________________
.: 136 ::
.
Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[The second
Moreover, O Aynibhūti ! you entertain doubt as regards Karman by hearing sentences such as "purusa evedam sarvam" of the Vedas. According to you, the interpretation of those sentences is as follows:
· "Everything that is animate and inanimate, past and future, movable and immovable, distant and near, interior and exterior everything that is nourished by food, and one who is the lord of moksci-all this is purusa and purusa alone. No other object as Kurman exists as distinct from this puruşa.
Similarly, according to you, sentences such as “ vijñānaghana” also establish the non-existance of Karman. Because, in both the above-mentioned padas you interpret “eva” as referring to the non-existence of Karman.
Your interpretation of the Veda-padas is not correct. Sentences like "purusa evedam " etc are meant to praise the atman and to establish the advaita-bhāva in order to avoid the arrogance of jati etc, but they are not meant to establish the non-existence of Karman.
Sentences are generally divided into three kinds :-(1) Vidhivadaparı, i. e., sentences that are laid down as rules. (2) Arthavāduparu i.e., sentences that are laid down as the explanatory remarks and (3) Anuvādapara 3. e., sentences that are laid down as explanatory repetitions~" Agnihotram juhuyāt svargakâmah ” is an example of vidhivada. Arthavada is of two kinds :-(1) Stuti-arthavada and (2) Ninda arthavada. Sentences such as "purusu evedam sarvam” etc, as well as those "Sa sarvavid yasyaisa mahimâ bhuvi vivye brahmapure hyeşâ vyomni âtmâsu pratisthitastamaks'aram vedyate yastu sa sarvajna sarvavit sarvamevavives'a ” and “ ekaya pārnayahutya sarvân kâ mânavâpnoti" etc, are also the examples of stuti-arthavada.
Again you may raise a question as to why the sentences like “ekuyâ parnaya ” etc. be not taken as the illustrations