Establishment of Brahman 3.275

3.275

nanvevaṃ karmakṣayāmyupagame tattvadarśanasamanantarameva muktiḥ syāt, na dehapātapratīkṣā /
‘tasya tāvadeva ciraṃ yāvanna vimokṣe 'tha saṃpatsye'; iti dehapātapratīkṣāśrutirbādhyeta /
yasya tu vidyā tatkṣayasādhanaṃ śāstrādgamyate tasya tadanusāreṇa keṣāñcitkṣayo vidyayā, keṣāñcidupabhogena /
tatra ‘kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi'ityaviśeṣātsarvakṣayaprasaṅge ‘tasya tāvadeva ciram'; iti dehapātāvadhiśravaṇānmukterārabdhakāryāṇāṃ pravṛttabhogānāṃ na tataḥ kṣayaḥ, bhogenaiva kṣaya iti gamyate /
na hi sarvakṣaye dehapātapratīkṣopapadyate /
taduktam ---
‘anārabdhakārye eva tu pūrve tadavadheḥ'; ‘bhogena tvitare kṣapayitvā saṃpadyate'; iti /
vidyayā tvavidyoccheda karmavipākavyavahārocchittāvaviśeṣātsarvoccheda iti sapadyeva mucyeta /
naiva doṣaḥ /
na hīyaṃ śrutiścirakālatāviśiṣṭaṃ dehapātavadhiṃ mukterāha, kiṃ tu kṣipratām /
yathā kaścitkṣepīyastaṃ pratipādayan bravīti kvacitkārye ---
‘etāvanme ciraṃ yatsnāto bhuñjānasya ca'; evamiyamapi /
anyathā ‘tāvadeva'iti na vācyaṃ syāt /
‘ciram'; ityeva brūyāt /
‘tāvadeva'iti tu vacanātkṣaipryaparatā gamyate /
ataḥ kṣipraiva muktiḥ, na pratīkṣaṇīyamasti /
dehapātapratīkṣā tu tatra nāntarīyakatvādbhavatyeva /

[Objection:] If the perishing of action is accepted in this way, liberation would occur immediately after the vision of reality, and there would be no awaiting the fall of the body. / The scriptural statement mentioning the awaiting of the fall of the body—'For him there is delay only so long as he is not released; then he will attain [it]'—would be contradicted. / But for one for whom knowledge is known from scripture as the means to their perishing, according to that [scripture] the perishing of some is by knowledge, and of others by experience. / There, since the statement 'and his actions perish' would indiscriminately entail the perishing of all, and because of the scriptural hearing of the limit as the fall of the body for liberation in 'For him there is delay only so long', it is understood that the perishing of those [actions] whose effects have begun and whose experiencing has commenced is not from that [knowledge], but that their perishing is by experiencing alone. / For if there were the perishing of all [actions], awaiting the fall of the body would not be intelligible. / That has been stated: / 'Only those whose effects have not begun [are destroyed], because that is the limit', and 'Having exhausted the other [actions] by experience, he attains [it]'. / But if by knowledge there is the destruction of nescience and [consequently] the cessation of the linguistic and practical usage of the ripening of actions, then without distinction there would be the destruction of all, and so he would be liberated immediately. / [Reply:] This is no fault at all. / For this scriptural statement does not state the limit of liberation as the fall of the body characterized by a long time, but rather [its] quickness. / Just as someone, conveying utmost speed in regard to some task, says: / 'My only delay is while I bathe and eat'; so too is this [statement]. / Otherwise, 'only so long' should not be said; / one would simply say 'there is delay'. / But from the expression 'only so long', its intent as quickness is understood. / Therefore liberation is indeed prompt; there is nothing to be awaited. / But the awaiting of the fall of the body does indeed occur on account of its being an invariable concomitant in that regard.