The Vedanta-Sutras with the Commentary by Ramanuja Part 51

16. And destruction.

There is moreover a Vedanta-text which declares the knowledge of Brahman to destroy work-good and evil--which is the root of all the afflictions of transmigratory existence: 'The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He has been beheld who is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8). This also contradicts the view of knowledge being subordinate to works.

17. And of him who is chaste; for in Scripture (this is declared).

The knowledge of Brahman belongs to those who have to observe chast.i.ty, and men living in that state have not to perform the Agnihotra, the Darsapurnamasa, and similar works. For this reason also knowledge cannot be subsidiary to works.--But, it may be objected, there is no such condition of life; for texts such as 'he is to perform the Agnihotra as long as he lives,' declare men to be obliged to perform sacrifices and the like up to the end of their lives, and Smriti texts contradicting Scripture have no authority.--To meet this the Sutra adds 'for in Scripture.' The three stages of life are recognised in Scripture only; cp. texts such as 'Those who in the forest practise penance and faith'

(Ch. Up. V, 10, 1); 'Wis.h.i.+ng for that world only mendicants wander forth from their homes' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22). The text as to the lifelong obligatoriness of the Agnihotra is valid for those only who do not retire from worldly life.

18. A reference (only) Jaimini (holds them to be), on account of absence of injunction; for (Scripture) forbids.

The argument for the three stages of life, founded on their mention in Vedic texts, has no force, since all those references are only of the nature of anuvada. For none of those texts contain injunctive forms. The text 'There are three branches of sacred observance,' &c. (Ch. Up. II, 23, 1), is meant to glorify the previous meditation on Brahman under the form of the pranava, as appears from the concluding clause 'he who is firmly grounded in Brahman obtains immortality'; it therefore cannot mean to enjoin the three conditions of life as valid states. In the same way the text 'And those who in the forest practise penance and faith'

refers to the statements previously made as to the path of the G.o.ds, and cannot therefore be meant to make an original declaration as to another condition of life. Scripture moreover expressly forbids that other condition, 'a murderer of men is he who removes the fire,' &c. There are therefore no conditions of life in which men are bound to observe chast.i.ty. This is the opinion of the teacher Jaimini.

19. It is to be accomplished, Badarayana holds, on account of scriptural statement of equality.

Badarayana is of opinion that, in the same way as the condition of householders.h.i.+p, those other conditions of life also are obligatory; since in the section beginning 'there are three branches of sacred duty'

all the three conditions of life are equally referred to, with a view to glorifying him who is firmly grounded in Brahman. The reference there made to the condition of the householder necessarily presupposes that condition to be already established and obligatory, and the same reasoning then holds good with regard to the other conditions mentioned.

Nor must it be said that the special duties mentioned at the beginning of the section--sacrifice, study, charity, austerity, Brahmakarya--all of them belong to the state of the householder (in which case the text would contain no reference to the other conditions of life); for on that supposition the definite reference to a threefold division of duties, 'Sacrifice, &c. are the first, austerity the second, Brahmakarya the third,' would be unmeaning. The proper explanation is to take the words'

sacrifice, study, and charity' as descriptive of the condition of the householder; the word 'austerity' as descriptive of the duties of the Vaikhanasa and the wandering mendicant, who both practise mortification; and the word 'Brahmakarya' as referring to the duties of the Brahmakarin.

The term 'Brahmasamstha' finally, in the concluding clause, refers to all the three conditions of life, as men belonging to all those conditions may be founded on Brahman. Those, the text means to say, who are dest.i.tute of this foundation on Brahman and only perform the special duties of their condition of life, obtain the worlds of the blessed; while he only who at the same time founds himself on Brahman attains to immortality.--In the text 'and those who in the forest,' &c. the mention made of the forest shows that the statement as to the path of the G.o.ds has for its presupposition the fact that that stage of life which is especially connected with the forest is one generally recognised.--So far it has been shown that the other stages of life are no less obligatory than that of the householder, whether we take the text under discussion as containing merely a reference to those stages (as established by independent means of proof) or as directly enjoining them.

The next Sutra is meant to show that the latter view is after all the right one.

