|
SECOND ADHYAYA
FIRST PADA.
Page1
1. If it be said that there would result the fault of there being no room for (certain) Smritis: (we reply) 'no,' because there would result the fault of want of room for other Smritis.
The first adhyaya has established the truth that what the Vedanta-texts teach is a Supreme Brahman, which is something different as well from non-sentient matter known through the ordinary means of proof, viz. Perception and so on, as from the intelligent souls whether connected with or separated from matter; which is free from even a shadow of imperfection of any kind; which is an ocean as it were of auspicious qualities and so on; which is the sole cause of the entire Universe; which constitutes the inner Self of all things. The second adhyaya is now begun for the purpose of proving that the view thus set forth cannot be impugned by whatever arguments may possibly be brought forward. The Sutrakara at first turns against those who maintain that the Vedanta-texts do not establish the view indicated above, on the ground of that view being contradicted by the Smriti of Kapila, i. e. the Sankhya-system.
But how can it be maintained at all that Scripture does not set forth a certain view because thereby it would enter into conflict with Smriti? For that Smriti if contradicted by Scripture is to be held of no account, is already settled in the Purva Mimamsa ('But where there is contradiction Smriti is not to be regarded,' I, 3, 3).--Where, we reply, a matter can be definitely settled on the basis of Scripture--as e.g. in the case of the Vedic injunction, 'he is to sing, after having touched the Udumbara branch' (which clearly contradicts the Smriti injunction that the whole branch is to be covered up)--Smriti indeed need not be regarded. But the topic with which the Vedanta-texts are concerned is hard to understand, and hence, when a conflict arises between those texts and a Smriti propounded by some great Rishi, the matter does not admit of immediate decisive settlement: it is not therefore unreasonable to undertake to prove by Smriti that Scripture does not set forth a certain doctrine. That is to say--we possess a Smriti composed with a view to teach men the nature and means of supreme happiness, by the great Rishi Kapila to whom Scripture, Smriti, Itihasa and Purana alike refer as a person worthy of all respect (compare e. g. 'the Rishi Kapila,' Svet. Up. V, 2), and who moreover (unlike Brihaspati and other Smriti--writers) fully acknowledges the validity of all the means of earthly happiness which are set forth in the karmakanda of the Veda, such as the daily oblations to the sacred fires, the New and Full Moon offerings and the great Soma sacrifices. Now, as men having only an imperfect knowledge of the Veda, and moreover naturally slow-minded, can hardly ascertain the sense of the Vedanta-texts without the assistance of such a Smriti, and as to be satisfied with that sense of the Vedanta which discloses itself on a mere superficial study of the text would imply the admission that the whole Sankhya Smriti, although composed by an able and trustworthy person, really is useless; we see ourselves driven to acknowledge that the doctrine of the Vedanta-texts cannot differ from the one established by the Sankhyas. Nor must you object that to do so would force on us another unacceptable conclusion, viz. that those Smritis, that of Manu e.g., which maintain Brahman to be the universal cause, are destitute of authority; for Manu and similar works inculcate practical religious duty and thus have at any rate the uncontested function of supporting the teaching of the karmakanda of the Veda.
|
