Vol. 3 · pages 271–275

258 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES will go to heaven, where he will enjoy the results of his sacrifices. The Text dealing with Self-knowledge serve merely to enlighten the agent and so are subordinate to sacrificial acts. The fruits, however, which the Vedanta texts declare with regard to Self-knowledge, are merely praise, even as texts declare such results by way of praise, with respect to other matters. In short, Jaimini holds that by the knowledge that his Self will outlive the body, the agent becomes qualified for sacrificial actions, even as other things become fit in sacrifices through purificatory ceremonies. 3. Because we find (from the scriptures such) conduct (of men of realization). “Janaka, emperor of Videha performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed” (Brih. 3.1.1.); “I am going to perform a sacrifice, Sirs” (Chh. 5.11.5.). Now both Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of the Self. If by this knowledge of the Self they had attained Liberation, there was no need for them to perform sacrifices. But the two texts quoted show that they did perform sacrifices. This proves that it is through sacrificial acts alone that one attains Liberation, and not through the knowledge of the Self, as the Vedantians hold. 4. That (viz, that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts) the scriptures directly declare, “That alone which is performed with knowledge, faith and meditation becomes more powerful” (Chh. 1.1.10); This text clearly shows that knowledge is a part of the sacrificial act. 5. Because the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to produce the results). “It is followed by knowledge, work, and past experience” (Brih. 4.4.2.). This text shows that knowledge and work go together with the soul and produce the effect which it is destined to enjoy. Knowledge independently is not able to produce any such effect.” 6. Because (the scriptures) enjoin (work) for such (as know the purport of the Vedas). “The scriptures enjoin work only for those who have a knowledge of the Vedas, which includes the knowledge of the Self. Hence knowledge does not independently produce any result.” 7. And on account of prescribed rules. “Performing works here let a man wish to live a hundred years” (Is. 2.); “Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting up to old age and death; for through old age one is freed from it or through death” (Sat. Br. 12.4.1.1.). From such prescribed rules also we find that Knowledge stands in a subordinate relation or work.

259 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM What is the position of Badarayana towards Jaimini and Karma Kanda Shastras? This is best illustrated by the reply which Badarayana gives to the attack by Jaimini on Vedanta as formulated by Badarayana in the Sutras quoted above. The reply is contained in the following Sutras :1 8. But because (the scriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) other (than the agent), Badarayana’s (view is) correct; for that is seen (from the scriptures). “Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas, which is refuted by Sutras 8-17. The Vedanta texts do not teach the limited self, which is the agent, but the Supreme Self, which is different from the agent. Thus the knowledge of the Self which the Vedanta texts declare is different from that knowledge of the self which an agent possesses. The knowledge of such a Self, which is free from all limiting adjuncts, not only does not help, but puts an end to all actions. That the Vedanta texts teach the Supreme Self is clear from such texts as the following; “He who perceives all and knows all” (Mu. 1.1.9.); “Under the mighty rule of this immutable, O Gargi” etc. (Brih. 3.8.9.). 9. But the declarations of the Shruti equally support both views. “This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. There it was shown that Janaka and others even after attaining Knowledge were engaged in work. This Sutra says the scriptural authority equally supports the view that for one who attained Knowledge there is no work. “Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth, and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant life” (Brih. 3.5.1.). “We also see from the scriptures that knowers of the Self like Yajnavalkya gave up work.” ‘This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear’. Saying this Yajnavalkya left home” (Brih. 4.5.15). The work of Janaka and others was characterized by non-attachment, and as such it was practically no work; so the Mimamsa argument is weak. 10. (The declaration of the scripture referred to in Sutra 4) is not universally true. The declaration of the Shruti that knowledge enhances the fruit of the sacrifice does not refer to all knowledge, as it is connected only with the Udgitha, which is the topic of the section. (There is) division of knowledge and work, as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons). 1 Swami Vireswaranand, Brahma Sutras, 411-416.

260 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “This Sutra refutes Sutra 5. “It is followed by knowledge, work, and past experiences” (Brih. 4.4.2.). Here we have to take knowledge and work in a distributive sense, meaning that knowledge follows one and work another. Just as when we say a hundred be given to these two persons, we divide it into two halves and give each man fifty. There is no combination of the two. Even without this explanation Sutra 5 can be refuted. For the text quoted refers only to knowledge and work, which concern the transmigrating soul, and not an emancipated soul. For the passage,” Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)” (Brih. 4.4.6.) shows that the previous text refers to the transmigrating self. And of the emancipated soul Shruti says, “But the man who never desires (never transmigrates)” etc. (Brih. 4.4.6.). 12. (The scriptures enjoin work) only on those who have read the Vedas. “This Sutra refutes Sutra 6. Those who have read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices are entitled to perform work. No work is prescribed for those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishads. Such a knowledge is incompatible with work. 13. Because there is no special mention (of the Jaimini it does not(apply to him). “This Sutra refutes Sutra 7. The text quoted there from the Isa Upanishad is a general statement, and there is no special mention in it that it is applicable to a Jnani also. In the absence of such a specification it is not binding on him. 14. Or rather the permission (to do work) is for praising (Knowledge). “The injunction to do work for the knowers of the Self is for the glorification of this Knowledge. The praise involved in it is this : A knower of the Self may work all his life, but on account of this Knowledge he will not be bound by its effects. 15. And some according to their choice (have refrained from all work). “In Sutra 3 it was said that Janaka and others were engaged in work even after Knowledge. This Sutra says that some have of their own accord given up all work. The point is that after Knowledge some may choose to work to set an example to others, while others may give up all work. There is no binding on the knowers of the Self as regards work. 16. And (the scriptures say that the) destruction (of all qualifications for work results from Knowledge).

