Or the above text may be an injunction Hike the text about the study of the Vedas. — 449.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 404 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA III. 4. 20.

विधिर्वा धारणवत्॥३.४.२०॥

vidhirvā dhāraṇavat ..3.4.20..

… Vidhih, and injunction, … or. Dharanavat, as is the case of taking (the Vedas) with, or as in the case of carrying, etc.

20. Or the above text may be an injunction Hike the text about the study of the Vedas. — 449.

COMMENTARY

The above text «Kona syat yena syat» may be construed as an injunction regarding the illumined sago, just like those injunctions which declare that a Brahmana child must be initiated at the age of eight so that he may be able to study the Vedas. In this view the above text is an injunction teaching that a sago belonging to the order of Parinishthita should perform all Karmas according to his will, but persons other than Parinishthitas should not do so, as says the Bhagavata Purana:

The wise do not perform the purificatory acts, the sipping of water, the bathing and other acts required by the law according to injunctions of the Scriptures. They perform it according to their will; as I, the Lord of the universe, perform all acts according to my will, as a mere sport.

This view is objected to in the next Sutra in the first part, and then that objection is answered.

SUTRA III. 4. 21.

स्तुतिमात्रमुपादानादिति चेन्नापूर्वत्वात्॥३.४.२१॥

stutimātramupādānāditi cennāpūrvatvāt ..3.4.21..

… Stuti-matram, praise merely. Upadanat, on account of reference. … Iti, so. .. Chet, if. .. Na, not so. …  Apurvatvat, on account of the newness.

21. If it be said that (texts such as the one about the performance of Karmas according to one’s will are) mere glorifications on account of their reference to the performance of Karmas; we deny that, because the texts lay down a new injunction (for the performance of Karmas according to one’s will). — 450.

COMMENTARY

An objector says, the above text is not an injunction but a mere glorification of the illumined sage. As a person may tell one whom he loves, «Do as thou likest», and by so saying shows merely his regard and love for that person, so when the Lord «A says, wise man may do as he likes», it is not an injunction to the wise man to go and break all the laws of God and social conventions, but it only shows that the Lord has so much confidence in those persons that He tells them to do as they like, knowing full well that they will never do anything against His will. The statement, therefore, that a wise man may do as he likes, is a mere glorification. More so, because there are express texts to the effect that a wise man must also perform Karmas.

To this objection, we reply that the above text is not an Arthavada but a Vidhi or injunction with regard to the God-intoxicated sage to do as he likes. It teaches something now not already taught before, and is, therefore, an Apurva Vidhi and not a Stuti.

Note: The argument of the objector may be thus put. The sentence «Let a Jnanin do as he likes» is a glorification only, and not an injunction. Because the Jnanin also is required to perform Karmas by the injunction contained in the verse ‘Kurvan eva», etc., of the Ishavasya. To this objection the reply given is that there is no other text declaring the performance of Karmas according to one’s will for the Jnanin. Therefore, when the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says, «A Jnanin may perform Karmas as he likes» it must be construed as an Apurvavidhi. All the Vidhis are of three kinds, namely, Apurva Vidhi, Niyama Vidhi and Parisamkhya’ Vidhi as defined in the following verse:

«An Apurva Vidhi is one which makes an original statement not to be known by any other means. A Niyama Vidhi or a restrictive rule enjoins the performance of one of the two alternatives. A Parisamkhya enumerates cases to which certain rule applies». For example, «let him worship daily with the Sandhya worship» or «let a person desirous of acquiring heaven, perform the sacrifice called Jyotishtoma». These are Apurva Vidhis, because a man would not have found the necessity of performing Sandhya» or Jyotishtoma, merely by his reasoning or his natural inclination, but for the teaching of the scriptures. By no other means he would have known that the Jyotishtoma is a means of procuring heaven. Therefore, these are Apurva Vidhis. That which ordains or restricts a man to one of the two alternatives is a Niyama Vidhi. Such as, «a person must approach his wife in the season». This restricts a man to a particular time. A man, by natural inclination, would approach his wife; but if through want of it, he neglects his wife, this rule enjoins him not to do m Similarly, «let him cleanse the rice of its husk by pounding it», is a Niyama Vidhi. For the husks may be removed by process other than pounding; but the rule confines one to pounding. Similarly, «Five-toed animals may be eaten» is a Parisamkhya Vidhi. It does not lay down any injunction as to the eating of five-toed animals, but if one wants to eat such animals, he is confined to such of them as are mentioned in Manu. V., 17 and 18.

Let him not eat solitary or unknown beasts and birds, though they may fall under (the categories of) eatable (creatures), nor any five-toed (animals).

The porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare, they declare to be eatable; likewise those (domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels.

Thus all fire-toed animals, like monkey, etc., are prohibited foods; but au exception is made in favour of six. The Parisamkhya is a permissive rule, rather than an injunction.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США