Sramana Tradation

Author(s): G C Pandey
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 29

Šramaņa Tradition
It is obvious that Yā jñavalkya is fully aware of the Śramaņas and Sramanism. He draws a clear distinction between the Vedic way of the Brahmanas, which accepts social and ritual obligations, and the way of the Muni-Parivra jakas which disregards such obligations in view of the liability to repeated death through the force of Karman. Nevertheless, Yājñavalkya fully affirms a doctrine of the emancipation which lays stress on the knowledge of the divine self, the one creator and ruler of the world, ever beyond sin and virtue which belong to the realm of duality. The theistic affiliation of Yājñavalkya clearly distinguishes his philosophy from that of śramaņism even though the sage takes note of it.
In the metrical Upanişads which are relatively later, the acquaintance with the doctrine of Samsāra becomes clearer. The Kathopanişad raises the all important question, what survives after death? This query about after-life (samaparāya) was traditionally answered in ritualistic terms. It is through the proper performance of sacrifices that a man may hope for a blessed afterlife which may be in the company of Pitęs or of the gods. The Katha, especially in its earlier portion constituted by the three Vallis of the first Adhyâya which ends with a phalaśruti, is not yet wholly free from this older notion. The performance of the Nāciketāgni is said to ensure everlasting felicity in heaven. The God of the yonderworld, Yama, even goes so far as to say that he has himself attained his immortal status through the impermanent means of ritual - tato mayā naciketas cito'gnir anityair dravyaih prăptavan asmi nityam/ This assertion of finding the eternal through the perishable sounds so incongruous in the light of the Śramanic revolution. It may be recalled that since Yama is the ancient god who presided over the Pitrloka, it is fitting indeed that he should be the one to clarify the question about survival after death. At the same time, the Upanişad draws a categorical distinction between the impermanent and degrading pleasures of the senses and the true good of man. This distinction between Anitya and Nitya, Adhruva and Dhruva, Preyas and Śreyas, Bála and Dhira, is a distinction which became of the greatest importance in Šramanic poetry later on. The contrast between the highest destiny and samsāra is clearly drawn and in fact samsara is here mentioned as such for the first time, Na sa