vyapadeśācca kriyāyāṃ na cennirdeśaviparyayaḥ ..2.3.34..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 226 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 3. 34.

व्यपदेशाच्च क्रियायां न चेन्निर्देशविपर्ययः॥२.३.३४॥

vyapadeśācca kriyāyāṃ na cennirdeśaviparyayaḥ ..2.3.34..

… Vyapadeshat, on account of direction, designation. .. Cha, and. …. Kriyayam, in action, in the performance of sacrifices…. Na-chet, if not so. … Nirdesha, grammatical construction, .. Viparyayah, difference, opposite.

34. The soul is an agent also on account of the scriptures directing it to perform actions, If it were not the agent, the grammatical construction would have been different — 252.

COMMENTARY

In the Taittiriya text, already mentioned before under Sutra II., 3. 31, the word «Vijnana» is used in the nominative case, meaning «the soul performs the sacrifice, it performs all works». This shows that the soul is agent principally in all worldly and Vedic works, and it is the soul which is designated as performing all works sacred and secular. If the word «Vijnana» there did not denote the soul, but the Buddhic principle, then the grammatical construction would have been different It would not have been put in the nominative case, but in the instrumental case — instead of «Vijnanam» the form would have been «Vijnanena», for Buddhi is merely the instrument of action and could not be put in the nominative case. But the text does not show it so. If Buddhi were the agent, then we have to imagine some other instrument through which it performs action, for all activities are accomplished through instruments only. Therefore, the dispute is nominal only, for there is no agency without an instrument, and where an instrument is spoken of as an agent, there the agent and the instrument are considered identical.

An objector may say: If Jiva was the agent then he would create only that which was beneficial to it, and not that which was injurious, for an agent is always independent This is no valid objection. Though the Jiva intends to create all conditions beneficial to itself, yet owing to the counteracting force of its past Karmas, which are concomitant causes, sometimes its efforts result in producing undesirable effects. Therefore, it follows that the soul alone is the agent.

This being so, the texts which declare that soul is not an agent are to be explained as declaring that the soul is not an independent agent. Its activities are dependent on the will of the Lord.

The scriptures — says an opponent — do not really mean to say that the soul is an agent because the soul suffers pain; and had it been the creator of its conditions, it would not have suffered pain, for it would have created such conditions only which would have been joyful. This argument goes too far, for then the texts which declare explicitly that a man should perform full-moon and new-moon sacrifices are to be explained in a different way, namely, that Buddhi has to perform these sacrifices, not man. Thus the non-agency of the soul would make the scriptural texts absurd.

The author now shows the objections to which the theory of Pradhana being the agent is open.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?