Mauna or meditation as a third in addition to Balya (child-like state) and Panditya (scholarship or erudition).

Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 50) By Balya or child-like state is to be understood a child-like innocent state of mind, being free from passion, anger, etc.

Adhikarana XVI: (Sutra 51) intimates that the fruition of knowledge may take place even in this life if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted).

Adhikarana XVII: (Sutra 52) declares that there is no diffe rence in liberation, i.e., in the realisation of Brahman. It is of one kind in all cases.

PURUSHARTHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRA 1-17)

Knowledge of Brahman is independent of sacrificial acts

Purushartho'tah sabdaditi baadarayanah III.4.1 (426)

From this (Brahma Vidya or Brahma Jnana results) the purpose or the chief object of pursuit of man, because the scriptures state so; thus (holds) the sage Baadarayana.

Purusharthah: purpose of man, object of human pursuit, here the chief object, i.e., salvation; Atah: from this, from Brahma Vidya; Sabdat: from the scriptures, because the scriptures state so, from Sruti; Iti: so thus (says), this is the opinion of; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana, (holds).

The result or fruit of Brahma Vidya is stated.

The Sutrakara Sri Vyasa now proceeds to show that Brahma Jnana leads not to Karma, but to the attainment of the highest Purushartha, i.e., Moksha or the final emancipation. That is Baadarayana's teaching.

The four Purusharthas are: Dharma (discharge of religious duty), Artha (acquisition of wealth, worldly prosperity), Kama (enjoyment), and Moksha (salvation). Knowledge of Brahman is not merely connected with sacrificial acts by affording to the agent a certain qualification. It definitely paves the way for the attainment of the final release or freedom from births and deaths.

Whence is this known? From the scripture.

Baadarayana bases his arguments on the Sruti texts, such as The knower of Atman goes beyond griefTarati sokamatmavit (Chh. Up. III.4.1). He who knows the highest Brah man becomes even BrahmanBrahmavitbrahmaivabhavati (Mun.Up.III.2.9). He who knows Brahman attains the HighestBrahmavidapnoti Param (Tait. Up. II.1).

For him who has a teacher there is delay only so long as he is not delivered; then he will be perfect (Chh. Up. VI.14.2). He who has searched out and understood the Self which is free from sin, etc., obtains all worlds and all desires (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). The Atman is to be seen etc., up to Thus far goes immortality (Bri. Up. IV.5.6-15).

These and similar texts emphatically declare that Knowledge of Brahman effects the highest purpose of man or Supreme Purushartha.

Against this the Purvapakshin raises his objection as follows. Here Jaimini comes forward with his following objections.

Seshatvatpurusharthavado yathanyeshviti jaiminih III.4.2 (427)

Because (the self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the Knowledge of the Self) are mere praise of the agent, as in other cases; thus Jaimini opines.

Seshatvat: because of being supplementary (to sacrificial acts); Pusushar thavadah: are mere praise or the agent; Yatha: as; Anyeshu: in other cases; Iti: thus (says); Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds).

Sutras 2 to 7 are Purvapaksha Sutras and Sutras 8 to 17 are Siddhanta Sutras.

Jaimini thinks that the Sruti texts merely praise the doer of Karma and that Brahmajnana is only an accessory of Karma (Karmanga).

He is of the opinion that the Vedas merely prescribe works to attain certain purposes including emancipation. He holds that the knowledge of Brahman has no independent fruit of its own because it stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial action. This relation is meditated by the Self, the object of knowledge, which is the agent in all works and, therefore, itself stands in a subordinate relation to action. The agent becomes qualified for actions, the fruit of which will only appear after death by knowing that his self will survive the body.

A man undertakes a sacrificial act only when he is conscious that he is different from the body and that after death he will go to heaven when he will enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice.

The qualification the self thus acquires is similar to that which the rice-grains acquire by being sprinkled with water; because they become fit to be used in the sacrifice, only through this latter act of ceremonial purification.

As the knowledge of the Self has no independent position, it cannot have an independent fruit of its own. Therefore the passages which state such fruits cannot be taken as injunctions of fruits, but merely as Arthavadas (or glorificatory passages), like other Arthavadas relating to the substance (Dravya) or to the purification of the substance (Samskara) or to subordi nate acts themselves (Karma), making some additional state ment about the fruits of the sacrificial actions to which the knowledge of the Self is auxiliary.

Jaimini maintains that the statement that the reward of Brahma Jnana is the highest good does not mean that such knowledge of the Self by itself yields any real fruit but the statement is only an exhortation to the performance of the sacrifices. He says that the knowledge of the self is useful only so far as it produces in the performer a belief in his extramundane existence to enable him to enjoy the rewards of his sacrifices. The statement that it yields any fruit by itself is only an exhortation to purification of the sacrificer. The purification of the sacrificer is a necessary concomitant factor like other material requisites of a sacrifice; because without this purifica tion he would not be assured of his surviving the body and enjoying the fruit of his sacrifices in a higher world after death.

Acharadarsanat III.4.3 (428)

Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realisation).

Acharadarsanat: because of the conduct found (from the scriptures).

The objection raised in Sutra 2 is strengthened.

Janaka the king of the Videhas performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed (Bri. Up. III.1.1). Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice (Chh. Up. V.11.5). These and similar passages indicate that those who know Brahman are connected with sacrificial action.

Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of Brahman. If they had attained the final emancipation by knowledge of Brahman there was no necessity for them to perform sacrifices. If mere knowledge could effect the purpose of man, why should they perform sacrifices troublesome in many respects? If a man would find honey in the Arka tree why should he go to the forest? But the two texts intimate that they did perform sacrifices.

This proves that one attains the final emancipation through sacrifices or works alone and not through the knowledge of Brahman, as the Vedantins maintain.

Tacchruteh III.4.4 (429)

Because scripture directly declares that (viz., that knowledge of Brahman stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts.)

Tat: that, that knowledge is subsidiary and supplementary to sacrifice; Sruteh: from Sruti, because the scriptures directly declare.

The Sruti also says that Vidya is an Anga of Karma.

If one does Karma with knowledge there will be greater efficiency. What a man does with knowledge, faith and meditation is more powerful (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This text clearly indicates that knowledge is a part of the sacrificial act. This passage directly states that knowledge is subordinate to work and from this it follows that mere knowledge cannot effect the purpose of man.

Samanvarambhanat III.4.5 (430)

Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to give fruits of actions).

Samanvarambhanat: because of the accompanying together, as they jointly follow the sacrificer to produce their effects on account of their taking hold together or being together.

The objection begun in Sutra 2 is continued.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says The departing soul is followed by knowledge and work (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). This passage indicates that knowledge and work go together with the soul and begin together to manifest their fruits. Therefore, it follows that knowledge is not independent. It is not able to produce any such effect independently. It is concluded that knowledge is not independent of works or sacrificial acts.

Tadvato vidhanat III.4.6 (431)

Because (the scriptures) enjoin (works) for such (only who understand the purport of the Vedas).

Tadvatah: for such (as know the purport of the Vedas); Vidhanat: be cause (the scriptures) enjoin (work).

The objection, begun in the Sutra 2, is continued.

Further Karma is enjoined for one who recites and studies the Vedas. He who has learnt i.e., read the Vedas from a family of teachers, according to the sacred injunction in the leisure time left from the duties to be performed for the Guru; who after having received his discharge has settled in his own house, studying his sacred texts in some sacred spot (Chh. Up. VIII.15.7). Such passages also indicate that those who know the purport of the whole Veda are qualified for sacrificial acts and that hence knowledge does not independently produce any result.

Niyamaccha III.4.7 (432)

And on account of prescribed rules.

Niyamat: on account of prescribed rules, because of compulsory injunction; Cha: also, and.

The argument begun in Sutra 2 is concluded here.

Doing Karma is a Niyama or life-long commandment. Performing works here (i.e., in this life), let a man wish to live a hundred years (Isa. Up. 2). Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting up to old age and death; for through old age one is freed from it or through death (Sat. Br. XII.4.1.1). From such definite rules also it follows that Knowledge is merely supple mentary to works, or stands in a subordinate relation to work .

The Sutrakara (Sri Vyasa) upholds his view in the following Sutra against all those objections.

Adhikopadesaattu baadarayanasyaivam taddarsanat III.4.8 (433)

But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than the agent), Baadarayana's view is correct (or valid) for that is seen thus (in scriptural passages).

Adhikopadesat: because (the sriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) something over and above; Tu: but; Baadarayanasya: of Baadarayana; Evam: thus, such (is the opinion); Taddarsanat: for that is seen (from the scrip tures). (Adhika: Supreme Being, more different; Upadesat: from the statement in Sruti, owing to the teaching about.)

Objections raised in Sutras 2 to 7 are now being refuted one by one. This Sutra refutes Sutra 2.

Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas which is refuted in Sutras 8-17.

The Sruti declares Isvara as higher than the individual soul. So Baadarayana's doctrine as stated in Sutra 1 is correct. The Sruti shows this. The real nature of the soul is divinity.

The word `tu' (but) discards the Purvapaksha. The Vedanta texts do not teach the limited self which is the agent. What the Vedanta texts really teach as the object of Knowledge is something different from the embodied self, viz., the non-transmigrating Lord who is free from all attributes of transmigrating existence such as agency and the like and distinguished by freedom from sin and so on, the Supreme Self.

The knowledge of such a self does not only not promote action but rather puts an end to all actions. Hence the view of the revered Baadarayana which was stated in Sutra 1 remains valid and cannot be shaken by fallacious reasoning about the subordination of knowledge to action and the like.

That the Vedanta texts teach the Supreme Self is clear from such texts as the following: He who perceives all and knows all (Mun. Up. I.1.9). From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the sun rises (Tait. Up. II.8). It is a great terror, a raised thunderbolt (Katha Up. II.6.2). By the command of that Imperishable one, O Gargi (Bri. Up. III.8.9). It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire (Chh. VI.2.3).

Tulyam tu darsanam III.4.9 (434)

But the declarations of the Sruti equally support both views.

Tulyam: the same, similar, equal; Tu: but; Darsanam: declaration of the Sruti.

This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. It is a reply to the third Sutra.

There are equal Srutis which show that Vidya is not Karmanga. The Sruti shows that Vidya is not Karmanga.

The word `tu' (but) is used in order to remove the idea that Vidya is subordinate to Karma. There is equal authority in the scriptures from the proposition that Vidya is not subordi nate to Karma, that for one who has attained knowledge there is no work. Thus there are scriptural passages such as: knowing this the Rishis descended from Kavasa said: For what purpose should we study the Vedas, for what purpose should we sacri fice? Knowing this indeed the ancient ones did not offer the Agnihotra, and when Brahmanas know that self and have risen above the desire for sons, wealth and worlds, they wander about as mendicants (Bri. Up. III.5).

Thus the sages called Kavaseyas did not care for Karma, nor did Yajnavalkya, who abandoning all Karmas went to forest. This much indeed is the means of Immortality, my dear, saying this Yajnavalkya left home (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). Thus we find examples of eminent men devoted to Vidya, renouncing all ceremonial actions. Therefore, scriptural texts are not all one-sided, in favour of Karmas, but there are passages to the contrary also. The examples of persons like Janaka and others indicate that these men followed Karma as an example to mankind, so that the social order may be pre served. Their work was characterised by non-attachment and therefore it was practically no work at all. Hence the argument of the Mimamsakas is weak.

There are indeed found in Srutis instances of sacrifices being performed by enlightened souls like Janaka, but there are also declarations of equal weight to the effect that performance of sacrifices is quite useless and redundant for the enlightened, i.e., those who have known Brahman.

So it cannot be asserted on the strength of the instances of Janaka and others like him, that knowledge is to be considered as secondary to the sacrifice.

With reference to the indicatory sign as to the dependence of knowledge to work, which is implied in the passage Sirs, I am going to perform a sacrifice we say, that it belongs to a section which treats of Vaisvanara.

Now the texts may declare that a Vidya of Brahman as limit ed by adjuncts is accompanied by works; but all the same the Vidya does not stand in a subordinate relation to works as the leading subject matter and the other means of proof are absent.

The author or Sutrakara (Baadarayana) next answers the objection raised in the Sutra 4.

Asarvatriki III.4.10 (435)

(The scriptural declaration referred to in Sutra 4) is not of universal application.

Asarvatriki: not universal, not applicable everywhere.

The refutation of the objections is continued. This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 4.

The statement of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 4 to the effect that the combination of meditation and sacrifice makes the sacrifice effective is not applicable everywhere. The above-mentioned statement of the Sruti does not refer to meditations in general, but only to the Udgitha Vidya which forms the subject matter of the discourse concerned.

The declaration of the Sruti that Knowledge increases the fruit of the sacrifice does not refer to all knowledge (all Vidyas), as it is connected only with the Udgitha (Udgitha Vidya) which is the topic of the section Let a man meditate on the syllable OM as the Udgitha.

The text says that if this Udgitha Vidya is recited by a person with knowledge, then it is more fruitful than if it is recited without such Vidya.

Therefore, Vidya is not an auxiliary to work in every instance.

The author next answers the objection raised in III.4.5.

Vibhagah satavat III.4.11 (436)

There is division of knowledge and work as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).

Vibhagah: (there is) division of knowledge and work; Satavat: as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 5.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares The departing soul is followed by Vidya (Knowledge) and Karma (work) and past experiences (IV.4.2). Here we have to take knowledge and work in a distributive sense. It means the knowledge follows one and work another. Just as when we say, Give Rs. 100 to Rama and Krishna it means Give Rs. 50 to Rama and Rs. 50 to Krishna, the above passage means that the Vidya relates to the souls seeking emancipation and Karma to other souls. There is no combination of the two.

The text quoted refers only to knowledge and work which concern the soul that transmigrates but not the soul which is about to obtain final release. Because the passage, Thus does the man who desires to transmigrate (Bri. Up. IV.4.6) indicates that the previous text refers to the soul that transmigrates. The Sruti declares of the soul who is about to be released, But the man who never desires never transmigrates (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).

The next Sutra refutes the Sutra 6.

Adhyayanamatravatah III.4.12 (437)

(The scriptures enjoin work) on those who have merely read the Vedas.

Adhyayanamatravatah: of one who has merely read the Vedas.

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 6.

He who has read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices is entitled to do sacrifice. But no work is prescribed for one who has knowledge of Brahman (Brahma Jnana).

Naviseshat III.4.13 (438)

There being no specification (the rule does) not (specially apply to him who knows, i. e., a Jnani).

Na: not, compulsion does not apply; Aviseshat: on account of the absence of any specification, because there is no special mention.

This Sutra specially refutes Sutra 7.

The Sruti Kurvanneveha performing works here let a man live etc., of the Isavasya Upanishad does not specially apply to a Brahma Jnani. It is general in its terms. There is no special mention in it that it is applicable to a Jnani also. It is not binding on a Jnani when there is no specification.

The Sruti of the Isavasya does not lay down any such restrictive rule that even the illumined sage must perform Karma throughout his life. Why so? Aviseshat. Because there is no specification. All that it says is Let one perform Karmas throughout his life. There is nothing to show to which class of people, that particular rule is addressed. On the other hand there are express texts of the Srutis which show that immortality is not to be obtained by Karmas, but by knowledge alone.

Mahanarayana Upanishad of the Tait. Ar. X.5 declares Not by Karmas (sacrifices), not by progeny, nor by wealth can one obtain immortality. It is by renunciation alone that some great souled beings have obtained immortality.

The apparent conflict in the two Sruti texts is to be recon ciled by giving them different scopes. One is addressed to Karma-nishtha-devotees, the other to the Jnana-nishtha- devotees.

Stutaye'numatirva III.4.14 (439)

Or rather the permission (to do work) is for the glorification (of knowledge).

Stutaye: for the purpose of glorification (of knowledge); Anumatih: permission; Va: or, rather.

This Sutra also refutes Sutra 7.

The passage performing works here may be treated in another way also. The injunction to do work for the knowers of Brahman or the illumined sages is for eulogising this knowledge. A Brahma Jnani or knower of the Self may work all his life but he will not be bound by its effects, on account of the power of knowledge. Knowledge nullifies the effect of Karma. No work clings to the man. This clearly glorifies Knowledge.

Kamakarena chaike III.4.15 (440)

And some according to their own liking (have abandoned all works).

Kamakarena: according to their own liking; Cha: and; Eke: some.

The argument in refutation of Jaimini's views is continued.

In Sutra 3 it was stated that Janaka and others performed sacrifices even after attaining knowledge of Brahman. This Sutra says that some have abandoned all works according to their own liking. Some may like to work to set an example to others after attaining knowledge, while others may abandon all works. There is no compulsion on the knowers of Brahman or liberated sages as regards work.

A scripfural text of the Vajasaneyins runs as follows: Know ing this the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this self and this world (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). From this it follows that know ledge is not subordinate to action and that the scriptural state ments as to the fruit of knowledge cannot be taken in any but their true sense.

Upamardam cha III.4.16 (441)

And (scripture teaches that the) destruction (of all qualifi cations for work results from knowledge).

Upamardam: complete destruction, putting an end to all actions; Cha: and.

The previous argument is continued.

Further, such knowledge brings the realisation that every thing is Atman or Brahman. How then can the knower act?

Again, far from being a part of work, knowledge puts an end to all works, all obligatory duties. Mundaka Upanishad declares, Brahman in both His superior and inferior aspects being realised, the knot of the heart (egoism, etc.) is cut down, all doubts are dispelled and works are destroyed (Mun. Up. II.2.9).

Knowledge of Brahman annihilates all ignorance and its effects like agent, deed and fruit, But when to the Knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). The know ledge of Brahman is antagonistic to all actions. Hence it cannot be subsidiary to work. It is independent.

Urdhvaretassu cha sabde hi III.4.17 (442)

And (knowledge belongs) to those who observe perpetual celibacy, because in scripture (that stage of life is mentioned).

Urdhvaretassu: to those who observe perpetual celibacy, in those stages of life where the sexual energy has an upward flow; Cha: and; Sabde: in the Sruti; Hi: because.