20. Or an injunction, as in the case of the carrying.

As the second part of the text 'Let him approach carrying the firewood below the ladle; for above he carries it for the G.o.ds' (which refers to a certain form of the Agnihotra), although having the form of an anuvada, yet must be interpreted as an injunction, since the carrying of firewood above is not established by any other injunction; so the text under discussion also must be taken as an injunction of the different stages of life (which are not formally enjoined elsewhere). No account being taken of the text of the Jabalas, 'Having completed his students.h.i.+p he is to become a householder,' &c., it is thus a settled conclusion that the texts discussed, although primarily concerned with other topics, must at the same time be viewed as proving the validity of the several conditions of life. From this it follows that the text enjoining the performance of the Agnihotra up to the end of life, and similar texts, are not universally binding, but concern those only who do not retire from worldly life.--The final conclusion therefore is that as the knowledge of Brahman is enjoined on those who lead a life of austerity (which does not require the performance of sacrifices and the like), it is not subordinate to works, but is in itself beneficial to man.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'benefit to man.'

21. If it be said that they are mere glorification, on account of their reference; not so, on account of the newness.

The following point is next enquired into. Are texts such as 'That Udgitha is the best of all essences, the highest, holding the supreme place, the eighth' (Ch. Up. I, 1, 3) meant to glorify the Udgitha as a const.i.tuent element of the sacrifice, or to enjoin a meditation on the Udgitha as the best of all essences, and so on? The Purvapaks.h.i.+n holds the former view, on the ground that the text declares the Udgitha to be the best of all essences in so far as being a const.i.tuent element of the sacrifice. The case is a.n.a.logous to that of texts such as 'the ladle is this earth, the ahavaniya is the heavenly world,' which are merely meant to glorify the ladle and the rest as const.i.tuent members of the sacrifice.--This view the latter part of the Sutra sets aside 'on account of newness.' Texts, as the one referring to the Udgitha, cannot be mere glorifications; for the fact of the Udgitha being the best of essences is not established by any other means of proof, and the text under discussion cannot therefore be understood as a mere anuvada, meant for glorification. Nor is there, in proximity, any injunction of the Udgitha on account of connexion with which the clause declaring the Udgitha to be the best of all essences could naturally be taken as an anuvada (glorifying the thing previously enjoined in the injunctive text); while there is such an injunction in connexion with the (anuvada) text 'The ladle is this earth,' and so on. We thus cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the text is meant to enjoin a meditation on the Udgitha as being the best of all essences, and so on--the fruit of such meditation being an increase of vigour and efficacy on the part of the sacrifice.

22. And on account of the words denoting becoming.

That the texts under discussion have an injunctive purport also follows from the fact that they contain verbal forms denoting becoming or origination--'he is to meditate' and the like; for all such forms have injunctive force. All these texts therefore are meant to enjoin special forms of meditation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of mere glorification.'

23. Should it be said that (the stories told in the Upanishads) are for the purpose of the Pariplava; not so, since (certain stories) are specified.

We meet in the Vedanta-texts with certain stories such as 'Pratardana the son of Divodasa came to the beloved abode of Indra,' &c., and similar ones. The question here arises whether the stories are merely meant to be recited at the Asvamedha sacrifice or to convey knowledge of a special kind.--The Purvapaks.h.i.+n maintains that as the text' they tell the stories' declares the special connexion of those stories with the so- called pariplava performance, they cannot be a.s.sumed to be mainly concerned with knowledge.--This view the Sutra negatives, on the ground that not all stories of that kind are specially connected with the pariplava. The texts rather single out special stories only as suitable for that performance; on the general injunction quoted above there follows an injunction defining _which_ stories are to be told, 'King Manu, the son of Vivasvat,' &c. The stories told in the Vedanta-texts do not therefore form parts of the pariplava performance, but are connected with injunctions of meditations.

24. This follows also from the textual connexion (of those stories with injunctions).

That those stories subserve injunctions of meditation is proved thereby also that they are exhibited in textual connexion with injunctions such as 'the Self is to be seen,' and so on. Their position therefore is a.n.a.logous to that of other stories told in the texts, which somehow subserve injunctions of works, and are not merely meant for purposes of recitation.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the pariplava.'

