Adhikarana III — Scripture is the Source of God-knowledge

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 16 из 723Следующая ⇒

Adhikarana III — Scripture is the Source of God-knowledge

Vishaya: Now the author wants to teach that the Supreme Lord, who is the preserver, destroyer and creator of this universe, is not to be thought out by the intellect alone, but being inconceivable is understood by the Vedanta revelation; and not by any argumentation, but by intuition. We find the following texts of Gopala Purva Tapani Upanishad»: —

«Salutation to Krishna who is true Being, All-intelligence and Eternal Bliss, who is the Savior of everything, who is known by the Vedanta alone, who is the Supreme Teacher and who is the witness of Buddhi».

Again, in the Br. Up., IIL 9. 26. . —

«I now ask thee about that person who is taught in the Upanishad».

Doubt: Now arises the doubt: Is the Lord who is to be adored, as the savior, known by inference or by revelation (Upanishad) alone?

Purvapaksha: The Philosopher Gautama and others of his school hold that God can be known by inference, and they take their stand on the word ‘Mantavya’ (to be reasoned out), as is used in the Shruti, «Atma vare mantavya» (Br. Up., IV., 5.); and since God is the object of thought, he can be known by dialectic reasoning.

Siddhanta: To this the author replies: ‘No, God cannot be known by reasoning alone’. Hence the third Sutra runs as follows: —

SUTRA I. 1.3.

शास्त्रयोनित्वात् ॥१.१.३॥

śāstrayonitvāt ..1.1.3..

… Shastra, the Scripture, the Revelation, the Upanishad. … Yonitvat because of its being the proof or source. The word «Yoni» (literally womb) means that which causes or produces the knowledge of a thing.

Note — The Sangati is Akshepiki.

3. The existence of Brahman cannot be (Inferred), because he is to be known only through scriptures. — 3.

COMMENTARY

The word ‘not’ is to be read in this Sutra from the fifth Sutra of this Pada. Brahman is not an object of inference to the seeker of truth. Why? Because the scriptures or Upanishads are the source or the cause of understanding Him So Brahman can be known only through the teachings of Upanishads. If it were otherwise, the designation ‘Aupanishada’ (the etymological meaning of which is «He is known through the Upanishads alone)», as applied to Brahman, would be meaningless. As regards the objection that the word, ‘Mantavya’, means that the existence of Brahman can be reasoned out, we explain that the reasoning may be resorted to, so far as it is consonant with the Upanishad or scriptures, to demonstrate the existence of God. So we find (in Mahabharata Vana-parva as well as in Kurma Purana) «Upa or right reasoning is that by which we find out the true sense of a scriptural passage, by removing all conflicts between what precedes and what follows it. But one should abandon mere dry discussion». Moreover, the worthlessness of mere dry discussions, as carried on by Gautama, etc., is shown in Sutra II. 1.11. This shows that mere dry discussion like that of Gautama, etc., should be abandoned, because they are not based upon revelation.

The conclusion is that Brahman is to be known from the Vedanta and then meditated upon. This is explained further on in the Sutra II. 1. 27, where it will be further explained and demonstrated that the best proof of the existence of Brahman, free from all objections, is revelation. This also proves that the savior Hari has the form of the Self, that He is a witness of all experiences of all souls, that He possesses all good attributes which form His essential nature, that he is without modification yet the creator of the universe, and that He should be worshipped in this way.

Objection: An objector may say: How can it be said that scripture is the means to know the Brahman? The - Vedanta texts are not capable of being employed as commands and prohibitions, because’ they teach something which is already in existence, and therefore they are- of no use. They are something like mere descriptive passages of the Vedas or other subjects: such as the sentences ‘the world consists of the seven continents’, etc. Only those passages of the Vedas are relevant which direct something to be done or something not to be done. The Vedas teach action. As in ordinary life, an imperative sentence conveys the notion of something to be done; ‘ Let a man desiring wealth, go to the king». «Let a man suffering from dyspepsia, not drink water at the time of eating». Similarly, in the Vedas we find commands and prohibitions, such as, «Let a man who desires heaven, perform sacrifice», «Let no man drink wine». In fact, no one employs speech without any object in view; and that object is cither something to be attained by doing an act, or which is to be avoided by abstaining from an act. But Brahman is an existing object. Therefore passages like ‘Brahman is true, intelligence’, etc., are useless, because they do not teach or aim at teaching any particular action. Such passages can only be relevant, when they are employed in connection with other passages that direct some action. Thus, the description of a sacrifice or of a particular deity or of a sacrifices becomes relevant, in as much as these passages are connected with the act of sacrifice. As says Jaimini:…

As the purport of a scripture is action, those scriptural passages whose purport is not action, are purportless. (P. M., I. 2. 1),

Again, the constituent words of a sentence are pronounced with the word which expresses section; the senses of the constituent words are the efficient cause of the sense of a sentence (as a whole). (P. M., I. 1; 25).