The previous argument is continued.

Further the Sruti declares Jnana in relation to Sannyasins. Knowledge is said to be in Sannyasins. They have not to do any Karmas. Such Sannyasa can be taken even without going through the householder's life.

Scripture shows that knowledge is valid also for the stages of life for which perpetual celibacy is prescribed. Now in their case knowledge cannot be subordinate to work, because work is absent, because the works prescribed by Vedas such as the Agnihotra are not performed by men who have reached those stages. To a Sannyasin there is no work prescribed except enquiry of Brahman and meditation on the Supreme Self. So how can knowledge be subordinate to work?

We find from the Sruti texts that there is a stage of life called Sannyasa. There are three branches of duty (Chh. Up. II.23.1). Those who in the forest practise faith and austerity (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Those who practise penance and faith in the forest (Mun. Up. I.10.11). Wishing for that world only, mendicants renounce their homes and wander forth (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Let him wander forth at once from the state of studentship. All these attain to the worlds of the virtuous; but only one who is finally established in Brahman, attains immortality. (Chh. Up. II.23. 1-2).

Everyone can take to this life, without being a householder etc. This indicates the independence of knowledge.

Thus, the theory of Jaimini that Knowledge is subordinate to Karma has no legs to stand upon, and has been refuted.

PARAMARSADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 18-20)

Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures

Paramarsam jaiminirachodana chapavadati hi III.4.18 (443)

Jaimini (considers that scriptural texts mentioning those stages of life in which celibacy is obligatory, contain) a reference (only to those stages; they are not injunctions; because other (scriptural texts) condemn (those stages).

Paramarsam: a passing allusion, mere reference; Jaiminih: Jaimini; Achodana: there is no clear injunction; Cha: and; Apavadati: condemns; Hi: because, clearly, certainly.

An objection to Sutra 17 is raised.

Jaimini says that in the text quoted in the last Sutra (Chh. Up. II.23.1), there is no word indicating that Sannyasa is enjoined on man. It is a mere reference only but not an injunction.

The Brihadaranyaka text quoted in the last Sutra declares that some persons do like Sannyasa. Sruti here makes a statement of fact. It does not enjoin Sannyasa.

Thus there is no direct Sruti for Sannyasa though there are Smritis and Achara (usage). But if we say that there is no Sruti for the householder's life, he (Jaimini) would reply that Karmas like Agnihotra are enjoined by Sruti.

Further, the text here glorifies steadfastness in Brahman. But only one who is firmly established in Brahman attains Immortality. Sacrifice, study, charity, austerity, studentship and life-long continence bestow the fruit of obtaining heaven. But Immortality is attained only by one who is firmly established in Brahman.

Moreover, there are other Sruti passages which condemn Sannyasa. Having brought to your teacher his proper reward, do not cut off the line of children (Tait. Up. I.11.1). To him who is without a son this world does not belong; all beasts even know that (Tait. Br. VII.13.12).

Anushtheyam baadarayanah samyasruteh III.4.19 (444)

Baadarayana (holds that Sannyasa) also must be gone through, because the scriptural text (quoted) refers equally to all the four Asramas or stages of life.

Anushtheyam: should be practised; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana, the author of the Sutras; Samyasruteh: for the scriptural text refers equally to all the four Asramas.

The objection raised in Sutra 18 is refuted.

In the text quoted sacrifice refers to the householder's life, austerity to Vanaprastha, studentship to Brahmacharya, and one who is firmly established in Brahman to Sannyasa. So the text refers equally to all the four stages of life. The text that relates to the first three stages refers to what is enjoined elsewhere. So also does the text that relates to Sannyasa.

Therefore, Sannyasa also is enjoined and must be gone through by all.

Baadarayana holds that Sannyasa is an appropriate Asrama like Grihastha Asrama (householder's life), because both are referred to in Sruti. The word Tapas refers to a different Asrama in which the predominant factor is Tapas.

Vidhirva dharanavat III.4.20 (445)

Or rather (there is an) injunction (in this text) as in the case of carrying (of the sacrificial wood).

Vidhih: injunction; Va: or rather; Dharanavat: as in the case of carry ing (of the sacrificial wood).

The argument commenced in Sutra 19 to refute the objection raised in Sutra 18 is continued.

This Sutra now tries to establish that there is an injunction about Sannyasa in the Chhandogya text quoted. The passage is rather to be understood as containing an injunction, not a mere reference.

The case is analogous to that of `carrying'. There is a scriptural text relating to the Agnihotra which forms part of the Mahapitriyajna which is performed for the manes. Let him approach carrying the sacrificial wood below the ladle holding the offering; for above he carries it to the gods. Jaimini inter prets the last clause as an injunction although there is no word in it to that effect, for such an injunction is nowhere else to be found in the scriptures. Following this argument, this Sutra declares that there is an injunction as regards Sannyasa and not a mere reference in Chh. Up. II.23.1, as it is not enjoined anywhere else.

Even if in the Sruti there is only Anuvada (declaration) of other Asramas, the Purvamimamsika rules show that we must infer a Vidhi (injunction) of Sannyasa from the portion: Brahmasamstho'mritatvameti, because there is no other sepa rate injunction just as there is no command that the Samit should be kept on the upper portion of the Sruk and yet the Purvamimamsa says that such command should be inferred.

In the present case also the same rule of construction should be applied. Further, even if there is only a declaration and not an injunction as regards the other Asramas, we must infer an injunction about Sannyasa as it has been specially glorified.

Further there are Sruti passages which directly enjoin Sannyasa, Or else he may wander forth from the student's life, or from the house, or from the forest (Jabala Upanishad 4). Hence the existence of Sannyasa Asrama is undeniable.

The word Tapas in the Sruti refers to Vanaprastha whereas the speciality of Sannyasa is control of the senses (Indriya Samyama). The Sruti differentiates Sannyasa and says that those belonging to the other three Asramas go to the Punya Lokas whereas the Sannyasin attains Amritatva (Immortality).

Jaimini himself says that even glorification must be in a complimentary relation to an injunction. In the text, steadfast devotion to Brahma is employed. Hence it has an injunctive value. Brahma Samstha means meditating always on Brahman. It is a state of being grounded in Brahman to the exclusion of all other activities. In the case of other Asramas: that is not possible as they have their own Karmas. But it is possible to Sannyasins as they have abandoned Karmas. Their Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint) help them towards it and are not obstacles.

Sannyasa is not prescribed only for those who are blind, lame, etc., and who are, therefore, not fit for performing rituals. Sannyasa is a means for the realisation of Brahman. It must be taken in a regular prescribed manner. The Sruti declares, The wandering mendicant, with orange-coloured robe, shaven, wifeless, pure, guileless, living on alms, accepting no gifts, qualifies himself for the realisation of Brahman (Jabali Sruti).

Therefore, Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures. As knowledge is enjoined on Sannyasins, it is independent of works.

STUTIMATRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 21-22)

Scriptural texts as in Chh. Up. I.1.3. which refer to Vidyas are not mere praises but themselves enjoin the meditations

Stutimatramupadanaditi chennapurvatvat III.4.21 (446)

If it be said that (texts such as the one about the Udgitha are) mere glorifications on account of their reference (to parts of sacrifices), (we say) not so, on account of the newness (of what they teach, if viewed as injunctions).

Stutimatram: mere praise; Upadanat: on account of their reference (to parts of sacrificial acts); Iti: thus, so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Apurvatvat: on account of its newness. (Iti chet: if it be said).

This Sutra consists ot two parts, namely an objection and its reply. The objection portion is: `Stutimatramupadanaditi chet', and the reply portion is: `Na apurvatvat'.

That Udgitha (OM) is the best of all essences, the highest, holding the highest place, the eighth (Chh. Up. I.1.3). This earth is the Rik, the fire is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1). This world in truth is that piled up fire-altar (Sat. Br. X.1.2.2). That hymn is truly that earth (Ait. Ar. II.1.2.1).

A doubt arises whether these passages are meant to glorify the Udgitha or to enjoin devout meditations.

The Purvapakshin maintains that these are mere praise and no injunction to meditate on `OM' and so on. These passages are analogous to passages such as This earth is the ladle. The sun is the tortoise. The heavenly world is the Ahavaniya which simply glorify the ladle and so on.

The latter half of the present Sutra refutes the view of the opponent.

In the Sruti passage That Udgitha (OM) is the best essence of the essences etc., the description is not mere praise but is a Vidhi, and it tells us something which is new.

The analogy is incorrect. Glorificatory passages are of use in so far as entering into a complimentary relation to injunctive passages, but the passages under discussion are not capable of entering into such a relation to the Udgitha and so on which are enjoined in altogether different places of the Vedas and would be purposeless as far as the glorification is concerned. Passages such as This earth is the ladle are not analogous because they stand in proximity to injunctive passages, and so they can be taken as praise.

Therefore, the texts such as those under discussion have an injunctive purpose. On account of the newness, these are not mere praise but an injunction.

Bhavasabdaccha III.4.22 (447)

And there being words expressive of injunction.