25. For this very reason there is no need of the lighting of the fire and so on.

The Sutras return, from their digression into the discussion of two special points, to the question as to those whose condition of life involves chast.i.ty. The above Sutra declares that as persons of that cla.s.s are referred to by Scripture as specially concerned with meditation ('He who is founded on Brahman reaches immortality;' 'those who in the forest,' &c.), their meditation does not presuppose a knowledge of the kindling of fire and so on, i.e. a knowledge of the Agnihotra, the Darsapurnamasa, and all those other sacrifices which require the preliminary establishnlent of the sacred fires, but a knowledge of those works only which are enjoined for their special condition of life.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the kindling of the fire.'

26. And there is need of all (works), on account of the scriptural statement of sacrifices and the rest; as in the case of the horse.

If knowledge (meditation), without any reference to sacrifices and the like, is able to bring about immortality, it must be capable of accomplis.h.i.+ng this in the case of householders also; and the mention made of sacrifices and the rest in texts such as 'Brahmanas seek to know him by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 22), does not prove sacrifices and so on to be auxiliary to knowledge, since the stress there lies (not on the sacrifices and so on, but) on the desire of knowledge.--Of this view the Sutra disposes. In the case of householders, for whom the Agnihotra and so on are obligatory, knowledge presupposes all those works, since scriptural texts such as the one quoted directly state that sacrifices and the like are auxiliary to knowledge. 'They seek to know by means of sacrifices' can be said only if sacrifices are understood to be a means through which knowledge is brought about; just as one can say 'he desires to slay with a sword,'

because the sword is admitted to be an instrument wherewith one can kill.

What we have to understand by knowledge in this connexion has been repeatedly explained, viz. a mental energy different in character from the mere cognition of the sense of texts, and more specifically denoted by such terms as dhyana or upasana, i.e. meditation; which is of the nature of remembrance (i.e. representative thought), but in intuitive clearness is not inferior to the clearest presentative thought (pratyaksha); which by constant daily practice becomes ever more perfect, and being duly continued up to death secures final Release. Such meditation is originated in the mind through the grace of the Supreme Person, who is pleased and conciliated by the different kinds of acts of sacrifice and wors.h.i.+p duly performed by the Devotee day after day. This is what the text 'they seek to know through the sacrifice' really means.

The conclusion therefore is that in the case of householders knowledge has for its pre-requisite all sacrifices and other works of permanent and occasional obligation. 'As a horse.' As the horse, which is a means of locomotion for man, requires attendants, grooming, &c., so knowledge, although itself the means of Release, demands the co-operation of the different works. Thus the Lord himself says, 'The work of sacrifice, giving, and austerities is not to be relinquished, but is indeed to be performed; for sacrifices, gifts, and austerities are purifying to the thoughtful.' 'He from whom all beings proceed and by whom all this is pervaded-wors.h.i.+pping Him with the proper works man attains to perfection'

(Bha. Gi. XVIII, 5; 46).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the need of all.'

27. But all the same he must be possessed of calmness, subjection of the senses, &c., since those are enjoined as auxiliaries to that, and must necessarily be accomplished.

The question is whether the householder also must practise calmness and so on, or not. The Purvapaks.h.i.+n says he must not, since the performance of works implies the activity of the outer and inner organs of action, and since calmness and so on are of an exactly opposite nature.--This view the Sutra sets aside. The householder also, although engaged in outward activity, must, in so far as he possesses knowledge, practise calmness of mind and the rest also; for these qualities or states are by Scripture enjoined as auxiliaries to knowledge, 'Therefore he who knows this, having become calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and collected, should see the Self in Self (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23). As calmness of mind and the rest are seen, in so far as implying composure and concentration of mind, to promote the origination of knowledge, they also must necessarily be aimed at and practised. Nor can it be said that between works on the one side and calmness and so on on the other, there is an absolute antagonism; for the two have different spheres of application.

Activity of the organs of action is the proper thing in the case of works enjoined; quiescence in the case of works not enjoined and such as have no definite purpose. Nor also can it be objected that in the case of works implying the activity of organs, calmness of mind and so on are impossible, the mind then being necessarily engrossed by the impressions of the present work and its surroundings; for works enjoined by Scripture have the power of pleasing the Supreme Person, and hence, through his grace, to cause the destruction of all mental impressions obstructive of calmness and concentration of mind. Hence calmness of mind and the rest are to be aimed at and practised by householders also.-- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'calmness' and so on.

28. And there is permission of all food in the case of danger of life; on account of this being seen.