261 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM Knowledge destroys all ignorance and its products like agent, act, and result. “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what” etc., (Brih. 4.5.15). The knowledge of the Self is antagonistic to all work and so cannot possibly be subsidiary to work. 17. And (Knowledge belongs) to those who observe continence (i.e. to Sannyasis); because (this fourth Ashrama is mentioned) in the scriptures. “The scriptures declare that Knowledge is gained in that stage of life in which continence is prescribed, i.e. the fourth stage or Sannyasa Asrama. To a Sannayasin there is no work prescribed except discrimination. So how can Knowledge be subservient to work ? That there is a stage of life called Sannyasa we find from the scriputures themselves in texts like : “There are three branches of duty; sacrifice, study and charity are the first;.... All these attain to the worlds of the virtuous; but only one who is firmly established in Brahman attains immortality” (Chh. 2.33.1-2); “Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks renounce their homes “(Brih. 4.4.22). See also Mu. 1.2.11 and Chh. 5.10.1. Everyone can take to this life without being a householder etc. which shows the independence of Knowledge”. Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the attitude of the two schools of thought towards each other. But one is enough as it is so very typical. If one stops to consider the matter the position becomes absolutely clear. Jaimini denounces Vedanta as a false Shastra a snare and a delusion, something superficial, unnecessary and insubstantial. What does Badarayana do in the face of this attack ? He defends his own Vedanta Shastra. What one would expect from Badrayana is denunciation of the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false religion. Badarayana shows no such courage. On the contrary he is very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini’s Karmakanda is based on the Scriptures and cannot be repudiated. All that he insists is that his Vedanta doctrine is also true because it has also the support of the Scriptures. Some explanation is necessary for this attitude of Badarayana. BHAGWAT GITA The Bhagwat Gita forms part of the Bhishmaparvan of the great epic known as the Mahabharat. The epic is mainly concerned with the struggle for sovereignty between cousins, the Kauravas the sons of Dhritarashtra and the Pandavas the sons of Pandu. Pandu was the

262 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES younger brother of Dhritarashtra. But as Dhritarashtra was blind the throne went to Pandu. After Pandu’s death there arises a dispute between his sons and the sons of Dhritarashtra regarding the right of succession. The struggle for sovereignty culminated in the battle of Kurukshetra (near modern Panipat). In this battle Krishna sides with the Pandavas and acts as their guide, friend and philohopher,—nay acts as the charioteer of Arjuna, one of the Pandava brothers and who plays the part of the chief warrior in the battle on the side of the Pandavas. The two armies of the Kauravas and the Pandavas were arrayed for battle on the field. Arjuna in his chariot with Krishna as a driver comes and takes his place in front of the Pandava army. Strong and valiant he gazes at the opposing army of the Kauravas and is struck by the horror of the dreadful fratricidal war in which he will have to kill his cousins and slay those whom he himself revers and to whom he is greatly attached and indebted, He becomes dejected, lays down his weapons and refuses to fight. Krishna begins to argue with him and provoke him to fight. This argument takes the form of a question and answer of a conversation between Arjuna and Krishna at the end of which Arjuna agrees to fight. At the opening of the Bhagwat Gita we find old Dhritarashtra questioning Sanjaya about the battle. This is because Dhritarashtra the father of the Kauravas who though alive at the time when the battle was fought was a blind man and could not see and know things for himself. For the knowledge of the happenings he had to depend upon the reports of others. Anticipating the difficulty of getting someone to tell Dhritarashtra the authentic story, Vyas the author of the Mahabharata, it is said, bestowed on Sanjaya, the charioteer of Dhritrashtra, the power of knowing all that takes place on the battlefield— even the thoughts in men’s minds—that he may make a faithful report to Dhritarashtra. That is why we find the episode of Bhagwat Gita related as a reply by Sanjaya to questions by Dhritarashtra. But the Gita is really a conversation between Arjuna and Krishna and is rightly called Krishana Arjuna Samvad. In this Krishna-Arjuna-Samvad—which is the real name of the Bhagwat Gita— the main question over which there was disagreement was to fight or not to fight. There was no other question. This was the one and the only question which was the subject matter of discussion and argument between the two. Starting from this point of view it is obvious that the Gita could never have been intended by Krishna to be the occasion for moral instruction for the general public or the doctrinal exposition of any religious system or the catechism attached