Bhavasabaat: from words indicative of existence of injunction in Sruti; Cha: and, also, moreover.

The argument commenced in Sutra 21 is concluded.

Let one meditate on OM or the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). We have a very clear injunction to meditate on OM in this passage. On the face of this we cannot interpret the text quoted in the last Sutra as mere praise of OM. The expression This is the best of all the essences in the passage cited under the preceding Sutra is not a mere glorificatory expression, but it amounts to an injunction for the Udgitha meditation.

PARIPLAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 23-24)

The stories mentioned in the Upanishads do not serve the purpose of Pariplavas and so do not form part of the ritualistic acts.

They are meant to euloisge the Vidya taught in them

Pariplavartha iti chenna viseshitatvat III.4.23 (448)

If it be said (that the stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of Pariplava (only, we say) not so, because (certain stories above) are specified (by the Sruti for this purpose).

Pariplavarthah: for the purpose of Pariplavas; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Viseshitatvat: because of specification, on account of (certain stories alone) being specified. (Iti chet: if it be said.)

The purpose of narration of stories in the Upanishads is stated in this Sutra and in the next one.

This Sutra consists of two parts namely, an objection and its reply. The objection portion is `Pariplavartha iti chet'. And the reply is: `Na viseshitatvat'.

In the Asvamedha sacrifice the priest recites stories to the king who performs the Asvamedha sacrifice, and his relatives at intervals during the performance of the sacrifice. These are known as Pariplavas and form part of the ritualistic acts.

The question is whether the stories of the Upanishads such as those relating to Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (Bri. Up. IV.5.1), Pratardana (Kau. Up. III.1), Janasruti (Chh. Up. IV.1.1), and so on also serve this purpose in which case they become part of the rites, and the whole of Jnana Kanda becomes subordinate to Karma Kanda.

The Purvapakshin holds that those stories of the Upanishads serve the purpose of Pariplava, because they are stories like others and because the telling of stories is enjoined for the Pariplava. From this it follows that the Upanishadic stories and Vedanta texts do not chiefly aim at knowledge, because like Mantras they stand in a complimentary relation to sacrificial acts.

Tatha chaikavakyatopabandhat III.4.24 (449)

And so (they are meant to illustrate the nearest Vidyas), being connected as one coherent whole.

Tatha: so, similarly; Cha: and; Ekavakyatopabandhat: being connected as one whole. (Ekavakya: unity cf construction or of statements or that of sense; Upabandhat: because of connection.)

The discussion commenced in Sutra 23 is concluded here.

Therefore, it is for the purpose of praise of Vidya because only then there would be unity of idea in the context. Only such a view will lead to harmony of the context.

The stories of the Upanishads are to be regarded as essential parts of Brahma Vidya. They are introduced only to facilitate an intelligent grouping of the subject. The stories are intended to introduce the Vidyas. The story form creates more attention and interest on the part of the aspirant. Their object is to make it clear to our understanding in a concrete form, the Vidyas taught in other portions of the Upanishads in the abstract.

Why do we say so? Ekavakyatopabandhat. Because of their syntactical connection with the Vidyas taught in the succeeding passages.

Thus in the story beginning with Yajnavalkya had two wives, etc., we find immediately following in that very section, the Vidya taught about the Atman in these words The Atman is verily to be seen, to be heard of, to be meditated upon. As these stories are immediately preceded or succeeded by instructions about Brahman, we infer that they are meant to glorify the Vidyas and are not Pariplava stories. The stories are told in order to facilitate the understanding of these abstruse subjects and they are eminently fitted to subserve that purpose.

AGNINDHANADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5

Sannyasins need not observe ritualistic acts,

as Brahma Vidya or knowledge serves their purpose

Ata eva chagnindhanadyanapeksha III.4.25 (450)

And, therefore, there is no necessity of the lighting of the fire and so on.

Ata eva: therefore, only, for this reason only; Cha: and, also; Agni: fire; Indhanadi: fire-wood, and so on, kindling fire and performing sacrifices, etc.; Anapeksha: no need, has not to be depended upon. (Agni-indhanadi-anapeksha: no necessity of lighting fires, etc.)

This Sutra states that the seeker of Brahman may dispense with sacrificial rites.

Brahma Vidya has no need for fire, fire-wood, etc. It is by itself the cause of emancipation.

In Sutra III.4.1 it was stated that the knowledge of Brah man results in the attainment of the highest Purushartha or goal of life. The expression Ata Eva (for this reason alone) must be viewed as taking up Sutra III.4.1 because thus a satisfa ctory sense is established. For this very same reason, i.e., because knowledge serves the purpose of Sannyasins, the lighting of the sacrificial fire and similar works which are enjoined on the householders, etc., need not be observed by them.

Thus the Sutrakara sums up the result of this first Adhikarana, intending to make some further remarks.

As a Sannyasin, devoted to the meditation on Brahman is stated in Sruti to attain immortality and not any of the rewards arising from sacrificial rites, he is not required to have recourse to sacrificial works to be performed with fire, fire-wood and so on. Chhandogya Upanishad declares, Brahmasamstho'amrita tvameti One devoted to Brahman attains Immortality (Chh. Up. II.23.1).

The theory or doctrine that knowledge and work must be combined in order to produce Mukti or salvation is hereby set aside. Brahma Vidya or Knowledge of Brahman is sufficient for that purpose.

SARVAPEKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 26-27)

Works prescribed by the scriptures are means

to the attainment of knowledge

Sarvapeksha cha yajnadi sruterasvavat III.4.26 (451)

And there is the necessity of all works because the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to the attainment of knowledge) even as the horse (is used to draw a chariot, and not for ploughing).

Sarvapeksha: there is the necessity of all works; Cha: and; Yajnadisruteh: for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to knowledge); Asvavat: like a horse, as in the case of the horse.

The Sutra says that sacrificial works and the like are necessary for origination of knowledge of Brahman.

We may conclude from the previous Sutra that works are altogether useless.

This Sutra says that all these works are useful for origination of knowledge. Even the scriptures prescribe them as they serve an indirect means to the attainment of knowledge. Brihad aranyaka Upanishad declares, Brahmanas seek to know Brahman by the study of the Vedas, by scriptures, gifts, penance and renunciation (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Similarly the passage, what people call sacrifice that is really Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.1), by connecting sacrifices and so on with Bra hmacharya which is a means of knowledge, intimates that sacri fices, etc., also are means of knowledge. Again the passage That word which all the Vedas record, which all penances proclaim, desiring which men live as religious students, that word I tell thee briefly, it is OM (Katha Up. I.2.15), likewise intimates that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means of knowledge.

When knowledge once is attained requires no help from external works for the production of this result namely, Liberation. The case is analogous to a horse, whose help is required until the place of destination is reached but it may be dispensed with after the journey has been accomplished.

When Atma-Jnana is attained it does not need any other accessory to bring about salvation, but Karma is needed for Atma-Jnana. Just as a horse is not used to drag a plough but is used to drag a car, so the Asrama Karmas are not needed for the fruition of Jnana but are needed for Jnana.

The final emancipation results only from knowledge of Brahman and not from work. Work purifies the mind and knowledge dawns in a pure mind.

Hence works are useful as they are an indirect means to knowledge.

If knowledge be originated by sacrifices, gifts, penance and fasting, what is the necessity of other qualifications like Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint)? To this the author replies in the next Sutra.

Samadamadyupetah syat tathapi tu tadvidhestadangataya

teshamavasyanushtheyatvat III.4.27 (452)

But all the same (even though there is no injunction to do sacrificial acts to attain knowledge in the Brihadaranyaka text) one must possess serenity, self-control and the like, as these are enjoined as auxiliaries to knowledge and therefore have necessarily to be practised.

Samadamadyupetah syat: one must possess serenity, self-control and the like; Tathapi: still, all the same, even if it be so; Tu: verily; Tadvidheh: as they are enjoined; Tadangataya: on account of their being a part, as helps to knowledge; Tesham: their; Avasyanushtheyatvat: because it being necessary to be practised. (Avasya: necessarily; Anushtheyatvat: because they must be practised.)

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, The Brahmanas seek to know Brahman through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). In this passage there is no word to indicate that sacrifice is enjoined on one who wants to know Brahman.

So the Purvapakshin maintains that there is no necessity at all for work for one who aspires after knowledge.

This present Sutra says that even should this be so. The seeker for knowledge must possess calmness of mind, must subdue his senses and so on; because all this is enjoined as a means of knowledge in the following scriptural passage, There he who knows this, having become calm, subdued, satisfied, patient and collected sees Self in Self (Bri. Up. IV.4.23).

What is enjoined must necessarily be carried out. The introductory word `therefore' (Tasmat) which expresses the praise of the subject under discussion makes us un derstand that the passage has an injunctive character, because if there were no injunction, the praise would be meaningless.

Further the Madhyandina Sruti uses the word pasyet let him see and not `he sees'. Hence calmness of mind, etc., are required even if sacrifices, etc., should not be required.

As these qualities are enjoined, they are necessarily to be practised. Sama, Dama etc., are proximate or direct means of knowledge (Antaranga-Sadhana). Yajnas or sacrifices, etc., are remote or indirect means of knowledge (Bahiranga-Sadhana).

The word `Adi' (and the rest) mentioned in the Sutra, indi cates that the aspirant after Brahma Vidya must possess all these qualifications of truthfulness, generosity, asceticism, celibacy, indifference to worldly objects, tolerance, endurance, faith, equilibrium, compassion etc.

SARVANNANUMATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 28-31)

Food-restrictions may be given up only when life is in danger

Sarvannanumatischa pranatyaye taddarsanat III.4.28 (453)

Only when life is in danger (there is) permission to take all food (i.e., take food indiscriminately) because the Sruti declares that.

Sarvannanumatih: permission to take all sorts of food; Cha: only; Prana tyaye: when life is in danger; Taddarsanat: because the Sruti declares that.

This and the subsequent three Sutras indicate what kind of food is to be taken.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares, For one who knows this, there is nothing that is not food (Chh. Up. V.2.1). The question is if such Sarvannanumati (description of all as his food) is a Vidhi or Vidhyanga or a Sruti (praise).

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is enjoined on one who meditates on Prana on account of the newness of the statement. It has an injunctive value, as such statement is not found anywhere else.

The Sutra refutes it and declares that it is not an injun ction, but only a statement of fact. We are not justified in assuming an injunction, where the idea of an injunction does not arise. It is not Vidhi or injunction as no mandatory words are found. Can a man eat and digest all things? No. Prohi bited food may be eaten only when life is in danger, when one is dying of hunger as was done by the sage Chakrayana (Ushasti) when he was dying for want of food. Sruti declares this.

Sage Ushasti was dying of hunger on account of famine. He ate the beans half-eaten by a keeper of elephants but refused to drink what had been offered by the latter on the ground of its being a mere leaving. The sage justified his conduct by saying, I would not have lived, if I had not eaten the beans, but water I can do without at present. I can drink water wherever I like.

From this it follows, that the passage For one who knows this etc., is an Arthavada.

Abadhatccha III.4.29 (454)

And because (thus) (the scriptural statements with respect to food) are not contradicted.

Abadhat: becausc of a non-contradiction, as there is no contrary state ment anywhere in Sruti; Cha: and, also, moreover, on account of non-sublation.

The topic commenced in Sutra 28 is continued.

And thus those scriptural passages which distinguish lawful and unlawful food such as When the food is pure the whole nature becomes pure (Chh. Up. VII.26.2) are non-sublated. The statement of the Chhandogya Upanishad will not be contradicted only if the explanation given is taken, and not otherwise.

Only then other Srutis will have unhindered applications. Only in this view will the Sruti When the food is pure the mind becomes pure have application.

Clean food should generally be taken as there is no contrary statement anywhere in Sruti to the purifying effect of clean food. There is nowhere any passage in Sruti, contradicting the passage of the Chhandogya Sruti which declares that clean food makes our nature pure.

Unlawful food as a general rule clogs the understanding and obstructs the clear works of the intellect. But in the case of the sage, whose heart is always pure and intellect keen, the taking of such food does not obstruct the working of his brain, and his knowledge remains as pure as ever.

Api cha smaryate III.4.30 (455)

And moreover the Smritis say so.

Api: also; Cha: moreover; Smaryate: the Smriti says so, it is seen in the Smritis, it is prescribed by Smriti.

The previous topic is continued.

Smriti also states that when life is in danger both he who has knowledge and he who has not can take any food. He who eats food procured from anywhere when life is in danger, is not tainted by sin, as a lotus leaf is not wetted by water.

On the contrary many passages teach that unlawful food is to be avoided. The Brahmana must permanently forego intoxicating liquor. Let them pour boiling spirits down the throat of a Brahmana who drinks spirits. Spirit-drinking worms grow in the mouth of the spirit-drinking man, because he enjoys what is unlawful.

From this it is inferred that generally clean food is to be taken except in the case of extreme starvation or in times of distress only.

When the Upanishad says that the sage may eat all kinds of food, it must be interpreted as meaning that he may eat all kinds of food, in times of distress only. The text of the Upanishad should not be construed as an injunction in favour of eating unlawful food.

Sabdaschato'kamakare III.4.31 (456)

And hence the scripture prohibiting license.

Sabdah: the scriptural passage; Cha: and; Atah: hence; Akamakare: to prevent undue license, prohibiting license, as to non-proceeding according to liking.

The previous topic is discussed and concluded here.

There are scriptural passages which prohibit one from doing everything just as he pleases, which forbid man to take undue liberty in the matter of food and drink. Therefore a Brahmana must not drink liquor (Kathaka Sam.). Perfect spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary for controlling the mind and the senses and attaining knowledge or Self-realisation. Such Sruti texts are meant for this discipline.

Therefore, it is established that the Sruti does not enjoin on one who meditates on Prana to take all kinds of food indiscriminately.

As there is Sruti which forbids license in food and drink, the Sruti referred to above in Sutra 28 is an Arthavada.

The permission to take all kinds of food is confined to times of distress only when one's life is in danger. One must strictly observe the injunctions of the scriptures in ordinary times.

ASRAMAKARMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 32-35)

The duties of Asrama are to be performed by even one

who is not desirous of salvation

Vihitatvacchasramakarmapi III.4.32 (457)

And the duties of the Asramas (are to be performed also by him who does not desire emancipation) because they are enjoined (on him by the scriptures).

Vihitatvat: because they are enjoined; Cha: and; Asrama- karma: duties of the Asrama, or order of life; Api: also.

This and the subsequent three Sutras show who are required to perform sacrifices and do other prescribed duties.

Under Sutra 26 it has been proved that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means to knowledge. The question arises now, why should one who does not desire knowledge or final release do these works?

The present Sutra declares that since these duties are enjoined on all who are in these Aramas or orders of life, viz., student-life, householder's life, and hermit life, one should observe them.

In the case of a man who keeps to the Asramas but does not seek liberation, the Nityakarmas or the permanent obligatory duties are indispensable. The Sruti says Yavajjivam agnihotram juhotias long as his life lasts, one is to offer the Agnihotra.

Sahakaritvena cha III.4.33 (458)

And (the duties are to be performed also) as a means to knowledge.

Sahakaritvena: as, an auxiliary, on account of cooperativeness, as means to knowledge; Cha: and.

The topic commenced in Sutra 32 is continued.

The duties or works are helpful in producing knowledge but not its fruit, viz., emancipation. In the former case the connection between Karma and fruit is inseparable (Nitya-Samyoga), but in the latter case it is separable (Anitya-Samyoga). Salva tion or Moksha is attainable only through knowledge of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana.

Works (Karmas) are an aid to Vidya or knowledge of Self. Those who are desirous of emancipation should also perform religious rites as a help to enlightenment. Brahma Vidya is independent in producing its results. Karma is merely the handmaid and cooperator of Vidya. Works are means for the origination of knowledge.

Sarvathapi ta evobhayalingat III.4.34 (459)

In all cases the same duties (have to be performed), because of the twofold indicatory marks.

Sarvatha: in all cases, in every respect, under any circumstance; Api: also; Ta eva: the same duties (have to be performed); Ubhayalingat: because of the twofold inferential signs. (Ta: they, the sacrificial works; Eva: certainly.)

The previous topic is continued.

The word `Api' in the Sutra has the force of `indeed', `even'. The words `Sarvatha Api' are equal to `Sarvatha Eva'.

The question arises whether the works performed as enjoined on the Asramas, and those done as auxiliaries to knowledge are of two different kinds.

The present Sutra declares that in either case, whether viewed as duties incumbent on the Asramas or as cooperating with knowledge, the very same Agnihotra and other duties have to be performed, as is seen from the Sruti and the Smriti texts.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, Him the Brahmanas seek to know through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). This text indicates that sacrifices etc., enjoined in Karmakanda for different purposes are to be performed as means to knowledge also.

The Smriti also says the same thing, He who performs obligatory works without aiming at the fruit of work etc. (Gita VI.1). Those very obligatory duties subserve the origi nation of knowledge also.

Moreover the Smriti passage He who is qualified by that forty-eighty purifications etc., refers to the purifications required for Vedic works, with a view to the origination of knowledge in him who has undergone these purifications.

In every respect, whether viewed as duties incumbent on a householder or as practices auxiliary to knowledge or illumination, the sacrificial works, prescribed to be performed, are recognised to be the same and not different, because they are indispensable requisites for both orders of life, as permanent duties for a householder and as auxiliary aids to meditation for a Sannyasi.

The Sutrakara, therefore, rightly emphasises the non-difference of the works.

Anabhibhavam cha darsayati III.4.35 (460)

And the scripture also declares (that he who is endowed with Brahmacharya) is not overpowered (by passion, anger, etc.).

Anabhibhavam: not being overpowered; Cha: and; Darsayati: the scrip ture shows, the Srutis declare.

The previous topic is concluded here.

