Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya OR Karma-Yoga-Sastra -Bal Gangadhar Tilak
|
CHAPTER XII
THE STATE AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SIDDHA (PERFECT)
They have gone beyond the bounds of sin and merit. Samkaracarya has said that: nistraigunye pathi vicaratam ko vidhih ko nisedhah I that is, "laws dictating what is proper and what improper do not apply to persons who have gone beyond the three constituents"; and Buddhistic writers have said that: "just as- the purest diamond does not require to be polished, so are the actions of that person who has reached the state of Absolution (nirvana) not required to be limited by rules of conduct" [1]. This is the import of the statement, made by Indra to Pratardana in the Kausitakyupanisad [2], that the Self-knower (atmajnanin) is "untouched by the sins of matricide, patricide, or infanticide"; or of the statement in the Gita [3], that "a man who has totally lost the feeling of individuation (ahamkara) is untouched by sin or merit, even if he kills others [4]; and the same principle has been repeated in the Buddhistic work called ' Dhammapada' [5].[6] Nay, according to me, the statement of St. Paul, the disciple of the Lord Christ, in the New Testament of the Bible that: " all things are lawful for me "[7], or the statement of St. John that: "it is not possible that any sin is committed by those who have become the sons (perfect disciples) of the Lord" [8] conveys the same import. Those who have got into the habit of arriving at a decision about morality by merely considering the external Action, without attaching proper importance to mental purity, may consider this doctrine as strange; and some people perversely interpret ' not bound by rules of right or wrong' as meaning 'one who commits any wrong he likes,' and distort the doctrine mentioned above by me as meaning "the Sthitaprajna is at liberty to commit any sin he likes". But, just as the fact that a blind man does not .see a pillar, is not the fault of the pillar, so does the fact of these objectors, who have become blind because they support a .particular doctrine, not clearly understanding the meaning of the doctrine mentioned above, not become a fault of the doctrine. |
|
References And Context
- ↑ Milindaprasna 4. 5. 7
- ↑ Kausi. 3. 1
- ↑ Gi. 18. 17
- ↑ See PancadasI 14. 16 and 17
- ↑ See Dhammapada, stanzas 294 and 295
- ↑ The statement from the Kausitakyupanisad is: "yo mam vijaniyan nasya kenacit karmana loko miyate na matrvadhna na pitrvadhena na steyena na bhrunhatyaya|”; and the stanzas in the Dhammapada are are as follows :- mataram pitaram hantva rajano dve ca khattiye| rathham sanucaram hantva anigho yati brahmano|| (294) mataram pitaram hantva rajano dve ca sotthiye| veyyagdha pancamam hantva anigho yati brahmano|| (295) (that is, (294) "in killing a mother or a father, or two kings of a warrior race, or destroying a whole kingdom with its inhabitants, a Brahmin (still) remains sinless"; (295) "in killing a mother, a father, two Brahmin kings, and an eminent man, to make up five, a Brahmin (still) remains sinless"— Trans.) This idea in the Dhammapada has evidently been borrowed from the Kausitakyupanisad. Bat the Buddhistic writers do not take those words in their literal meaning of matricide or patricide, and have understood mother (mata ) as meaning thirst (trsna), and father ( pita ) as meaning self-respect (abhimana). But, in my opinion, these writers have adopted these figurative meanings only because they have not properly understood the principle of Ethics conveyed in this verse. In the Kausitakyupanisad, before the verse u matrvadhena pitrvadhena" etc., it is stated by Indra that; "even if I kill Vrtra, a Brahmin, I do not thereby commit any sin"; and it is quite clear from this, that actual murder was referred to. The commentary of Max Muller on this verse in his English translation on the Dhammapada (S. B. E., Volume X, pp. 70 and 71) is, according to me, due to misunderstanding.
- ↑ 1. Cori. 6. 12; Romans 8. 2
- ↑ John. 1. 3. 9