2023-05-31 04:00:42 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
INTRODUCTION
ascertained by the Mimamsakas that such a statement is mere
praise. The reasoning adopted there is that the purna-ahuti
is prescribed in the context of several other rites, some to be
performed before and others to follow. If all the phalas
mentioned are to be ascribed to this āhuti alone, the other
rites will be fruitless and may be given up. But that is not
the case here. For, in the context of speaking of sankirtana,
no other rites are prescribed, nor is any rite combined with it;
not even any prayers are mentioned. Mere sankirtana is
enough certainly to destroy sins. So the commentator sums
up.)
This is not subject to the rule about pūrņa āhuti. For the
subject there is exaggeration. Moreover, elements of arthavāda
like incomplete statement and prayers are not to be seen here.
Besides even arthavāda is not altogether to be neglected; if
otherwise not opposed to any authority, we must not omit to
give it its proper meaning and significance to the extent
possible. To omit to do so is improper.
(Then, the learned commentator starts the following
question. It was said that the stava (recitation of praise) is
capable of preparing a person for knowledge of the ultimate
truth. Is not this also a bit of exaggeration? For tattva-
jñāna is not to be obtained easily, but only after very long
and difficult austerity and concentrated meditation. But the
stava involves just a slight exertion on the part of the tongue.
Besides, if the same result is obtained in both cases, the
performance of the more difficult sustraic acts will become
unnecessary and the śāstras relating to them will become of
no use. And also this conclusion is opposed to all authority.
(This objection is answered thus). This is the speech of a
Devil, of a person who has not realised fully the greatness of
the Lord and has lost himself in chhandas (Karmakāṇḍla rituals).
Reciting the praises of the Lord, however light or easy, is
indeed capable of bearing a heavy burden (of fruit). As
for the prescription of difficult courses of discipline by the
śāstras becoming useless, it is not so. They are useful to those
who are competent to perform the injunctions therein con-
tained. This stava is open to those fortunate people, who have
acquired a unique taste for enjoying the very many qualities
of the Lord, though they may or may not possess the other
33
ascertained by the Mimamsakas that such a statement is mere
praise. The reasoning adopted there is that the purna-ahuti
is prescribed in the context of several other rites, some to be
performed before and others to follow. If all the phalas
mentioned are to be ascribed to this āhuti alone, the other
rites will be fruitless and may be given up. But that is not
the case here. For, in the context of speaking of sankirtana,
no other rites are prescribed, nor is any rite combined with it;
not even any prayers are mentioned. Mere sankirtana is
enough certainly to destroy sins. So the commentator sums
up.)
This is not subject to the rule about pūrņa āhuti. For the
subject there is exaggeration. Moreover, elements of arthavāda
like incomplete statement and prayers are not to be seen here.
Besides even arthavāda is not altogether to be neglected; if
otherwise not opposed to any authority, we must not omit to
give it its proper meaning and significance to the extent
possible. To omit to do so is improper.
(Then, the learned commentator starts the following
question. It was said that the stava (recitation of praise) is
capable of preparing a person for knowledge of the ultimate
truth. Is not this also a bit of exaggeration? For tattva-
jñāna is not to be obtained easily, but only after very long
and difficult austerity and concentrated meditation. But the
stava involves just a slight exertion on the part of the tongue.
Besides, if the same result is obtained in both cases, the
performance of the more difficult sustraic acts will become
unnecessary and the śāstras relating to them will become of
no use. And also this conclusion is opposed to all authority.
(This objection is answered thus). This is the speech of a
Devil, of a person who has not realised fully the greatness of
the Lord and has lost himself in chhandas (Karmakāṇḍla rituals).
Reciting the praises of the Lord, however light or easy, is
indeed capable of bearing a heavy burden (of fruit). As
for the prescription of difficult courses of discipline by the
śāstras becoming useless, it is not so. They are useful to those
who are competent to perform the injunctions therein con-
tained. This stava is open to those fortunate people, who have
acquired a unique taste for enjoying the very many qualities
of the Lord, though they may or may not possess the other
33