This Sutra points out a further indicatory mark strengthening the conclusion that works cooperate towards knowledge. Scripture also declares that he who is endowed with such means as Brahmacharya, etc.. is not overpowered by such afflictions as passion, anger and the like. For that Self does not perish which one attains by Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.3). This passage indicates that like work, Brahmacharya, etc., are also means to knowledge. He who is endowed with celibacy is not overcome by anger, passion, jealousy, hatred. His mind is ever peaceful. As his mind is not agitated, he is able to practise deep and constant meditation which leads to the attainment of knowledge.

It is thus a settled conclusion that works are obligatory on the Asramas and are also means to knowledge.

VIDHURADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9 (SUTRAS 36-39)

Those who stand midway between two Asramas

also are qualified for knowledge

Antara chapi tu taddrishteh III.4.36 (461)

And (persons standing) in between (two Asramas) are also (qualified for knowledge), for that is seen (in scripture).

Antara: (persons standing) in between (two Asramas); Cha: and; Api tu: also; Taddrishteh: such cases being seen, (as it is seen in Sruti, because it is so seen).

Widowers who have not married again, persons who are too poor to marry and those who are forced by circumstances not to enter into wedlock and have not renounced the world come under the purview of Sutras 36-39.

The word `tu' is employed in order to refute the Purvapaksha that Karma is necessary for the origination of knowledge of Brahman. The force of the word `cha' is to show certainty.

A doubt arises whether persons in want who do not possess means, etc., and, therefore, are not able to enter into one or the other of the Asramas, or who stand midway between two Asramas as for example, a widower, are qualified for knowledge or not.

The Purvapakshin maintains that they are not qualified, as they cannot perform the works of any Asrama which are means to knowledge.

The present Sutra declares that they are entitled, because such cases are seen from the scriptures. Scriptural passages declare that persons of that class such as Raikva and Gargi, the daughter of Vachaknavi had the knowledge of Brahman (Chh. Up. IV.1 and Bri. Up. III.6.8).

Vidura, a man who had no wife, did not adopt the Vanaprastha Asrama, and who had no Asrama, was expert in Brahma Vidya. He had knowledge of Brahman.

Antara (who stand outside) are those persons who do not belong to any order or Asrama and consequently do not perform the duties of any Asrama. They are born in this life with discrimination and dispassion owing to the performance of such duties in their previous birth. Their minds have been purified by truth, penance, prayers, etc., performed in their past lives. If a man has duly discharged the duties of his Asrama in previous birth, but owing to some obstacles or Pratibandhas Brahma-Jnana did not arise in him in that life, and he dies before the dawn of knowledge, then he is born in the present life ripe for knowledge. Brahma-Jnana manifests in him in all its glory by mere contact with a sage. Therefore such a man does not perform any Karmas or rather does not stand in any need of performing any duties of Asramas.

Api cha smaryate III.4.37 (462)

This is stated in Smriti also.

Api: also, too; Cha: moreover, and; Smaryate: is stated in Smriti, the Smriti records such cases.

The previous topic is continued.

Moreover, it is stated also in Smriti that persons, not belonging to any one of the four prescribed orders of life, acquire Brahma-Jnana.

It is recorded in the Itihasas (Mahabharata) also how Samvarta and others who paid no regard to the duties incumbent on the Asramas went naked and afterwards became great Yogins or saints. The great Bhishma is also an instance in point.

Manu Samhita declares There is no doubt that a Brahmana attains final success only by practice of continuously repeating the Japa. It matters little whether he performs other prescribed duties or not. One who is friendly to all, is really a Brahmana (II.87).

But the instances quoted from scripture and Smriti furnish merely indicatory marks. What then is the final conclusion? That conclusion is stated in the next Sutra.

Viseshanugrahascha III.4.38 (463)

And the promotion (of knowledge is bestowed on them) through special acts.

Visesha: special; Anugrahah: favour; Cha: and. (Viseshanu- grahah: special advantage, advantage or favour accruing from extraordinary good works done in the previous life.)

The previous topic is continued.

Moreover knowledge of Brahman may be attained by the special grace of the gods due to Japa, fasting and worship of gods. Or it may be that Asrama Karmas might have been done in previous births.

A widower who is not a householder in the proper sense of the term, can attain knowledge of Brahman through special acts like Japa, fasting, prayer, which are not opposed to the condition of those who do not belong to any Asrama.

The Smriti says By mere prayer no doubt the Brahmana perfects himself. May he perform other works or not, the kind-hearted one is called Brahmana (Manu Samhita II.87).

This passage indicates that where the works of the Asramas are not possible, prayer qualifies for knowledge.

Smriti also declares Perfected by many births he finally goes to the highest state (Bhagavad Gita VI.45). This passage intimates that the aggregate of the different meritorious works performed in previous births promotes knowledge.

Therefore, there is no contradiction in admitting qualifica tion for knowledge on the part of widowers and the like.

Atastvitarajjyayo lingaccha III.4.39 (464)

Better than this is the other (state of belonging to an Asrama) on account of the indicatory marks (in the Sruti and the Smriti).

Atah: from this, than this, than the intermediate state mentioned above; Tu: but; Itarat: the other, the state belonging to a prescribed order of life; Jyayah: better, superior; Lingat: because of the indicatory marks, from such indications in the scripture, from indication, signs, in ferences; Cha: and.

The previous topic is concluded here.

The word `tu' (but) is employed in order to remove the doubt. The word `cha' (and) is used in the sense of exclusion.

Though it is possible for one who stands between two Asramas to attain knowledge, yet it is a better means to know ledge to belong to some Asrama. He who belongs to an Asrama has better means of attaining knowledge of the Self or Brahman, because the facilities are greater in the latter condition.

This is confirmed by the Sruti and Smriti The Brahmanas seek to know Brahman through sacrifices etc. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). On that path goes whoever knows Brahman and who has done holy works as prescribed for the Asramas and obtained splendour (Bri. Up. IV.4.9). Smriti declares, Let not a Brahmana stay for a day outside the Asrama; having stayed outside for a year he goes to utter ruin.

Tadbhutadhikaranam: Topic 10

He who has taken Sannyasa cannot revert back

to his former stages of life

Tadbhutasya tu natadbhavo jaiminerapi

niyamatadrupabhavebhyah III.4.40 (465)

But for one who has become that (i.e. entered the highest Asrama, i.e., Sannyasa) there is no reverting (to the preced ing ones) on account of restrictions prohibiting such reversion or descending to a lower order. Jaimini also (is of this opinion).

Tadbhutasya: of one who has become that, for one who has attained that (highest Asrama); Tu: but; Na: no; Atadbhavah: lapse from that stage, falling away from that; Jaimineh: according to Jaimini, of Jaimini (is this opinion); Api: also, even; Niyamatadrupabhavebhyah: on account of the restrictions prohibiting such reversion. (Niyamat: because of the strict rule; Atadrupdbhavebhyah: because there is no statement permitting it, and because it is against custom; Abhavebhyah: because of the absence of that.)

The question whether one who has taken Sannyasa can go back to the previous Asrama is now considered.

The present Sutra declares that he cannot go back to the previous Asrama. This is the opinion of Jaimini also.

There are no words in the Sruti allowing such a descent. The Sruti expressly forbids it, He is to go to the forest, he is not to return from there.

It is also against approved custom or usage.

The Upanishad declares Having been dismissed by the teacher he is to follow one of the four Asramas according to rule, up to release from the body (Chh. Up. II.23.1). There are texts which teach of the ascent to higher Asramas. Having completed the Brahmacharya state he is to become a householder. He may wander forth from the Brahmacharya state, but there are no texts which treat of the descent to lower Asramas.

Dharma is what is enjoined for each and not what each is capable of doing.

Scripture declares, Once returning to the forest, one should never return to household life. A Sannyasi should not stir up the household fire again after having once renounced it.

Therefore, one cannot go back from Sannyasa.

ADHIKARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 41-42)

Expiation for one who has broken the vow of Sannyasa

Na chadhikarikamapi patananumanattadayogat III.4.41 (466)

And there is no fitness for expiation in the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin (who is immoral), because a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti and because of the inefficacy (in his case) of the expiatory ceremony.

Na: not; Cha: and; Adhikarikam: (expiation) mentioned in the chapter that deals with the qualification; Api: also, even; Patananumanat: because of a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti; Tadayogat: because of its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficiency in his case.

The previous discussion is continued.

The present Sutra expresses the view of the Purvapakshin.

The opponent maintains that there is no expiation for such transgression in the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy, because no such expiatory ceremony is mentioned with respect to him. The expiatory ceremony which is mentioned in Purvamimamsa VI.8.22, refers to ordinary Brahmacharins and not to Naishthika Brahmacharins.

Smriti declares that such sins cannot be expiated by him any more than a head once cut off can again be fixed to the body, He who having once entered on the duties of a Naishthika again lapses from them, for him a slayer of the Self, I see no expiation which might make him clean again (Agneya XVI.5.23).

Further the expiatory ceremony referred to in Purvamimamsa is not efficacious in his case, because he will have to light sacrificial fire and therefore have to marry. In that case he will cease to be a Naishthika Brahmacharin thereafter.

But the Upakurvana (i.e., who is a Brahmacharin for a certain period only, not for life, one who is a Brahmacharin till marriage) about whose sin Smriti makes no similar declaration, may purify himself by the ceremony mentioned. If he is immoral there is expiation.

