Knowledge, the Cause of Liberation, Not Action

Invocation

(Saṁkṣepa-śārīraka 1.7)

[I pay obeisance to Śaṅkara whose feet are worshipped by the seekers of the Truth and who is that exponent of the scripture on attaining whom the Veda, the eternal word, became free from the mire of fallacious logic and connected with its true meaning.]

The Highest Goal and Its Immediate Means

The scriptures point out that virtue, wealth, desire and liberation are the four objectives of human life¹ and that among these, liberation, which is the most covetable², is the ultimate goal. The definitive denouement of the Upaniṣads is that emancipation can be attained only by realizing the Self, which is but the Supreme, and not in any other way whatsoever.

(Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.15)

[Only upon knowing Him, one transcends death; there is no other path to liberation.]

This śruti asserts: Only he who realizes Brahman goes beyond the ocean of transmigratory existence; there is no other means to deathlessness.

Sage Vyāsa has, accordingly, concluded in the Brahmasūtras that knowledge alone results in liberation:

[Bādarāyaṇa ¹ deems that liberation results from the knowledge of the Self, since the Upaniṣads so teach.]

Bhagavatpāda has comprehensively enunciated this in His Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya.

Mīmāṁsakas’ Contention: Liberation through Actions

The Mīmāṁsakas¹ take exception to the aforesaid view of Vedānta and contend, ‘Though you insist that final freedom is effected exclusively by knowledge, the fact is that it can be secured without the latter.’ They proceed to delineate on the following lines the scenario that they envision.

The essence of liberation is the absence of rebirth. One is born since one has to experience the fruits of one’s past actions; happiness is the fruit of having performed what is ordained for one by the scripture, while sorrow is the consequence of having done what is prohibited by it. The actions touched upon by the scripture are of four types:

(1) Actions ordained to be performed regularly. Sandhyāvandana (a worship that is to be done before daybreak, at midday and prior to sunset by one invested with the sacred thread and which involves the offering of water and the chanting of the Gāyatrī-mantra) and Agnihotra (a rite to be performed every dawn and dusk by a duly initiated householder and involving a sacred fire) are instances of this variety.

(2) Actions that are decreed to be executed on specific occasions. The bath and the offerings to the manes that are occasioned by eclipses are examples.

(3) Actions prescribed as optional for the fulfilment of specific desires. These include the Kārīrī-iṣṭi, a rite that may be performed by one who is desirous of rain, and some sacrifices done motivated by a desire for heaven.

(4) Actions that are proscribed. Killing a priest, drinking wine and stealing gold are cases of prohibited actions.

He who desires liberation should, says the Mīmāṁsaka, avoid actions aimed at fulfilling desires and those that are proscribed since these would entail that he take births to experience their pleasurable and painful fruits. He should, however, unfailingly perform those actions that are decreed to be performed regularly as also those that are required to be performed on specific occasions. This is because their non-performance causes sin.¹ For instance, sin is the price of even inadvertently omitting Sandhyā-vandana on even a single dawn or dusk. By consistently carrying out the regular and occasional actions enjoined upon him, he who seeks liberation can avoid the sin that would have accrued to him had he ever omitted to do them and can, thereby, steer clear of having to be reborn to experience the fruit of such demerit.

As regards the actions of his past lives that have begun to fructify and are responsible for his present birth, he exhausts them by experiencing their fruits in the form of pleasure and pain, till the time of death.

Upon the fall of his body, such a person would not be reborn. This is because the actions of his past would have already borne fruit over the course of his life and he would have, by performing the ordained regular and occasional actions, by not doing scriptural actions to fulfil desires and by totally avoiding prohibited actions, precluded the accrual of demerit and merit that would have necessitated rebirth. There is, thus, no need for a person to hear about the Truth from a Guru, reflect upon It through reasoning and steadily mediate upon It and, thereby, realize It in order to become freed from rebirth.

The Mīmāṁsaka’s prescription for emancipation is, in a nutshell:

(Ślokavārtika, sambandhākṣepa-parihāra, 110)

[He who is desirous of liberation should not engage in actions that are prompted by desire and those that are prohibited. Desirous of avoiding sin, he should do the prescribed, regular and occasional actions.]

The import is that to secure liberation, one should not do actions that are prompted by longing and those that are prohibited but should do the compulsory, regular and occasional actions in order to avoid the sin that would arise because of failing to do them.

