[Advaita-l] Result of karma where result is not mentioned

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Swamiji,

Thanks for your elaborate reply.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 10:07 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

>
> Here is what I understand:
>
>    - All karmas given as vidhis in the Shruti have a result,
>
> ​​First you will have to correct your wording, which will come out from
> understanding of correct usage. I'll correct the first part of sentence as:
> All karma-s prescribed by vidhivAkya-s​.
> Why?
> Because karma is not same as vidhi.
>

Sorry, that was an oversight, lax on my part. I meant karmas prescibed by
vidhis.


>
>
>>
>>    - because Vedas do not prescribe actions without result.
>>    (Interestingly, while going through the sutras that lead to adhikaraNa
>>    4.3.5, I found that the exception to this is when the reward is in relation
>>    to the materials; then it is arthavAda).
>>
>> It appears incomplete as presented here. So, I'll add a little.
>
> svAdhyAyodhyetavyaH prescribes adhyayana of svashAkhA. The prescription
> will be useless if no one does adhyayanam of svashAkhA after hearing
> vidhi-vAkya. And, people don't do anything without being lured by result.
> So, the shruti, which is svataH-pramANa and is devoid of blemishes being
> bereft of  pauruSheyatva, forces us to imagine(do arthApatti of) some
> result related to adhyayana to save it's validity.
> This result can not be adRShTa, because arthaGYAna(knowledge of meaning of
> veda-vAkya-s) is visible result(dRShTa-falam). But, mere artha-GYAna is not
> enough for pravRtti in a student, since it is duHkha-rUpa owing to it's
> kriyAtva. In other words, knowledge is not pleasure, instead for knowledge
> we have to break inertia, so it is cause of pain; hence no one will work to
> produce knowledge if the knowledge itself is ultimate result of that kriyA.
> Nor can it be veda or it's saMskAra, etc. because they are not
> sukharUpa(pleasure) and hence puruShArtha(desirable). No one desires
> anything which is neither sukha(pleasure) nor it's means.
> So, to make vedAdhyayana equipped with such a fruit which motivates
> student, we imagine results(which are desired by puruSha) related with
> meaning of veda without neglecting the arthaGYAna(which is dRShTafala) .
>

That the phala is imagined is something I didn't not know.


> ​
>
>>
>>    -
>>    - If the result is not directly given or mentioned in the proximity,
>>    they are to be inferred by connection with remotely mentioned result.
>>
>> Inferred? If it is equal to anumAna, then we can't agree.
> I'll prefer arthApatti or imagination.
>

My understanding was that the phala mentioned elsewhere in the shruti is to
brought into the shruti where it is not mentioned. So I thought it was
inference being mentioned somewhere else remotely. If the phala itself is
imagined elsewhere too, then it would be arthApatti.


>
> Another thing, mImAMsaka-s are dealing with words and sentences directly
> and their meaning indirectly. They are trying to get best meaning of
> veda-s, which are in the form of vAkya-s. So, they will make the vidhivAkya
> complete by anuSha~Nga of fala-vAchaka-pada from elsewhere. They are not
> going to imagine a result directly. Why ? Because the imagination of
> artha(result)​ is not going to make the sentence complete. You can complete
> a sentence with word(shabda), not with artha(result).
>

This is very useful elaboration. Thanks.


>
> So, 4.35 says that the word which reminds result will be dragged to
> present sentence and it will save vaidikatva of the sentence.
>

This is what I meant by inference above. Is it not anumAna being used here?


> And 4.3.6 ponders upon what should be the word, will it be reminder of any
> result or all results or a single one; and if single one, then which one
> was decided in 4.3.7.
>
> Please, note that exact words in commentaries may not be same, because it
> is understood as default in mImAMsA-system.
> It applies to vedAnta too, if we are talking about vAkya-s, either
> avAntara or mahat.
>
> But, I mentioned it to reveal the secret of that system.
>
>
Now, I understand the method a little better.

>
>>    - If the result is not found to be connected elsewhere, it is
>>    svargaH, by ekavAkyatA, since it (happiness) is desired by all.
>>
>> ​I can't understand this sentence.
> I will prefer:
> If the result (= word reminding result) is not found​ in present
> vidhi-vAkya, then it is svarga(the word svarga).
>

I think I was mixing up the result itself directly with the shabda.


> I also don't understand why you said ekavAkyatA.
>

The book I referred to, said that to be ekavAkyatA to say that svarga being
the final goal for mImAMsaka-s, they bring in such a phala into other
places too.


> I will prefer :
> because it is pramANa and is pravarttka which can't be justified without a
> result.
>

Okay.

>
>>    - Although this is discussed in the context of kAmyakarma, the same
>>    applies to nityanaimittika karma also.
>>
>> ​Not true from point of view of mImAmsaka-s.
> vishvajidadhikaraNa-nyAya applies to kAmya-s.
>

This is what I had asked in the first mail, whether it can be applied to
non-kAmyas like nityakarma.


>
> Here what I know is:
> By the definition, pApa-prAgabhAva-pariraxaNa(saving the lack of birth of
> pApa) is AnuSha~Ngika-fala of nitya-naimittika-karma. It is not which is
> needed to motivate people to do them.
> pravRtti-prayojaka(motivator) in cases of nitya-naimittika-karma is
> nimitta, as life or sUrya-chandroparAga, etc.
> As fala is not pravRtti-prayojaka. So, we don't need to imagine any result
> there.
>

Okay, so avoiding pApa itself becomes the motivation for nityakarma.


>
>
>>    -
>>
>> The difficulty right now is the last point, (assuming the others are
>> correct) that whether the inference is correct in relation to nityakarma
>> too.
>>
> ​No, since even without imagination of any other result vidhi-vAkya is
> enough to generate pravRtti just because the nimitta is available....
>
...


>
> And, other cause of not imagining result is that there are vAkya-s (धर्मेण
> पापमपनुदति) which clearly says that pApa-xaya is result of
> nitya-naimittika-karma.​
> We have कर्मणा पितृलोकः shruti too.
> And, यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति ।
> And तपसा कल्मषं हन्ति ।
> bhAShya reads :
> नित्यानामपि कर्मणाम् इह फलवत्त्वस्य उपपादितत्वात् ‘यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव
> पावनानि’ (भ. गी. १८-५) इत्यादिना वचनेन ।
> So, by संयोगपृथक्त्वन्याय nitya-namittika-karma can produce many results.
>
>> The next question is what is the Vedanta view w.r.t. this.
>>
>
> ​vedAnta also says same that pApa-xaya, etc. are results of
> nitya-naimittika-karma.​
> If I find/remember any shruti/nyAya, I'll write it later.
> Till then this post should not be kept as draft. So, pressing send button
> now.
>
>>
Thanks.

> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
>> --Praveen R. Bhat
>> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
>> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>>
>
>