Upapurvamapi tveke bhavamasanavattaduktam III.4.42 (467)

But some (consider the sin) a minor one (and therefore claim) the existence (of expiation for the Naishthika Brahmacharin also); as in the case of eating (of unlawful food). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa).

Upapurvam: (Upapurvaka-patakam, Upapatakam) a minor sin; Api tu: but, however; Eke: some (say); Bhavam: possibility of expiation; Asanavat: as in the eating (prohibited food); Tat: this; Uktam: is explained (in Purvamimamsa).

The previous discussion is continued.

Some teachers, however, are of opinion that the transgres sion of the vow of chastity, even on the part of a Naishthika is a minor sin, not a major one excepting cases where the wife of the teacher is concerned and so can be expiated by proper ceremonies just as ordinary Brahmacharins who take prohibited food such as honey, wine, flesh, are again purified by expiatory ceremonies. They plead that that sin is not anywhere enumerated among the deadly ones (Mahapataka) such as violating a teacher's bed and so on. They claim the expia tory ceremony to be valid for the Naishthika as well as the Upakurvana. Both are Brahmacharins and have committed the same offence.

It is only sexual intercourse with the wife of the Guru or spiritual preceptor that is a Mahapataka (major sin). That Upapataka, a minor sin is an expiable sin has been explained in the Purvamimamsa of Jaimini in Chap. I.3.8.

The Smriti passage which declares that there is no expiation for the Naishthika must be explained as aiming at the origination of serious effort on the part of Naishthika Brahmacharins. It puts him in mind of the serious responsibility on his part so that he may be ever alert and vigilant and struggle hard in maintaining strict unbroken Brahmacharya and thus achieving the goal or summum bonum of life, i.e., Self-realisation.

Similarly in the case of the hermit and the Sannyasin. The Smriti does prescribe the purificatory ceremony for both the hermit (Vanaprastha) and the mendicant (Sannyasi). When the hermit has broken his vows, undergoes the Kricchra-penance for twelve nights and then cultivates a place which is full of trees and grass. The Sannyasi also proceeds like the hermit, with the exception of cultivating the Soma plant, and undergoes the purifications prescribed for his state.

BAHIRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12

The life-long celibate who fails to keep up his vow

must be excluded by society

Bahistubhayathapi smriteracharaccha III.4.43 (468)

But (they are to be kept) outside the society in either case, on account of the Smriti and custom.

Bahih: outside; Tu: but; Ubhayatha: in either case, whether it be a grave sin or a minor sin; Api: also, even; Smriteh: on account of the state ment of the Smriti, from the Smriti; Acharat: from custom; Cha: and.

The previous discussion is concluded here.

Whether the lapses be regarded as major sins or minor sins, in either case good people (Sishtas) must shun such transgres sors, because the Smriti and good custom both condemn them.

Smriti declares, he who touches a Brahmana who has broken his vow and fallen from his order, must undergo the Chandrayana penance. Approved custom also condemns them, because good men do not sacrifice, study, or attend weddings with such persons.

SVAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13 (SUTRAS 44-46)

The meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas) should be observed by the priest

and not by the sacrificer

Svaminah phalasruterityatreyah III.4.44 (469)

To the sacrificer (belongs the agentship in meditations) because the Sruti declares a fruit (for it): thus Atreya (holds).

Svaminah: of the master, of the sacrificer or Yajamana; Phalasruteh: from the declaration in Sruti of the results; Iti: so, thus; Atreyah: the sage Atreya (holds).

This is the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.

A doubt arises as to who is to observe the meditations connected with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas), whether it is the sacrificer (Yajamana) or the priest (Ritvik).

The opponent, represented by the Sage Atreya, maintains that it is to be observed by the sacrificer, as the Sruti declares a special fruit for these meditations.

There is rain for him and he brings rain for others who thus knowing meditates on the five-fold Saman as rain (Chh. Up. II.3.2).

Hence the sacrificer only is the agent in those meditations which have a fruit. This is the opinion of the teacher Atreya.

Artvijyamityaudulomistasmai hi parikriyate III.4.45 (470)

(They are) the duty of the Ritvik (priest), this is the view of Audulomi, because he is paid for that (i.e., the performance of the entire sacrifice).

Artvijyam: the duty of the Ritvik (priest); Iti: thus; Audulomih: the sage Audulomi (thinks); Tasmai: for that; Hi: because; Parikriyate: he is paid.

The previous topic is continued.

The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice are the work of the sacrificer (Yajamana) is unfounded.

But Audulomi says that they are to be done by the priest (Ritvik), because he is engaged (literally bought) for the sake of the Karma. As the priest is paid for all his acts, the fruit of all his acts, is as it were, purchased by the Yajamana (sacri ficer). Therefore the meditations also fall within the perfor mance of the work, as they belong to the sphere of that to which the sacrificer is entitled. They have to be observed by the priest and not the sacrificer.

This is the view of the sage Audulomi.

Srutescha III.4.46 (471)

And because the Sruti (so) declares.

Sruteh: from the Sruti; Cha: and.

The previous topic is concluded here.

The Ritvik is to make the Anga Upasana. But the fruit goes to the Yajamana.

Whatever blessing the priests pray for at the sacrifice, they pray for the good of the sacrificer (Sat. Br. I.3., I.26). Therefore an Udgatri who knows this may say: what wish shall I obtain for you by my singing (Chh. Up. I.7.8). The scriptural passages also declare that the fruit of meditations in which the priest is the agent, goes to the sacrificer.

All this establishes the conclusion that the meditations on subordinate parts of the sacrifice are the work of the priest.

Therefore, Audulomi's view is correct, being supported by the Sruti texts.

SAHAKARYANTARAVIDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14 (SUTRAS 47-49)

In Bri. Up. III.5.1 meditation is enjoined besides the

child-like state and scholarship

Sahakaryantaravidhih pakshena tritiyam

tadvato vidhyadivat III.4.47 (472)

There is the injunction of something else, i.e., meditation, cooperation (towards knowledge) (which is) a third thing (with regard to Balya or state of a child and Panditya or scholarship), (which injunction is given) for the case (of per fect knowledge not yet having arisen) to him who is such (i.e., the Sannyasin possessing knowledge); as in the case of injunctions, and the like.

Sahakaryantaravidhih: a separate auxiliary injunction; Pakshena: as an alternative; Tritiyam: the third; Tadvatah: for one who possesses it, (i.e., knowledge); Vidhyadivat: just as in the case of injunctions and the like.

This Sutra examines a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and concludes that continuous meditation is also to be considered as enjoined by Sruti for the realisation of Brahman. This and the following two Sutras show that the scripture enjoins the four orders of life.

Mauna (Nididhyasa or meditation) is enjoined as an aid. The third, i.e., Mauna is enjoined for a Sannyasi in case his sense of cosmic diversity is persistent, just as Yajnas are enjoined for one desirous of heaven.

Therefore, a knower of Brahman, having done with scholar ship, should remain like a child (free from passion, anger, etc.); and after having finished with this state and with erudition he becomes meditative (Muni) (Bri. Up. III.5.1).

A doubt arises now whether the meditative state is enjoined or not.

The Purvapakshin maintains that it is not enjoined, as there is no word indicating an injunction. Though the imperative mood occurs in regard to Balya or child-like state, there is no such indication in regard to the Muni. The text merely says that he becomes a Muni or meditative whereas it expressly enjoins One should remain etc., with respect to the state of child and scholarship.

Further scholarship refers to knowledge. Therefore, it includes Muniship which also refers to knowledge. As there is no newness (Apurva) with respect to Muniship in the text it has no injunctive value.

This Sutra refutes this view and declares that Muniship or meditativeness is enjoined in the text as a third requisite besides child-like state and scholarship.

Muni means a person who constantly meditates on Brahman. So constant meditation is the third auxiliary observance for one who is already possessed of Panditya (erudition) and Balya (child-like state); and as such constant meditation is enjoined to be observed like the injunctions about sacrifice and control of the senses and so on.

This Sutra refers to a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where in reply to a question by one Kahola, the sage Yajnaval­kya enjoins first, scholarly attainments, the child-like simplicity, and then thirdly, continuous meditation cooperating with the two previous conditions, with a view to realisation of Brahman. Though there is no verb of imperative or injunctive force in the case of this third state, there is to be inferred an injunction to be understood like the injunctions in the other cases.

Muniship is continuous contemplation on Brahman. Therefore, it is different from scholarship. It is a new thing (Apurva). It has not been referred to before. Hence the text has injun ctive value. Incessant meditation is highly beneficial for a Sannyasin who has not yet attained oneness or unity of Self and who experiences plurality on account of past expressions or the prevailing force of the erroneous idea of multiplicity.

Munihood is enjoined as something helpful to knowledge.

Kritsnabhavattu grihinopasamharah III.4.48 (473)

On account of his being all, however, there is winding up with the householder.

Kritsnabhavat: on account of the householder's life including all; Tu: verily; Grihina: by a householder, with the householder; Upasamharah: the conclusion, the goal, salvation, (the Chapter) ends. (Kritsna: of all (duties); Bhavat: owing to the existence; Grihinopasamharah: conclusion with the case of the householder.)

