19 Mar 2023
[Dr. JSR Prasad asked:- In the Veda, there are statements showing mutual contradictions like:-
1) Na karmaṇā… says that the action (karma) will not help in pleasing God and Kurvanneveha karmāṇi… says that the action (karma) must be done to please God and
2) Prajātantuṃ mā vyavacchetsīḥ… says that issues must be generated and Na prajayaa… and kiṃ prajayā karishyāmaḥ… say that issues are useless to lift the soul by pleasing God. How to resolve these two contradictions found in the Veda itself?]
Swami replied:- The first contradiction regarding the word ‘karma’ can be removed by taking the meaning in two different contexts because the word ‘action’ is a general word not specifying any particular action. When the action is praised, it should be taken in the sense of doing action to earn the fruit or money or wealth. The Gita gives a lot of stress on practical devotion, which is sacrifice of service (karma samnyaasa) as well as fruit of action (Karma phala tyaaga). Between these two, the latter is emphasized much (Yastu karmaphalatyāgī…, tyāgāt śāntiḥ…). Hence, the fruit of action or work is very essential and for that action is more essential because it is the source of the fruit. Such action or work cannot be denied and it should be praised. Therefore, in this context of praise of action, the first quotation can be taken. When action is condemned, we can take the meaning of the word karma as the rituals in which the precious food i.e., ghee is blindly burnt since it is opposed by the Vedic statement that food shall not be wasted at all (Annaṃ na paricakṣīta). In this way, we can remove the contradiction by taking different specified actions in different contexts.
The second contradiction regarding the issues represented by the word ‘prajaa’ cannot be removed by adopting the above first method because the meaning issues is specific for the word prajaa and is not general to have different meanings as per different contexts. The contradiction can be removed by selecting two different cases. The issues are stressed in the case of majority of humanity because most souls cannot control their biological need, which is sex (kaama prakriti). For such majority souls, the issues are stressed because even if the stress on issues is not done, majority will marry and get issues. In such case, the scripture is only reminding about what already is existing and not insisting the opposite action on what is not existing. This means that since biological need is existing already, biological need is stressed and scripture is not forcing the person controlling the biological need to succumb to the biological need (Śāstraṃ jñāpakaṃ na tu kārakam). Hence, in the context of receiving a saint only ‘Na karmaṇā…’ is recited by the receivers and not ‘prajātantum…’. In this way, the contradictions in the Veda can be removed and the statements can be correlated.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★