‘You err,’ says the Mīmāṁsaka to the Vedāntin, ‘when you insist that knowledge of the Supreme is necessary and sufficient for liberation; what is called for is not such knowledge but, as seen, action, duly done or avoided.’

Bhagavatpāda’s Rebuttal

Bhagavatpāta has thoroughly refuted this contention in His Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya and also in His bhāṣyas on the Bhagavadgīta and the Upaniṣads.¹ His refutation is on the following lines.

Firstly, what you have postulated about how liberation is secured is bereft of a scriptural basis; it finds no mention in the scripture, be it some Upaniṣad or even a text on dharma. Your conclusion follows from your conjectures. However, surmises, however ingenious, that are without a scriptural underpinning are impotent to determine such matters, which lie squarely and wholly in the realm of the scripture.

Next, you presume that a person experiences without residue the fruits of his past actions in his present life itself; therefore, you claim that if he can avoid acquiring fresh merit or demerit now, upon his death, he will not be reborn. Your presumption is unrealistic. In his earlier lives, he would have performed a host of acts, virtuous and sinful, some so virtuous as to have enjoyment in heaven as their fruit and some so sinful as to call for punishment in hell. When the fruits of some his past actions are mutually antagonistic and incompatible with a human state, those acts cannot fructify in his present life and must remain dormant to bear fruit later. Many scriptural passages make known that just a subset of one’s past acts are exhausted in a life and the rest remain¹ and bear fruit only in future lives, in suitable circumstances, places and times. So, even if a person seeking liberation were, as advocated by you, to avoid all actions that are prompted by desire and those that are prohibited and were to faithfully carry out his regular and occasional scriptural duties to preclude the sin of omission, still, he would necessarily have to take future births due to his remaining past actions.

Objection: The performance of the obligatory Soma-sacrifices, such as Jyotiṣṭoma, which are elaborate and extend for days, is taxing; the doer is, for instance, left with no choice but to put up for long with the assault on his nostrils by the smoke issuing from the sacrificial fire. We may well regard the suffering involved in performing the ordained, regular and occasional rites to itself be the experience of the results of all the residual past actions. Alternatively, we can take it that the obligatory regular and occasional rites nullify all the residual actions.¹ Vedāntin: Such disposal of the residual actions is out of line with several scriptural pronouncements. Even if we accept that the pain involved in the performance of the regular and occasional rites or their very performance can exhaust past actions, only the sinful actions of the past can be dispensed with but not the virtuous deeds. This is because suffering, even if it be that associated with the fulfilment of what the scripture ordains, cannot be the fruit of virtuous deeds of the past; after all, joy is the fruit of virtue. Also, since there is no contradiction between a virtuous action – a prescribed deed – done in the past and any action ordained as obligatory and done now, the performance of obligatory, regular and occasional actions cannot neutralize the virtuous deeds of the past. Thus, the residual virtuous deeds of the past would necessarily remain intact and preclude the person who follows the path to liberation favoured by you from becoming free from rebirth.

Incidentally, Bhagavatpāda’s tentative admission of the opponent’s contention is in keeping with the maxim:

Next, you require that in order to become liberated, a person should, throughout his life, wholly abstain from actions that are prompted by desire or are prohibited. The fatal flaw here is that such unconditional avoidance is unfeasible.

[Further, without the right knowledge of the Self, nobody can guarantee his total avoidance of actions that are prompted by desire and of proscribed actions, right from the time of birth up to the time of death; this is because subtle faults are seen even in the very competent.]

The import of these words of Bhagavatpāda is that none can affirm that ‘janmaprāyaṇāntarāle, in the period from birth until death’, one has never done a single optional or proscribed act, ‘sūkṣmāparādha-darśanāt, because subtle lapses are seen’ ‘sunipuṇānām api, even in those who are highly competent’.

We cannot, for example, say that we have never killed a mosquito. Killing any living being, even if it be an irksome mosquito, is a transgression of the following prohibition that one should not harm any living being:

(Cited as a Vedic passage in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya on sūtra 2.3.48; source-text not extant) [One should injure any being.]

Not just knowingly but unknowingly too, we do, at times, what is disallowed. Such transgressions too are sinful. It is said:

(Bṛhannāradīya Upapurāṇa 11.99) [Even when touched unwittingly, fire definitely singes (the one who comes into contact with it).]

