Svarajya Siddhih Translated and Annotated Part 6

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
Translation and Annotation of 'Svarajya Siddhi' of Gangadharendra Sarasvati from the nineteenth century. This text is considered one of the five Siddhi texts, the other four being Naishkarmya Siddhi, Advaita Siddhi, Ishta Siddhi, and Brahma
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  PB September 2012 􀀴󰀷􀀴 The Process of Action O 󰁢󰁪󰁥󰁣󰁴󰁩󰁯󰁮: What is the process of ac- tion? When a person hears the sentence ‘bring the pot’, the thought ‘I have been appointed to bring that pot, this is my action’ arises in the person’s mind and an intention to action also arises. Since there is no person in the Vedas, it is  apūrva , an invisible power that con-ceives the action. Reply: No, it is not so. Generally actions are  performed because of a desire or intention to per- form an action. 󰀀is intention arises due to two kinds of knowledge; these are: iṣṭasādhanatā- jñānam , the knowledge of the object attaining  which the desired result can be obtained; and  kṛtisādhyata-jñānam , the knowledge that that object can be obtained by human effort. It is es-tablished that even the desire to follow Vedic in-  junctions arises only by having these two types of knowledge. 󰀀erefore, it is useless to attribute different meanings to the process of action. Even if such a different meaning is attributed to this pro-cess, we see that a person having a strong spirit of renunciation does not perform any Vedic rituals. 󰀀ere is also the case of Vedic sacrifices like  Vishvajit. In the Vedas we find this injunction: ‘ Viśvajitā yajeta ; the Vishvajit sacrifice should be  performed.’ However, the result of performing such action is not mentioned here. Without the mention of a result, there is no motive to per-form a sacrifice. We find Jaimini saying: ‘  Ekaṁ vā codanaikatvāt  ; in reality only one result fol- lows from it; as the injunction is one only.’ 󰀴󰀳  󰀀e meaning of a Vedic injunction does not become complete if it does not include the result of the injunction. Hence here, in the case of the Vish-  vajit sacrifice, we need to introduce the word    svargakāma , desirous of attaining heaven. How-ever, we can attribute only one result to a Vedic Svarajya Siddhih:  Attaining Self-dominion Gangadharendra Saraswati Translated from Sanskrit and annotated by Swami Narasimhananda ( Continued from the July issue )  􀀴󰀷􀀵 PB September 2012 53 Svarajya Siddhih:  Attaining Self-dominion injunction, as that itself will make it complete. Attributing more than one result to a Vedic in- junction will make it cumbersome. 󰀀is is also supported by the Jaimini sutra: ‘ Sa svargaḥ syāt  sarvvān pratyaviśiṣṭatvāt  ; that one result would be heaven as that is equally desirable for all’ (􀀴.􀀳.󰀱􀀵). 󰀀erefore, it is established that in sacrifices like Vishvajit, where the result is not expressly mentioned, their performance leads to heaven. Here too we see that there is a person who at- tributes this meaning. Also, when one becomes aware of one’s true nature or realizes Brahman, all desire to perform actions dissipates, and one becomes incapable of performing actions. Simi- larly, if a person is prevented from performing actions by a strong force, no action can be done. In all these cases iṣṭasādhanatā-jñānam and  kṛtisādhyata-jñānam  go away; this position is agreed by all. It is maintained by the Mimamsa- kas that since a sacrifice that is finished or gets destroyed produces results in the form of attain- ment of heaven much later, we should necessar-ily introduce a factor called  apūrva , an invisible  power, just like a door, and this is brought about by Vedic injunctions in the optative mood liñ . By the line of argument given above to prove that actions are done only by persons, this introduc-tion of  apūrva  can also be set aside.Even if we were to introduce  apūrva , it does not necessarily prove the existence of the desire to perform actions. 󰀀e obeying or violating of the commands of the master leads to the happi-ness or anger of the master in the realm of maya. Similar is the case with the service of kings and the like. 󰀀e happiness or anger of the king or the master leads to reward or punishment for the servant. Here also the results of actions of the servant do not occur immediately aer the action but later. However, there is no necessity to intro- duce  apūrva . Similarly, there is no need to intro-duce  apūrva  in the case of Vedic injunctions. Bhāvanā:  Creative Energy  Mimamsakas have the concept of bhāvanā , cre- ative energy.  Bhāvanā  means a particular activity of a bhāvayitā , productive agent, which is con-ducive or favourable to the coming into being or production of that which is to come into being, that is, an effect.  Bhāvanā is of two types:  śābdi bhāvanā , verbal creative energy, and  ārthī bhāvanā , actual creative energy. Let us take the help of an example. Yajna- datta orders his son Devadatta to bring a cow. On hearing this order, an inclination to do an ac-tion that would result in bringing the cow, arises in Devadatta’s mind. He then makes an effort to bring the cow. 