The Sruti winds up with the householder as he has all the duties. He has to do difficult sacrifices and has also to observe Ahimsa, self-control, etc. As the householder's life includes duties of all the other stages of life, the Chapter ends with the enumeration of the duties of the householder.

The Chhandogya Upanishad concludes with the householder's stage, because of the fact that this stage includes all the others. He, the householder, conducting his life in this way, concent rating all his senses upon the self, and abstaining from injury to any living being throughout his life, attains the world of Brahma and has not to return again to this world (Chh. Up. VIII.15.1).

The word `tu' is meant to lay stress on the householder being everything. He has to do many duties belonging to his own Asrama which involve a great trouble. At the same time the duties of the other Asramas such as tenderness for all living creatures, restraint of the senses and study of scriptures, and so on are incumbent on him also as far as circumstances allow. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory in the Chhandogya winding up with the householder.

The householder's life is very important. Grihasthasrama includes more or less the duties of all Asramas. The Sruti enumerates the duties of the Brahmacharin and then those of the householder and there it ends without referring to Sannyasa in order to lay stress on the life of the householder, to show its importance, and not because it is not one of the prescribed Asramas.

Maunavaditareshamapyupadesat III.4.49 (474)

Because the scripture enjoins the other (stages of life, viz., Brahmacharya and Vanaprastha), just as it enjoins the state of a Muni (Sannyasi).

Maunavat: just as silence, like constant meditation, like the state of a Muni (Sannyasi); Itaresham: of the others, of the other orders of life; Api: even, also; Upadesat: because of scriptural injunction.

This Sutra states that the scripture enjoins the observance of the duties of all the orders of life.

Just as the Sruti enjoins Sannyasa and householder's life, so also it enjoins the life of a Vanaprastha (hermit) and that of a student (Brahmacharin). For we have already pointed above to passages such as Austerity is the second, and to dwell as a student in the house of a teacher is the third. As thus the four Asramas are equally taught by the scripture, they are to be gone through in sequence or alternately.

That the Sutra uses a plural form (of the `others') when speaking of two orders only, is due to its having regard either to the different sub-classes of those two or to their difficult duties.

ANAVISHKARADHIKARNAM: TOPIC 15

Child-like state means the state of innocence,

being free from egoism, lust, anger, etc.

Anavishkurvannanvayat III.4.50 (475)

(The child-like state means) without manifesting himself, according to the context.

Anavishkurvan: without manifesting himself; Ananvayat: according to the context.

This Sutra says that the perversity of a child is not meant by the word `Balyena' (by the child-like state), in the passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quoted under Sutra 47.

In the passage of the Brihadaranyaka quoted in the Sutra 47, the child-like state is enjoined on an aspirant after knowledge. Therefore, a Brahmana after he has done with learning should remain like a child. What is exactly meant by this?

Does it mean to be like a child without any idea of purity and impurity, freely attending to the calls of nature without any respect of place, etc., behaving, talking and eating, accord ing to one's liking and doing whatever one likes, or does it mean inward purity, i.e., absence of cunningness, arrogance, sense of egoism, force of the sensual passions and so on as in the case of a child?

The present Sutra says it is the latter and not the former, because that is detrimental to knowledge. It means that one should be free from guile, pride, egoism, etc. He should not manifest the undesirable evil traits. He should not manifest by a display of knowledge, learning and virtuousness. Just as a child whose sensual powers have not yet developed themselves does not attempt to make a display of himself before others, he must not publish and proclaim his learning, wisdom and goodness. Such meaning only is appropriate to the context, purity and innocence being helpful to knowledge.

Then only the passage has a connection with the entire chapter on the ground of cooperating towards the principal matter, namely, the realisation of Brahman. Being free from ostentation is necessary, because only then there will be Anvaya or concordance of doctrine.

The Smriti writers have said, He whom nobody knows either as noble or ignoble, as ignorant or learned, as well as well-conducted or ill-conducted, he is a Brahmana. Quietly devoted to his duty, let the wise man pass through life unknown, let him step on this earth as if he were blind, unconscious, deaf. Another Smriti passage is With hidden nature, hidden conduct, and so on.

AIHIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16

The time of the origination of knowledge

when Brahma Vidya is practised

Aihikamapyaprastutapratibandhe taddarsanat III.4.51 (476)

In this life (the origination of knowledge takes place) if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted), because it is so seen from the scriptures.

Aihikam: in this life; Api: even; Aprastutapratibandhe: in the absence of an obstruction to it (the means adopted); Taddarsanat: as it is seen in Sruti. (Aprastuta: not being present; Pratibandhe: obstruction; Tat: that; Darsanat: being declared by the scriptures.)

This Sutra states whether the consequence of Brahma Vidya, which is the realisation of Brahman, is possible in this life or will wait till death.

Beginning from Sutra 26 of the present Pada (Section) we have discussed the various means of knowledge.

The question now is whether knowledge that results from these means comes in this life or in the life to come.

The present Sutra declares that knowledge may come in this life only if there is no obstruction to its manifestation from extraneous causes. When the fruition of knowledge is about to take place, it is hindered by the fruit of some other powerful work (Karma), which is also about to mature. When such an obstruction takes place, then knowledge comes in the next life.

That is the reason why the scripture also declares that it is difficult to know the Self, He of whom many are not even able to hear, whom many even when they hear of him do not comprehend; wonderful is a man when found who is able to teach him; wonderful is he who comprehends him when taught by an able teacher (Katha Up. I.27).

The Gita also says, There he recovers the characteristics belonging to his former body, and with that he again strives for perfection, O Joy of the Kurus (Chap. VI.43). The Yogin striving with assiduity, purified from sin, gradually gaining perfection, through manifold births, then reaches the Supreme Goal (Chap. VI.45).

Further scripture relates that Vamadeva already became Brahman in his mother's womb and thus shows that knowledge may spring up in a later form of existence through means pro cured in a former one; because a child in a womb cannot possibly procure such means in its present state.

It, therefore, is an established conclusion that knowledge originates either in the present or in a future life, in dependence on the evanescence of obstacles.

MUKTIPHALADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17

Liberation is a state without difference. It is only one

Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhrites-

tadavasthavadhriteh III.4.52 (477)

No such definite rule exists with respect to emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge), because the Sruti asserts that state (to be immutable).

Evam: thus, like this; Muktiphalaniyamah: there is no rule with respect to the final emancipation, the fruit (of knowledge); Tadavasthavadhriteh: on account of the assertions by the Sruti as to that condition. (Mukti: salvation; Phala: fruit; Aniyamah: there is no rule; Tat: that; Avastha: condition; Avadhriteh: because the Sruti has ascertained so.)

In the previous Sutra it was seen that knowledge may result in this life or the next according to the absence or presence of obstructions and the intensity of the means adopted.

Similarly a doubt may arise that there may be some rule with respect to the final emancipation also, which is the fruit of knowledge. A doubt may arise whether salvation can be delayed after knowledge, and whether there are degrees of knowledge according to the qualification of the aspirant, whether there exists a similar definite difference with regard to the fruit characterised as final release, owing to the superior or inferior qualification of the persons knowing.

This Sutra declares that no such rule exists with regard to release. Because all Vedanta texts assert the state of final release to be of one kind only. The state of final release is nothing but Brahman and Brahman cannot be connected with different forms since many scriptural passages assert it to have one nature only.

The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. There can be no variety in it, as Brahman is without qualities.

There is no such divergence in the fruit of Mukti, because of the affirmation of its identical nature. There may be differences in the potency of the Sadhana leading to knowledge or Brahma Vidya. Brahma Vidya itself is of the same nature, though it may come early or late owing to the power of the Sadhana. There is no difference in the nature of Mukti (liberation) which is attained by Brahma Vidya. There would be difference of results in Karmas and Upasanas (Saguna Vidyas) but Nirguna Vidya is but one and its result viz., Mukti is identical in all cases.

Difference is possible only when there are qualities as in the case of the Saguna Brahman. There may be difference in the experiences according to difference in Vidyas but with regard to Nirguna Brahman it can be one only and not many.

The means of knowledge may, perhaps, according to their individual strength, impart a higher or lower degree to their result, viz., knowledge, but not to the result of knowledge, viz., Liberation. Because liberation is not something which is to be brought about, but something whose nature is permanently established, and is reached through knowledge.

Knowledge cannot admit of lower or higher degree because it is in its own nature high only and would not be knowledge at all if it were low. Although knowledge may differ in so far as it originates after a long or short time, it is impossible that liberation should be distinguished by a higher or lower degree. From the absence of difference of knowledge also there follows absence of definite distinction on the part of the result of knowledge, viz., Liberation.

There cannot be any delay in the attainment of emancipation after knowledge has dawned, because knowledge of Brahman itself is emancipation.

The repetition of the clause, Tadavasthavadhriteh because the Sruti asserts that state indicates that the Chapter ends here.

Thus ends the Fourth Pada (Section 4) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.


copyright © 2011 the divine life society. All rights reserved.