Sambodhi 1990 Vol 17

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 30

25
Now it should be borne in mind at the outset that these adhikaranas are important to understand the theory of causation according to the B.S. in general and cach bhasyakära in particular.
The sūtrakāra has begun the consideratiou of the relation between the cause, Brahman and its effect, world. This difference continues even though the effect gets absorbed in the cause at the time of dissolution (pralaya). Still it does not contaminate the cause by its peculiar qualities which give it separate cxistence. Here V. proceeds in the same manner to show the untenability of the incongruity in the relation of the bhokty and the bhogya.
To an impartial critic the above remarks of Dr. Ghate do not appear as sully convincing. The question of the difference between blokt; and bhogya arises here in a thoroughly logical way. So it cannot be said to be rather out of place' as Dr. Ghate remarks. As a matter of fact, he has somehow missed the exact point liere, when he says that 'the sūtrakāra would naturally occupy himself with .... the relation between Brahman and jiva as cause and cffect. The question that arises in a very natural way is the relation betwcen the two objects (things) in the effect which are to be regarded as different even after their absorption in their one single cause. Hence, it cannot be said that the way in which R. explains this sūtra is the most natural, and the question referred to is also quitc in place here.' Is iliis would liave been the purport, then V., who is in a way an antagonist or S. and who accepts the enjoyment of Lila or Krida by the Lord as done by R. to some extent would readily have explained this sutra along those lines. But it is really not proper to think of the enjoyership (bhoktstva) of Brahman in the same way as R. tries to establish it. It is not the question of enjoyership that arises due to the sa-sariratva (the state of being embodied) because it is out of place here. Again the relation between Brahman and jiva is shown in the first adhyāya and also in the third pāda of the second adhyāya. So in all probability the question of the continuance of difference between bhoktr and bhogya cven after their absorption in the same cause is quite proper here and also most natural in sequence.
(3) On B.S. II. iii. 18 (Iño' ta cva) Dr. Ghate wrongly remarks : 'V.... interprets the sūtra (18) as stating the prima facie view. The correct interpretation of A.B. on it shows that . refutes the view of the Māyāvādin.
Similarly, it is not reasonable to remark : 'this interpretation of the sūtra is far-fetched,'5 For if the views of R. and N. be acceptable, since