[Fegasderty]

Sankara: There is no justification to import a direction 'to contemplate' when neither the context nor the meaning admits of any such importation. Further, it is not correct to say that any relation to action is at all necessary to invest any statement in the Vedas with authority. It may be that in regard to the Poorva Kaanda which is primarily concerned with action, the statements therein can be made to relate to some action or other; there is absolutely no reason to import the same condition in the Uttara Kaanda also.

Mandana: In the sentence 'They attain stability who perform Ratri sacrifices', do we not import a command: 'Thou who want stability must perform Ratri sacrifices'? why not interpret similarly the sentence 'He who knows Brahman attains the highest' as importing a command: 'He who wants to attain the highest must know Brahman'?


Sankara: Knowledge can never be the object of a command. If it is, it can be but an action like contemplation. If liberation is the result of any contemplation or other similar action, it must share the fate of all results of action, that is, impermanency. Therefore, the importation of a command 'to contemplate', in addition to being unnecessary and unwarranted, vitally affects the glory of liberation. It is the essence of an action that it can be done rightly, done wrongly or left undone; whereas real knowledge cannot be the object of any such alternative treatment at the option of the knower; and it will be meaningless to command where there is no option to obey or disobey.

Mandana: Let us grant then that the Upanishads have authority though unrelated to action. But why need you understand the passages as teaching the identity of Brahman and the Self? They may as well be taken as teaching only similarity.