365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

啶嗋ぐ啷嵿し啶� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啷嬥お啶︵�囙ざ啶� 啶� 啶掂�囙う啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啶距さ啶苦ぐ啷嬥ぇ啶苦え啶� 啷�
啶�啶膏�嵿い啶班�嵿�曕�囙ぃ啶距え啷佮じ啶ㄠ�嵿ぇ啶む�嵿い啷� 啶� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啶� 啶掂�囙�� 啶ㄠ�堗い啶班�� 啷� 啷оウ啷� 啷�

膩r峁�a峁� dharmopade艣a峁� ca veda艣膩str膩virodhin膩 |
yastarke峁嚹乶usandhatte sa dharma峁� veda naitara岣� || 106 ||

If a man explores, by ratiocination, the Vedic teaching regarding Dharma, he alone, and no other, understands Dharma.鈥�(106)

 

Medh膩tithi鈥檚 commentary (manubh膩峁�ya):

鈥�膧谤峁�a鈥� means 鈥榩ertaining to a 峁氠梗颈,鈥� and the term 鈥�峁涐梗颈鈥� here means the Veda; hence 鈥�膧谤峁�a Upade艣a鈥� means 鈥榁edic teaching.鈥�

This, if a man 鈥�explores鈥欌�攖ries to find out鈥斺��by ratiocination鈥欌�攂y means of inferences,鈥斺��he understands Dharma鈥欌�攕uch is the verbal construction of the passage.

鈥�Ratiocination鈥欌�攊s the process of reasoning where a certain proposition is set up, and rejected, if found to be wrong on examination; the man coming to such conclusions as鈥斺�業t is right to accept this, and reject that.鈥� For instance, the sacred text used at the 膧驳苍别测补 sacrifice is鈥斺�楧evasya tv膩 savitu岣�...agnaye tv膩 ju峁ａ弓am 苍颈谤惫补辫腻尘颈鈥� (V膩jasaneya Sa峁僪it膩, 2.11); now an ectype of this 膧驳苍别测补 is the 鈥�Saurya鈥� Sacrifice of which the deity is 厂奴谤测补;鈥攁nd in accordance with the general law that 鈥榯he ectype shall be performed in the same manner as its archetype,鈥� it would follow that the sacred text just quoted shall be used at the Saurya sacrifice also;鈥攂ut here one argues that though 鈥�agnaye tv膩鈥� would be the right form for the 膧驳苍别测补, where the deity is Agni, it could not be right for the Saurya, where the deity is 厂奴谤测补; hence while at this latter, the rest of the text shall be used in the same form, the words 鈥�agnaye tv膩鈥� should be altered into 鈥�s奴ry膩ya tv膩.鈥� Such a reasoning would not be inconsistent with the Veda.

Some people may argue thus: 鈥淎t the Saurya sacrifice, Agni is not the deity; and it is in accordance with their meanings that sacred texts are employed at sacrifices; so that when one part of the said text is not applicable to the Saurya sacrifice, if that portion were dropped, it would cease to be a Sacred text;鈥攈ence the whole text should be dropped.鈥�

But such reasoning would be contrary to the teaching of the Veda.

Similarly if one were to argue that鈥斺�楽ince the sacred text has to be used, it must be always used in its original unaltered form only,鈥欌�攖his also would be contrary to the Veda.

In fact, what is set forth here is not an Injunction, but a commendatory statement; and the purport of it is that what should be done in such cases is to be ascertained by the process of reasonings embodied in the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻;鈥攈ence it is the study of 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 that is indirectly enjoined for the purpose of obtaining a correct knowledge of Dharma.

Others explain the text in the following manner:鈥�

鈥�Tarka,鈥� 鈥楻atiocination,鈥� stands for works of which reasoning forms the main subject; which make it their business to set forth the ordinary means of cognition,鈥�i.e., works on Ny膩ya, on Vai艣e峁�ika and on the materialistic Systems of Philosophy. From among these however, those belonging to the last category,鈥�i.e., works written by Bauddhas, Nirgranthas and others鈥攚hich are inconsistent with the Veda鈥攁re rejected; since for these writers the Veda is not an authoritative source of knowledge; as it is for Kapila, Ka峁嚹乨a (and the Naiy膩yika). This is shown by the following S奴tra of Gautama鈥斺�楶erception, Inference, Analogy and Word are the pram膩峁嘺s鈥� (1.1.3); and the 痴补颈艣别峁�i办补蝉 also鈥斺�榯he authoritative character of the Veda is due to its being His declaration鈥� (Vai艣e峁�ika S奴tra). Hence these latter should be carefully listened to (and learnt). In the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 also, the revered K峁涐梗峁嘺 Dvaip膩yana has declared鈥斺�極 king, your intellect seems to be bewildered by the words of the text, just like that of the foolish Vedic scholar, and hence it fails to grasp the subtle aspects of things鈥�;鈥攚here the mention of 鈥榖ewilderment caused by the words of the text鈥� implies the propriety of applying reasonings. There is yet another statement鈥斺�極ne who follows the 厂尘峁泃颈蝉 should never attend to materialistic Br膩hma峁嘺s, since these are adepts in evil and proud of their learning.鈥� This forbids listening to unsound reasonings; while the former text (from the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补) lays down the propriety of attending to sound reasonings.

The authoritative character of the Veda some people would seek to prove by the fact of its being the work of God. But this is not possible; as according to this view the Veda cannot he authoritative, as its whole fabric would rest upon the will of God, and when we find contradictory statements, we are prone to take the opposite view that the Veda is not trustworthy.

For this reason the reasonings set forth by these persons would also have to be rejected as 鈥榰nsound鈥�; specially as these do not help in any way towards the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. Says the 厂腻峁卥丑测补, for instance (in regard to the Veda)鈥斺�榠t is beset with impurity, destruction and excess鈥� (碍腻谤颈办腻, 2). The followers of Gautama also have put forward certain arguments, which embody the prima facie position against the Ritualistic Section of the Veda (Ny膩ya S奴tra, 2.1.5, et. seq.);鈥攖hough these arguments are represented as proceeding from another party.

It is only in the P奴rva-惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 and the 痴别诲腻苍迟补 that we find the authority of the Veda unequivocally stated, in the form in which it is set forth in such Vedic texts as鈥斺�楾he gods came down from the heavenly regions to this world,鈥攖he sages followed them,鈥攁nd the men said to them鈥�How are we going to live?鈥擳o them the sages revealed all their duties,鈥攈ence the reasonings that the good Br膩hma峁嘺s propound are Vedic.鈥� This is a passage that explains the exact nature of what is meant by 鈥�ratiocination鈥� in the present context.鈥�(106)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in 础辫补谤腻谤办补 (p. 22);鈥攁nd in 厂尘峁泃颈迟补迟迟惫补 (p. 511).