III-3 Śrī Bhāshya | Rāmānuja | 15

Topic 15 - The statement made in one of the texts that the good and evil deeds of a person who has attained Knowledge go to his friends and enemies respectively, is valid for all texts where discarding of good and, evil Karma by such a person is mentioned

Sutra 3,3.26

हानौ तु, उपायनशब्दशेषत्वात् कुशाच्छन्दःस्तुत्युपगानवत्, तदुक्तम् ॥ २६ ॥

hānau tu, upāyanaśabdaśeṣatvāt kuśācchandaḥstutyupagānavat, taduktam || 26 ||

hānau–Where (only) the discarding (of good and evil) is mentioned; tu—but; upāyana-śabdaśeṣatvāt—on account of the word ‘receiving’ being supplementary (to the word ‘discarding’); kuśā-cchandaḥ-stuti-upagānavat—as in the case of Kusas (sticks for keeping count of hymns) metres, praise, and recitation; tat—that; uktam—has been stated (by Jaimini).

26. But where (only) the discarding (of good and evil) is mentioned, (the receiving of this good and evil by others has to be included), on account of this word ‘receiving’ being supplementary (to the word ‘discarding’), as in the case of Kusas, metres, praise, and recitation. That (i.e. that it should be so done) has been stated (by Jaimini in Pūrva Mīmāṃsā).

The Chāṇḍogya read in their text 'Shaking off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rāhu, I obtain the world of Brahman ' (Kh. Up. VIII, 13). The Ātharvanikas have 'He who knows, shaking off good and evil, free from passion, reaches the highest oneness.' The Sātyāyanins have ' His sons obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he has done.' The Kaushitaki 'He shakes off his good and his evil deeds. His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done.' Two of these texts mention only the shaking off, on the part of him who knows, of his good and evil works; one mentions only the obtainment of these works, on the part of friends and enemies; and one mentions both these occurrences.--Now both the occurrences, although mentioned in several meditations, must be considered elements of all meditations: for whoever, on the basis of a knowledge of Brahman, reaches Brahman, necessarily leaves behind all his good and evil works, and those works unless thus left behind cannot be obtained by others. Meditation on those two matters therefore enters as an element into all meditations. The doubtful point, however, is whether there is option between the meditation on the abandonment of works, and that on the obtainment of works by others, and that on both these events; or whether in each case all these meditations are to be combined.--There is option, the Pūrvapakshin holds; for the reason that the texts make different declarations on this point. For, if the meditations had to be combined, there would be in each case meditation on both the matters mentioned; and as such double meditation is established by the Kaushitaki text, it would follow that the statements of the other texts are without meaning. Thus the only motive for the declarations made in different places can be to allow option. Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same matter, made in different places, are made with reference to the difference of students severally reading the several texts; for this holds good in those cases only where identical statements are made in different texts; while in the case under discussion two śākhās mention the abandonment of works, and one their passing over to other persons. Nor can you account for the difference of statement on the ground of difference of vidyās; for you yourself maintain that the meditations in question form part of all meditations.--This view the Sūtra impugns, 'but where the getting rid of is mentioned,' etc. Where a text mentions either the abandonment only of works or only their being obtained by others, both these matters must necessarily be combined, since the statement as to the works being obtained forms a supplement to the statement of their being abandoned. For the former statement declares the place to which the good and evil works, got rid of by him who knows Brahman, are transferred.--This supplementary relation of two statements the Sūtra illustrates by some parallel cases. A clause in the text of the Sātyāyanins, 'the kusas are the children of the udumbara tree,' forms a defining supplement to a more general statement in the text of the Kaushitaki, 'the kusas are the children of the tree.' The clause, 'the metres of the gods are prior,' defines the order of the metres which in other texts mentioning 'the metres of the gods and Asuras' had been left undefined, and therefore forms a supplement to those texts. Analogous is the relation of the clause, 'he assists the stotra of the shodasin when the sun has half risen,' to the less definite statement 'he assists with gold the stotra of the shodasin;' and the relation of the clause, 'the adhvaryu is not to sing,' to the general injunction 'all the priests join in the singing.' Unless we admit that one statement, which defines some other more general statement, may stand to the latter in a supplementary relation, we are driven to assume an optional proceeding, and this is objectionable as long as there is any other way open; according to a principle laid down in the Pūrva Mimāṁsa (X, 8, 15). As the clauses referring to the abandonment of the works, and those referring to their being taken up by others, thus form one connected whole, there is no such thing as mere abandonment and mere taking up, and hence there can be no option between the two. That the text of the Kaushitaki mentions both thus explains itself, on the ground that the several declarations of what is really only one and the same matter are directed to different hearers.

--Here terminates the Adhikaraṇa of 'getting rid of.'