| 1. (.Answer):This
objection does not apply here because of the specification that, for the
sage who wishes to attain to Yoga, action is the means (vi. 3) ; and because
it is also said that he who has attained Yoga has only to resort to renunciation
(sama). If it were meant that each of themhe who wishes to attain to Yoga
as well as he who has attained to Yogashould resort to both action and renunciation,
then it would be useless to specify that action and renunciation are respectively
intended for him who wishes to attain Yoga and for him who has attained
Yoga, or to divide them into two distinct classes.(The opponent):Among religious
devotees (asraminsgrihasthas), one class comprises persons who wish to attain
Yoga, another class comprises persons who have already attained Yoga, while
the rest are those who neither wish to attain Yoga nor have attained Yoga;
and it is but right that the first two classes should be specified and shown
separately as distinguished from the third (Answer):No ; the words for the
same devotee (in vi. 3) and the repetition of yoga in the clause when he
has attained to Yoga imply this, that the same person who at first wished
to attain to Yoga has only to renounce action when he has attained Yoga,
this renunciation leading to the fruition of Yoga. Thus, no action forms
a necessary duty throughout life.Failures in Yoga are also spoken of here
(vi. 37, 38). If in the Sixth Discourse Yoga were meant for a grihastha,
then there could be no occasion for the supposition of his ruin, inasmuch
as he, though a failure in Yoga, may obtain the fruit of Karma. An action
done, whether interested (kamya) or obligatory and disinterested (nitye),
must produce its effect ;(it cannot of course produce) moksha, which, being
eternal, cannot be produced by an action. |