Answer: To this objection we reply, that it is an erroneous notion to think that the Vedanta text is useless; simply because it does not teach any action. Though there is no direct teaching of any command or prohibition in it, yet in as much as it teaches the existence of God, who is the highest end of man; it has a utility of its own; like the sentences «there is wealth in thy house’s etc. As a man who thought that he was a pauper and so felt miserable, gets happiness when some trustworthy person tells him that there is a great hidden treasure in his house; and as the attainment of that treasure then becomes the object of his life. And as the information «there is a treasure in your house», is not at all useless; similarly is the case with the Vedanta texts. They certainly do not teach any action, but declare the highest truth, namely: that there exists a Being who is the Supreme end of man, whose form is intelligence and inexhaustible bliss, who is perfect purity and who is friend of all, who has sacrificed himself for humanity, who is mine, who is self of myself, whose part I am. Such a declaration cannot be useless, because it produces a conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being. The Vedanta texts are, therefore, not useless, but produce a certain effect in the shape of happiness and the removal of fear, just like the sentences ‘a son has been born to thee’, ‘this is not a snake but a rope’. Moreover the utility of Vedanta is clearly explained in the Vedanta texts themselves. Thus we are told in one place that ‘He who knows Brahmin as true Being, intelligent and infinite, as hidden in the depth of the heart, he enjoys all blessings’ (Tait. Up., II, 1.) So the knowledge of Brahman is not useless, as it leads to the enjoyment of all blessings.

Nor can it be said, that since the Vedanta texts teach the attainment of certain fruits; therefore, they teach action also. The whole context of the Vedanta is against such a view. It teaches knowledge (Jnana) and not action. On the contrary, it decries Karma or action, and its fruit as something to be discarded. Therefore, to suppose that the Vedanta teaches action is to imagine something which is totally irreconcilable with it. Nor can we reasonably interpret that Vedanta teaches anything but the truth about Brahman. It teaches that God is the cause of the rise and fall of the infinite universes, that He is eternal, all-intelligence, that He is the ocean of infinite auspicious qualities, and that He is the abode of Lakshmi. Every text exhausts its probative force with the teaching of its particular doctrine that it sets itself to declare. Thus the Vedanta has its scope and authority in matters relating to Brahman and not action. Nor should it be said on the authority of Jaimini, that the Vedas teach action only, and the passages that do not teach action are redundant, and therefore, the Vedanta passages are redundant. As a matter of fact, the two Sutras of Jaimini quoted above, should not be interpreted in this sense. For Jaimini himself was the disciple of Badarayana, and must be presumed to be a devotee of Brahman, and could not have taught a doctrine in conflict with that of his great master. In fact all that he has done in his school of Mimansa is to show that certain apparently redundant passages in the midst of texts that teach Karma described in the whole chapter should be interpreted as applying to Karma, and that their literal meaning should be abandoned in favour of teaching Karma.

Thus in a chapter teaching sacrifice and Karma occurs the sentence ‘He wept’ (Tait Up., I., 5. 1). Either this sentence is redundant as it does not teach any Karma; or it must be interpreted to teach some action: namely, that at a certain stage the sacrificer must weep or shed tears. But as one cannot weep at will, therefore the above passage must be interpreted as a redundancy.

In fact those two Sutras of Jaimini mean that passages teaching Karma must either command something to be done or prohibit something not to be done.

If there be a sentence which does not fulfil the condition, it is either superfluous (P. M., 1, 2. 1.), or they must be interpreted to teach some action (P. M., I., 1: 25). In fact Jaimini does not deal with Jnanakandya texts: texts with which Vedanta specially deals. His scope is in that portion of the Vedas which deals with Karma and his Sutras refer to that portion only. It does not refer to Vedanta, and his Sutras should not be interpreted as such.

THUS THE VEDANTA TEACHES SUPREME BRAHMAN

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману