Sambodhi 1989 Vol 16

SR No.: 520766
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1989
Total Pages: 309
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 10 MB

Page 64

55
aspects, it influences the mind as it does nature and the world. It fea an impact, impression, on the mind and man may repeat his actions. The law is not held to be inconsistent with theism by the Upanişads; the law is consistent with the reality of absolute Brahman. Radhakrishnan states
"Only the karma theory can give us a just conception of the spiritual universe. It brings out the living rational nature of the whole IC is the mechanism by which spirit works... Freedom and Karma il re the two aspects of the same reality.”32 Conclusion
In order to impart a sort of completion to his interpretation of the philosophy of the Upanişads, Radhakrishnan discusses some other questions also. But the questions discussed and analysed here from the VICW point of Radhakrishnan, are enough to give to us almost a complete picture of his understanding of the upanisadic philosophy. Radhakrishnan here succeeds in giving a clear picture of the immense wcalth of the Upanişadic thinking in all its variety and vastness. He successfully shows how this thinking has become the basis for all later philosophy.
He bases his analysis on the original sources from the Upanişads and is therefore on sound lines and proof. His reason is perfect almost and his style lucid and dignified. He writes with case and confidence. At places he brings in western philosophical thinking and concepts by way of comparison and in order to make himself more clear. However, it may be added that in referring to the use of the Upanişads by later philosophers, he refer's again and again to Sankara and some times also to Rāmänuja. Many of his thoughts would perhaps have been better clarified if he had referred also to Vallabha and Madhva. But he is mainly a follower of Sankara whose philosophy is too much with him.33 As far as doctrinal discussion is concerned, it is felt tllat he should have discussed the problems of Bhakti and Yoga in greater details. With this one suggestion, it must be accepted that perhaps with the exception of Dasgupta, no other philosopher-writer has treated the philosophy of the Upanişads better. The treatment is an important contribution of the scholar to a near correct and precise understanding of the philosophy of the Upanişads.
1. Introduction to his Bhāşya on Taitiriyopanişad
उपनिषदिति विद्योच्यते तच्छीलानां गर्भ जम्मजरादिविज्ञानात्तदवसादादा ब्राह्मणों वोपनिगमयितृत्वादुपनिषण्ण बास्यां पर श्रेय इति । तदर्थ त्वाद् ग्रन्थोऽप्युपनिषद । Also vidę 'Principal Upanişads', Intro. p. 19