365bet娱乐

The 惭墨尘腻峁僺补办补蝉 say that the whole 惭墨尘腻峁僺补 philosophy is known as something to be praiseworthy from the 鈥楽v膩dhy膩yavidhi鈥� [蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补-vidhi]. The opponent argues that this 惭墨尘腻峁僺补-艣腻蝉迟谤补 (a branch of knowledge) is not known as something to be studied from the 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补vidhi鈥�.

If the sentence 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测辞鈥�诲丑测别迟补惫测补岣�鈥� incites us to study the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补s膩stra, then it must have been included in 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈, or niyamavidhi or 辫补谤颈蝉补峁僰丑测腻惫颈诲丑颈. But the above vedic sentence can not be included in any kind of injunctions discussed above. The opponent nourishes his opinion by putting arguments. He says that the 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补vidhi 鈥� is not an 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈 鈥� for the meaning i. e. 鈥榯he 蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补 should be studied for acquiring knowledge鈥� is not unobtained by other proofs. Because it is contradictory to our perceptual knowledge that a person having the knowledge of words and their meaning can not understand the meaning of a book when he reads that book. Reading a text by a well-learned person leads him to his knowledge. So, the reading of the Vedas by an erudite person will also produce the knowledge of the Vedas. From this inference it is proved that the 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补vidhi 鈥� is not an 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈鈥� because it does not enjoin a matter which is totally unobtained. The matter of this sentence is established or obtained by other means of proof i.e. inference. The 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈 enjoins an unobtained matter. So, the 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补vidhi 鈥� can not be regarded as an 补辫奴谤惫补惫颈诲丑颈鈥�. It can not be judged as a niyamavidhi also. The injunction 鈥�vri墨h墨n avahanti 鈥� is read in the context of the 鈥�顿补谤艣补辫奴谤峁嘺尘腻蝉补鈥檚acrifice. So, threshing of rice becomes an accessory to that sacrifice. If threshing of rice enjoined by the above injunction is not performed, then the sacrifice will not be complete. But the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� is not read in any context related to sacrifice. So, this injunction is 鈥�补苍腻谤补产丑测腻诲丑墨迟补鈥�. If there is not any 鈥�苍颈测补尘腻辫奴谤惫补 鈥� produced from maintaining the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� (i.e. if Vedas are read thoroughly with their organs from the teacher) then there will be no loss or deficiency. Simply, if 鈥�苍颈测补尘腻辫奴谤惫补鈥� is not accepted here, there will not be any loss. It is not also true that the knowledge obtained from other sources than a teacher will not help in the sacrifice. Only knowledge is essential. There is no hard-and-fast rule that this knowledge is to be had from a teacher only. The sacrificer can acquire the knowledge about sacrifice by his own effort. He himself can study the Vedas. Besides this, reading of Vedas is not a suisidiary act of sacrifice. So, it is not kratvartha. The 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补vidhi 鈥� is not read in the context of sacrifice. The most important thing is that reading of the Vedas is not subservient to any principal rite, for reading of the Vedas has not been prescribed after begining some matter in the Vedas. For this reason, the 鈥�腻诲丑测补测补苍补惫颈诲丑颈 鈥� is called 补苍腻谤补产丑测腻诲丑墨迟补vidhi. Therefore, the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi 鈥� is not conducive to any invisible unique result unlike the injunctions relating to the sprinkling, threshing etc.

According to the opponent philosopher the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� is not a 辫补谤颈蝉补峁僰丑测腻惫颈诲丑颈 also. Because by this injunction the reading other than the 蝉惫腻诲丑腻测补 is not prohibited. So, the discussion of the meaning of the Vedas by the 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 philosophy is not laid down by injunction. Then, what is the necessity of the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi 鈥�? The purport of this injunction is that if the Vedas are learnt from a preceptor then it will lead to heaven. Here learning means 鈥�补办峁�a谤补-驳谤补丑补峁嘺鈥� i.e. uttering the Vedas according to the pronunciation of the preceptor. Heaven is not directly understood as a result from the adhyayanavidhi. Yet the purport of this vidhi is not the understanding of the meaning of the Vedas, for in the absence of this vidhi also a learned person can understand the meaning of the Vedas. But an injunction can not be worthless or useless. It has some purpose. Because the whole Veda is meant for the four principal objects (dharma-补谤迟丑补-办腻尘补-尘辞办峁Ｄ佱弗) of human life. How a man can fulfill his objects is established in the Veda. So, the injunction, 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测辞鈥�诲丑测别迟补惫测补岣�鈥� also must have some purpose. According to the visvajit-苍测腻测补 the result of this injunction is heaven. If there is no mention of any result in any injunction heaven is regarded as its result. The 蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟颈苍 refutes the previous arguments of the opponent. The 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻艣腻蝉迟谤补 is to be started by the power of the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� only. The niyamavidhi is to be accepted in this injunction. By this injunction not only the reading as 鈥�补办峁�a谤补-驳谤补丑补峁嘺鈥� is intended, but the understanding of the meaning of the Vedas is also intended; for understand the meaning is the visible result of reading. An invisible result should not be postulated where a visible result is possinble. If the invisible result is accepted here, then there will be three faults, i.e. 鈥�办峁泃补苍腻艣补, 补办峁泃腻产丑测腻驳补尘补 and 办补濒辫补苍腻驳补耻谤补惫补. It will be vitiated by 鈥�办峁泃补苍腻艣补鈥� because of the rejection of the obtained meaning. The fault 鈥�补办峁泃腻产丑测腻驳补尘补鈥� will arise there because of the postulation of result heaven which is unobtained. The fault 鈥�办补濒辫补苍腻驳补耻谤补惫补鈥� will also peep into the matter because primarily heaven is imagined as result. Secondly, it is also to be postulated that 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补鈥� results in heaven i.e. 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补鈥� is charactrized by the state of being the means of heaven. So, heaven is not the result of 鈥�蝉惫腻诲丑测腻测补鈥�, but understanding the meaning of the Vedas is the result of it.

