365bet娱乐

96
conception of the operation of grace, and a reinterpretation of all
ritual as a noetic act. For the school of K峁�emar膩ja岣�, the
reinterpretation of liberation as insight into one's identity with the
supreme consciousness led to a radical reinterpretation of the entire
inherited panoply of rituals as meditative acts of knowledge. Here
the monistic 艢aivas replicated the argumentation of the Ved膩ntins
who rejected any claims of the Mim膩msakas that an action, even
a special ritual action, could confer liberation.1 Since every action
produces an effect that generates further action, the cycle, they
argued, could be broken only by an insight, radically discontinuous
with any activity.
1.2.3 Commentatorial Techniques
Accordingly, this monistic reinterpretation of ritual and
reappropriation of the text from Saiva-siddh膩ntins and 艢aiva
ritualists constitutes a recurrent and dominant theme of
K峁�emar膩ja's commentary. K峁�emar膩ja岣� dwells upon any phrase of
sy膩diti cejj帽aptirucyate/prak膩艣atvam svaprak膩艣o tacca tatr膩nyata岣�
katham// samvittattvam svaprak膩艣amityasminkim na yuktibhi岣�/
tadabh膩ve bhavedvi艣vam ja岣峚tv膩daprak膩艣akam// y膩v膩nup膩yo
b膩hya岣� sy膩d膩ntaro v膩pi ka艣cana/ sa sarvastanmukhaprek峁�i
tatrop膩yatvabh盲kkatham. 鈥�)
1 For a summary of the contrast between Ved膩ntin and
Mim膩msak膩岣�, in Sure艣vara's Naiskarmyasiddhi岣�, v. Otto Strau脽, "A
Contribution to the Problem of the Relation between Karman, J帽膩na
and Mok峁�a,鈥� Otto Srau脽 Kleine Schriften, hrsg. Friedrich Wilhelm,
Glasenapp-Stiftung 24 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1983), pp.464-471.
Cf. also Halbfass, Studies in Kum膩rila and Sankara, pp.65-66. 鈥淎gain
and again, Sure艣vara emphasizes that the Veda is self-sufficient,
that its power and authority of revelation is neither dependent upon
nor paralleled by worldly verification, and that the supreme truth
which it teaches and which transcends all result-oriented 'works'
(karman) cannot and need not be mediated by worldly activities."