Sambodhi 1973 Vol 02

SR No.: 520752
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1973
Total Pages: 417
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 14 MB

Page 138

Y. K. Wadhwani
It is only those who practice penance and faith in the forest, remaining tranquil and living on alms, that are praised here as wise and learned (ridvamsaḥ). These are said to get freed from Rajas10 and proceed after death (pra-yanti) through the gateway of the sun, to [the sphere] where lives the immortal person, undecaying by nature [Avyayatman].
32
2.0 The juxtaposition of these two sets has confused ancient commentators as well as modern scholars.
2.1 Thus Sankaracarya, in order to avoid any conflict of Mund. Up. 1.2,1-6 with 1-12 (ibid) or with his Path of Knowledge (Jñanamarga), interprets brahmaloka as signifying mere heaven11 and Avyayatman as Hiranyagarbha, not as the Ultimate Principle,12
2,2 Following the above lines of thought, A, E. Gough adds that rites etc. are said to elevate the worshipper to the paradise of Brahman only if they are followed with a view to purifying his intellect for the reception of higher truth, and with an understanding of their mystic import as also the knowledge of the deities invoked, while the same will prolong the migra tions of souls if pursued with the desire for reward 18
2.3. Scholars like B. K. Chattopadhyaya content themselves with fact that the second set under consideration does not, in any way, deny the efficacy of ritual so far as leading the performer to heaven is concerned.14
2.4 Not confining themsleves to traditional views, Ranade and Belvalkar conclude, on the basis of juxtaposition of the two divergent views regarding ritualism, that the Mund. Up. was composed at a time when ritualism still continued to hold sway and hence even philosophers favouring the path of knowledge had to find a place, in their philosophic speculations, for ritualism,15
3.0 We shall now consider carefully each of the above explanations. 3.1 For the interpretations by Sankaracarya noted above, there is no justification in the text itself. Although Mund. Up. 1.1.4 has spoken of two levels of knowledge, it enumerates the knowledge of Ṛgveda etc. as the lower type; it does not refer to 'ritual' in this context.
3.2 In connection with the view of Gaugh also, it may be pointed out that no such thing is enjolned in Mund, Up. 1.2.1-12. Instead, towards the end of the passage it is advised that, having scrutinised the [perishable nature of worlds attained by deeds, Brahmana (secker of Brahman) (should arrive at complete indifference or disregard [towards them ].
3.3 We may agree with Chattopadhyaya that the efficacy of sacrifice in leading to heaven is not denied in Mund. Up. 1.2.7-12, But one cannot