Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c10.s2.t2: 2. The Destruction of Sin

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c10.s2.t2

Language
English

2. The Destruction of Sin

c10.s2.t2.1

Sûtram 4, 1, 3.

c10.s2.t2.2

Existence without works is, as we have seen repeatedly, (above pp. 112. 390. 402) impossible. But it lies in the nature of works to have as purpose the production of a definite fruit, and without its having brought forth this fruit—one might think—no work can be annihilated, provided that the authority of the scripture is to be maintained (p. 1075, 9). That liberation thereby becomes impossible, need not be admitted; only one would have to incorporate liberation, like the fruit of works in the chain of Space, Time, and Causality (p. 1075, 17; that is, regard it equally as a fruit of works).—But that is not so! On the contrary, when once Brahman is known, sin committed is annihilated, and future sins cannot cleave to such a one (p. 1076, 2). For the scripture says (Chând. 4, 14, 3, translated above p. 165): “As water does not cling to the lotus “leaf, so no evil deed clings to one who thus knows;” and (Chând. 5, 24, 3; translated above p. 157) “as burns the leaflet “of the bulrush when thrust into the fire, so are burnt up all “his sins;” and yet again (Muṇḍ. 2, 2, 8):

c10.s2.t2.3

“For him who sees the One, both high and low
“His heart’s strong fetters, bursting, fall apart,
“For him all doubts are solved, all works are naught.”

c10.s2.t2.4

We do not thereby deny the fruit-producing power of works; such a power certainly exists; but we assert that it is checked in its development by a cause of another kind, namely, by knowledge (p. 1076, 14). For the canon of the doctrine of works holds good only on the assumption, that the power of the works exists; where the power is checked, the canon then loses its validity (p. 1076, 15). When then the Smṛiti says: “no work can be lost,” this remains the rule and implies that no work, without having borne its fruit, can be annihilated, and even the penance (prâyaçcittam) prescribed for certain deeds forms no exception, in that it is itself a kind of retribution (p. 1077, 1). The case is otherwise, on the contrary, with knowledge. If one takes exception to the fact that this (knowledge) is not, like penance, prescribed as a means of purification from sin (p. 1077, 6) then it is to be noted that the attribute-ascribing forms of knowledge (*saguṇā vidyāḥ*) do likewise also belong to the doctrine of works and in consequence are also accompanied by promises of heavenly lordship and release from evil (p. 1077, 9); in the attributeless knowledge, on the contrary, the prescription does not hold good, and yet the "burning up" of works is accomplished by it, and this by the knowledge that the Ātman is not an acting principle (p. 1077, 12). This knowledge that the soul is by nature a non-agent brings about in the first place the result that future works no longer cleave to the knower of Brahman who is no longer an agent, and further, that the former works which he performed under the false delusion of being an agent are annihilated through the dissipation of this delusion by the power of knowledge (p. 1078, 1). For the knower of Brahman says: "That Brahman the nature of which is opposed to the nature of formerly held to be true, being an agent and enjoyer, that Brahman which is in its very nature in all time past, present and future not-agent, not-enjoyer, that Brahman am I, and therefore I never was either agent or enjoyer, nor am I such now, nor shall I ever be one" (p. 1078, 4).—Only thus can liberation take place; in any other way the destruction of the works which have been taking their course from eternity in the past, and therefore liberation itself also, becomes impossible. "Hence liberation cannot, like the fruit of works, be conditioned by Space, Time, and Causality, for then the fruit of knowledge would be transitory and would lose its transcendent character (*parokshatvam*)” (p. 1078, 10).

Linked texts (3)