The import of this is that fire burns even the hand that is thrust into it unwittingly. As in the case of fire touched accidentally, even if one unknowingly does something proscribed, one incurs sin. The case of optional acts done on account of desire is on a similar footing, for people are not born with intense dispassion and have the inclination to fulfil their desires.

To sum up, the proposed means is out of line with the scripture, cannot neutralize all past actions and is partly impracticable; liberation is unachievable through it.

Enlightenment and the Neutralization of Actions

The actual means to liberation is that specified by the scripture and this is enlightenment. Knowledge puts an end to one's store of actions that would have entailed one's rebirth. An affirmation of the Lord in this regard is:

[Similarly (like a blazing fire reducing firewood to ashes), the fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes.]

Likewise, Vyāsa has settled in the Brahmasūtras that:

(Brahmasūtra 4.1.13) [When Brahman is realized, there occurs the absence of contact with subsequent sins and the annihilation of the sins committed earlier; this is because the scripture has declared thus.]

This, together with the next aphorism¹ that extends what is said here about sins to virtuous deeds, conveys that when we realize Brahman, our past actions will perish and actions done after enlightenment will not stick to us.

It is, holds Vyāsa, on the authority of the Upaniṣads that we know for certain that knowledge dissipates actions. For example, they say:

(Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 2.2.8) [When the Self, which is superior as the cause and is inferior as the effect, is realized, one’s actions perish.]

Enlightenment alone eliminates any possibility of rebirth because of actions and unfailingly ensures liberation. What the scripture says is final and this is what it avers and that too, repeatedly.

Encomium of Enlightenment

There appears to be a conundrum here. The past merits and demerits of a person who has attained knowledge do not have any effect upon him. However, the norm is that acts must fructify. So, what happens to the fruits of the actions done by an enlightened person in his past lives?¹ To a query so posed, a Vedic response is:

(Cited in the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya on sūtra 3.3.26 as a śruti of the śāṭyāyanins; source not extant)

[(On the death of an enlightened person), his sons get his possessions, his well-wishers his good deeds and his haters his sins.]¹

The results of the good deeds done by an enlightened person in his past lives pass on to those who served and were devoted to him. The effects of his wrongs accrue

__________________________________ to his despisers. Therefore, we should never scorn any realized one.

A Vedic hymn uttered during a Kūśmāṇḍa-homa¹ is:

(A mantra chanted during the Kūśmāṇḍa-homa followed by the offering of an oblation into fire.)

[Indra, Agni, Mitra, Varuṇa, Soma, Dhātā and Bṛhaspati – may they free us from the sin that was committed by another and which we have acquired.]

The deities Indra, Agni, Mitra, Varuṇa, Soma, Dhātā and Bṛhaspati are requested to liberate us from the sin performed by another which is sticking to us. While the rule is that one is afflicted only by the sin that one has committed, the situation referred to here is an exception.

An explanation that has been proffered about how the sin of another accrued to us is that we were ill-disposed towards a knower of Brahman and it was his past sins that stuck to us; the prayer is for freeing us from them.

A lesson that we learn from even this mantra is that we should never be disdainful towards any realized one. Such is the power of realization that it frees one from all one’s good and bad deeds and the price of hating the person who has secured it is heavy, while the rewards of serving him with devotion are great. He who has not realized Brahman has to inevitably experience the fruits of his own actions; his merits and demerits decidedly do not pass away from him to another. Knowledge, which alone can free one from all the bonds of actions, is the sole and certain means to liberation; actions can neither fully nullify one’s past actions nor result in liberation. All this is revealed by the scripture and there is no room for doubt here; independent conjectures amount to little.

[Whatever the Veda says is authoritative for us.]

We unreservedly accept whatever the scripture reveals.

The Role of Actions in the Path to Emancipation

Bhagavatpāda has said:

[Action is for the purification of the mind and not for the realization of the Truth. The Truth is known by means of enquiry and not by means of even crores of actions.]

While actions cannot result in liberation, when done in a spirit of dedication to God, without expectation of fruits, they purify the mind; among the four kinds of actions, obligatory, regular and occasional actions are the ones that should be done. Only he whose mind is pure is fit to tread the path of knowledge. One should become pure-minded through the proper performance of one’s duties in the right spirit, resort to a Guru, hear the Truth, reflect upon It through reasoning, steadfastly meditate upon It and, thereby, realize the Truth and become liberated.

This is the path made known by the scripture. May all of you understand it, duly tread it and attain blessedness.

हर नमः पार्वतीपतये हर हर महादेव