Dhritarashtra said:
The Vedas declare the emancipating capacity of those highly sacred and eternal regions obtainable by the regenerate classes of men, by prayers and sacrifices. Knowing this, why should not a learned person have recourse to religious acts?
The question that Dhritarashtra asks is fair and straight. When the Rishi has applauded knowledge and its efficacy in procuring emancipation, the King asks, if knowledge is of such efficacy, what then is the value of prayers and sacrifices as ordained in the Veda? The Vedantic Idea of emancipation is not peace or bliss enjoyed by a conscious individual, but freedom from the obligation of re-birth resulting from karma. Mere karma, as such, implies pain and misery, and the Supreme Soul is without action and attributes. The emancipation that is the subject of this dialogue is freedom from this action (karma).
Sanat-sujata said:
Indeed, he that is without knowledge proceeds thither by the path indicated by you. The Vedas also declare that thither are both bliss and emancipation. But he, that regards the material body to be self, if he succeeds in renouncing desire, at once attains emancipation (the Brahman). If, however, one seeks emancipation without renouncing desire, one must have to proceed along the (prescribed) route of action, taking care to destroy the chances of one’s retracing routes that one has once passed over.
The Rishi answers that karma or action does, indeed, lead to the emancipate state. The materialist, by renouncing desire, attains to the state of emancipation. What it means is that, by renouncing desire, both actions and attributes are lost. The state, therefore, of such a soul is one of inaction, or perfect quietude and the absence of
attributes which is exactly the nature of the Supreme Soul. If, again, emancipation is sought without extinguishing desire by the aid of prayers and sacrifices, it is to be attained by ‘extinguishing path by a path’.
It means that the seeker is to proceed along a definite or ordained route, taking care that the route he once passes over is not re-trodden. Action such as prayers and sacrifices, no doubt, leads to regions of bliss and emancipation, but that state is only transitory. For, when the merit is extinguished, and the body falling off, he has to re-commence action. If permanent emancipation is to be attained, the obligation of re-commencing action has to be got rid of. It means that the path once passed over is not re-trodden, and getting rid of the paths which keep one away from the Brahman, for emancipation.
Dhritarashtra said:
Who is it that constrains that Unborn and Ancient One (primeval Self)? Is it He all this severally? If, again, it is He that is this entire Universe in consequence of His having entered everything (without desire as He is) what can be His action, or His happiness (very purpose of existence)? O learned sage, tell me all this truly.
The Rishi has said that the ordinary soul, by a certain process such as renunciation of desire, attains to the state of the Supreme Soul. But the King infers it vice versa and asks: If it is the Supreme Soul that becomes the ordinary soul, who is it that urges the Supreme Soul to become so? And if this entire universe be indeed that Soul, in
consequence of the latter pervading and entering into everything, then divested of desire as the Supreme Soul is, where is the possibility of Its action or work being the direct consequence of desire? If it is answered that the universe is the Supreme Soul’s sport, then, as every sport is ascribable to some motive of happiness, what can be the happiness of the Supreme Soul, which is supposed to be without desire?
Shankara explains the dilemma of the King ontologically: Having shown that true death is heedlessness, and having shown that heedlessness in its forms of anger, etc is the cause of all evil, and having also shown further that heaven, etc are really not man’s highest goal, the author has only implied the unity of the Supreme Self and the individual self. On that arises a doubt which is stated in the passage.
Sanat-sujata said:
There is great objection (to contravening the Vedic texts such as ‘I am the Brahman’) in completely identifying (as here) the two that are different. Creatures always spring from the union of conditions (with what in Its Essence is without conditions). This view does not detract from the supremacy of the Unborn and the Ancient one. As for men,
they also originate in the union of conditions. All this that appears is nothing but that everlasting Supreme Soul. Indeed, the universe is created by the Supreme Soul itself undergoing transformation. The Vedas attribute this power (of self-transformation) to the Supreme Soul. For the identity, again, of the power and its possessor, both the
Vedas and others are the authority.
The Rishi explains that the ordinary soul and the Supreme Soul are not identical. As such, their identity cannot be admitted. As regards embodied beings, they flow continually from the union of the Supreme Soul with the conditions of space, time, etc. While the Supreme Soul is totally Unconditioned, there is this much of identity between the Supreme Soul and the ordinary soul in that the embodied beings arise and perish and arise, continually because of the union between the Supreme Soul and the conditions resulting in their creation. In consequence of this activity, the superiority of the Supreme Soul is not lost. The favourite analogy for explaining the connection of the Supreme Soul with the universe is derived from the connection of space absolute and unconditioned, and space as confined by the limits of a vessel. The latter has a name, is moved when the vessel is moved, and is limited in space. On the other hand, the space of which the vessel’s space is only a part is absolute and unconditioned, immovable and unlimited.
Shankara says:
The question of Dhritarashtra having suggested a difference between two principles one of which constrains, and the other of which is constrained, the answer is ‘such a difference ought not to be alleged, as it involves danger (objection)’. hen the question arises, ‘how is the difference, which does appear, to be explained’. The reply is, ‘it is
due to the beginning-less principle—delusion or ignorance’. The next sentence shows that the universe as it appears is also a result of delusion.
Dhritarashtra said:
In this world, some practise virtue, and some renounce action or karma (adopting what is called sannyasa Yoga). (In respect of those that practise virtue) I ask, is virtue competent to destroy vice, or is it itself destroyed by vice?
Sanat-sujata said:
The fruits of virtue and of (perfect) inaction are both serviceable for procuring emancipation. Indeed, both are sure means for the attainment of emancipation. The man that is wise achieves success by knowledge (inaction). On the other hand, the materialist acquires merit (by action) and (as the consequence thereof) emancipation. He has also (in course of his pursuit) to incur sin. Having obtained again fruits of both virtue and vice which are transitory (heaven having its end, as also hell in respect of the virtuous and the sinful), the man of action becomes once more addicted to action as the consequence of his own previous virtues and vices. The man of action, however, who possesses intelligence, destroys his sins by his virtuous acts. Virtue, therefore, is strong, and hence the success of the man of action.
Dhritarashtra said:
Tell me, according to their gradation, of those eternal regions that are said to be attainable, as the fruits of their own virtuous acts, by regenerate persons, engaged in the practice of virtue. Speak to me of others’ regions also of a similar kind. O learned sire! I do not wish to hear of actions (towards which man’s heart naturally inclines, however interdicted or sinful they may be).