󰀀is incident can be looked at from two different perspectives, from that of Yajna datta and that of Devadatta. Yajnadatta  wants his son to have an inclination to bring the cow. 󰀀is mental activity of wanting an inclin- ation to arise is the bhāvanā here and is called the  śābdī bhāvanā . On the other hand, Devadatta listens to his father’s order and wants the action of bringing the cow to be fulfilled. 󰀀is desire of the cow being brought is the bhāvanā  here and is called the  ārthī bhāvanā . In the case of a Vedic injunction the  śābdī bhāvanā  is the intention of the Vedic sentence giving the injunction. But there is no person who has this intention, as the Vedas are  apauruṣeya , not srcinated from a person, and hence the Mi- mamsakas hold that the intention of the Vedic injunction resides in the optative mood itself. Using the logic adopted while setting aside the concept of  apūrva , we can set aside the concept of  śābdī bhāvanā residing in the Vedic sentence. 󰀀us, we find that iṣṭasādhanatā-jñānam and  kṛtisādhyata-jñānam  quash each other. Also, the optative mood liñ  does not support these two kinds of knowledge, and we perceive a mutual contradiction here. 󰀀e optative mood conforms to experience and to the connection between the  PB September 2012 􀀴󰀷󰀶  Prabuddha Bharata 54 root word and its meaning. Similarly, actions like sacrifices are accomplished through human ef- fort, and no sentence can mean action in itself. 󰀀e lamentation of Mimamsakas calling Vedanta a desert amidst the Vedas is nothing but the dis- play of unhappiness upon defeat. By this line of argument, the group who— by adding the words ‘to be worshipped thus’ to the mahāvākya s, great Vedic sentences—believe that worship leads to liberation, are defeated. Further, there are methods of meditation in the  Vedas like the  pañcāgni vidyā , of the Chhandogya Upanishad  , 󰀴󰀴  through which a person bound by the cycle of transmigration visualizes release from this cycle. Since this kind of meditation is possible and is sanctioned by the Vedas, it is not necessary to posit worship of Brahman, which is nothing but  sat  , absolute existence. Such an interpretation  will lead to the error of vākyabheda   doṣa . 󰀀is error occurs when it is possible to interpret a sen- tence as having a single idea or proposition and  yet two ideas or propositions are attributed to it. To avoid this error Vedanta refrains from holding that Brahman can be worshipped. In reality, the  worshipping of Brahman by a jiva who is bound by the cycle of transmigration and assumes an at-titude of the liberated does not do any good. It is  just like the mixing of copper and mercury leading to a combination appearing like gold. However, a cup made of such combination cannot be used for the purpose of drinking, as mercury is poison. In the  Kena Upanishad   it is said: ‘Know that alone to be Brahman, and not what people worship as an object.’  󰀴󰀵  By this Vedic statement the possibil-ity of the worshipped object being Brahman has been forcefully refuted, and the error arising out of the erroneous introduction of words to Vedic sentences has been struck at its source. Prasankhyāna:  Continuous Meditation Some hold that the mahāvākya s produce only relational and mediate knowledge but cannot apprehend Brahman. It is just like the know-ledge obtained from an ordinary sentence.  Prasankhyāna , continuous meditation, on these sentences gives rise to another kind of knowledge,  which is non-relational and immediate, and this knowledge destroys  avidyā , ignorance. Some hold this continuous meditation or contemplation to be an injunction in itself, called  prasankhyāna vidhi . 󰀀is cannot be, since the knowledge of Brahman is not conditioned by the  puruṣa-tantra ,  will of an agent, but by the vastu-tantra , reality of the object. 󰀀e knowledge of Brahman is condi- tioned by another knowledge viṣaya-pramāṇa- tantra , which destroys ignorance, and Brahman is self-revealed. 󰀀erefore, there is no necessity of an injunction. Injunctions are applicable in matters where there is the volition of a person  who  shakyaḥ , can;  kartum ,   do;  akartum , not do; or  anyatha kartum , do differently. However, the knowledge of Brahman is self-revealing and is viṣaya-pramāṇa , and if it arises, it cannot be re-strained by even a thousand injunctions. Simi-larly, if this knowledge does not arise, it cannot be created by a thousand injunctions. Needless to say, injunctions that speak of attaining the im-  possible, like the crossing of an ocean by swim- ming, are like a sharp blade that becomes blunt on striking a stone, and are useless. Hence, even if one is firmly resolved or takes special efforts to  practise the austerities of worshipping Brahman, its knowledge cannot be attained in that manner. 󰀀erefore, the worship of Prana and the like can be done in conjunction with the performance of actions, but it cannot go hand in hand with the knowledge of Brahman. ( To be continued  ) References  􀀴󰀳.  Mimamsa Sutra , 󰀴.􀀳.󰀱󰀴.􀀴􀀴. See Chhandogya Upanishad , 􀀵.󰀴.󰀱 to 􀀵.󰀱󰀰.󰀱󰀰. 􀀴󰀵.  Kena Upanishad , 󰀱.􀀵–󰀹.
Similar documents
View more...
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks