________________
III ADHYAYA, 4 PÂDA, 13.
desire.' The clause about the laying hold thus comprises all knowledge which falls within the sphere of the transmigrating soul whether it be enjoined or prohibited 1, since there is no reason for distinction, and to all action whether enjoined or prohibited, the clause embodying a reference to knowledge and work as established elsewhere. And on this interpretation there is room for the clause even without our having recourse to the distribution of knowledge and work.
The next Sutra replies to the averment made in Sûtra 6.
293
12. Of him who has merely read the Veda (there is qualification for works).
As the clause, 'Having learnt (read) the Veda from a family of teachers,' speaks only of the reading, we determine that acts are there enjoined for him who has only read the Veda.-But from this it would follow that on account of being destitute of knowledge such a person would not be qualified for works!-Never mind; we do not mean to deny that the understanding of sacrificial acts which springs from the reading of the texts is the cause of qualification for their performance; we only wish to establish that the knowledge of the Self derived from the Upanishads is seen to have an independent purpose of its own and therefore does not supply a reason of qualification for acts. Analogously a person who is qualified for one act does not require the knowledge of another act.
Against the reasoning of Sutra 7 we make the following remark.
13. There being no specification (the rule does) not (specially apply to him who knows).
In passages such as 'Performing works here let a man live' &c., which state definite rules, there is no specification
1 Pratishiddha ka nagnastrîdarsanâdirûpâ. Ân. Gi. - Pratishiddha ka yathâsakkhâstrâdhigamanalakshanâ (not ‘yathâ sakkhâstra' as in the Biblioth. Indica edition). Bhâmatî.
Digitized by
Google
