Sambodhi 1990 Vol 17

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

Page 36

31
It becomes evident from A.B. that Vitthaleša relies on the Bh, for the meaning of the word 'prayana' used here. It is sectarian in so far as it solely depends upon the Bha. But it is not in the least fantastic, when it is said that the word 'priyapa' denotes that the Lord Himself is the supreme and transcendental fruit fit to be attained as the purusartha. Purusottamajt explains the word etymologically as the best goal i.e. fauit Yogt Gopeśvarajt further explains this as 'the best transcendental (other-worldly) object to be attained through the cultivation of the feeling that everything is the soul."41
(15) Dr. Ghate has taken note of the peculiar way in which the sütrakra employs such negative words as avibhaga' (B.S. IV. iv. 4), "ananyatva' (B.S. II. i. 14), etc. But it is far form convincing to say that "The sutrakāra was either not prepared to specify the idea too strictly."42
There is no definite criterion for specification and strictness of idea so far as the philosophical works like the B.S. are concerned. The sütrakāra has begun with the idea of concretising the vague concepts or ideas and giving the garb of proper expression to those which were beyond the reach of speech. In doing this, he would have kept before him perfec tion and specific assertion of the highest truth. He would have adopted such a method, as found here, for reconciling the mutually contradictory ideas. Dr. Ghate seems to have lost sight of such negative famous upanişadic passage as 'neti neti."43
These are some of the glaring examples which deserve notice for the correct appreciation of the A.B. of V. It becomes quite clear from the above discussion that A.B. is also equally important as the bhayas of other acaryas and there is no reason why undue criticism should be levelled against it. With due deference to the learned doctor, an attempt has been mede in this research paper to review and refute some of his statements. Without even the slightest tinge of malice or ill-feeling to the great Vedäntist, the results of a fresh critical study of A.B. have been put before the oriental scholars in an honest and humble way.
If should be added in the end, to the credit of Dr. Ghate, that he has praised V. at some places.44 But such cases are rare. On the whole, he has criticised the interpretations of V. and labelled them as fantastic, sectarian and far from satisfactory. The foregoing review proves for cartain that such is not the case and Dr. Ghate passed his remarks with some prejudice. If this attempt serves as an eye-opener for the Vedantists and if A.B. be studied in its true perspective and appreciated properly. I will consider my effort amply rewarded.