The Vedas should be learnt from a teacher only, and not by self study. What is the necessity of this 鈥�niyamavidhi鈥�? Does it help to produce any invisible result which will help in producing knowledge or in performing the sacrifice or in producing the result of the sacrifice? The answer is 鈥�dar艣膩p奴rvavat astyatra kratvap奴rva峁� niy膩makam鈥� (The invisible result is the regulating factor as the regulator in the 顿补谤艣补 sacrifice produced from it).

As this invisible result is accepted in the case of 鈥�vr墨h墨n avahanti 鈥�, so also all the invisible results which are going to be produced by the future sacrifices are the instigating factor of the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥�. If the Vedas are learnt from the teacher with maintaining the essential rules, then only it will produce an invisible result which will help the sacrifices which are going to be performed. A sacrifice can not be performed without its knowledge. If the techniques of 鈥�濒颈办丑颈迟补辫腻峁环补鈥� (reading of the written text by one鈥檚 own effort without taking help of a teacher) etc. are followed, then it will not lead to any invisible result as in the husking of the paddies by nails etc. In the absence of this invisible result no final result will come. But if niyamavidhi is accepted in 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥�, then it can be easily explained that this injunction, if followed, will create the invisible result. This invisible result will combine with the knowledge obtained from reading of the Vedas to finish the sacrifice.

Actually, the purport of the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� is to regulate the eligibility of the sacrificer in 础驳苍颈丑辞迟谤补测腻驳补. The Veda declares, 鈥�补驳苍颈丑辞迟谤补峁� juhoti鈥� (One should offer the Agnihotra). But it does not mention the eligibility of the sacrificer. Then who is entitled to perform the sacrifice? This question arises. All 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉, 办峁�a迟谤颈测补蝉, 惫补颈艣测补蝉 and 艣奴诲谤补蝉 can perform sacrifice by reading the Vedas with their own effort. All can do the Agnihotra for attaining heaven. But in the seventh 补诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺 of the first 笔腻诲补 of the sixth chapter of 鈥�惭墨尘腻峁僺腻dar艣ana鈥� it is established that a person belonging to the 艣奴诲谤补 caste can not perform a sacrifice. This prohibition is possible only when the owner of the 鈥�adhyayanvidhi鈥� is regulated. There is no mention of caste in the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥�.

On the other hand, in another section, the Veda declares,

鈥�vasante 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺m upanay墨ta, gr墨峁�me 谤腻箩补苍测补峁�鈥�, saradi 惫补颈艣测补尘鈥�

(The teacher should give the sacrificial thread [by a ceremony] to a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 in the spring, to a 办峁�a迟谤颈测补 in the summer and to a 惫补颈艣测补 in the autumn).

Here three castes have been mentioned. The ceremony is meant for them. This rite is a subsidiary rite. So, it must be subservient to any principal rite. But there is no mention of any principal rite. We have seen before that the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� is waiting for an agent. Now, it is seen that the persons related to the three castes are waiting for a principal rite after wearing the sacrifical thread. What will they do after wearing the thread鈥攖his question is also arising. The principal rite is waiting for its subsidiary rite and the subsidiary rite is also wating for its principal rite. Thus the above two injunctions are mutually connected. So, it is established that the ceremony of wearing the sacrificial thread is a subsidiary rite to the act of reading (adhyayana) enjoined by the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥�. This ceremony indirectly tells about the eligibility of the reader for reading the Vedas. The reader is consecrated by this 鈥�upanayana鈥�. This ceremoney is called 鈥�upanayana鈥�. He becomes eligible to read the Vedas after his 鈥�upanayana鈥�. The visible purpose of reading is to obtain the knowledge of the Vedas. The purpose of this knowledge is to perform Agnihotra etc. So, the Agnihotra etc. can not be related to a 艣奴诲谤补 because the 鈥�upanayana鈥� ceremony is not prescribed for him.

Consequently, the 鈥�adhyayanavidhi鈥� can not be applied to him. This injunction regulates the three castes for reading the Vedas. So this is a niyamavidhi.