Verse 2.336

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

स्वातन्त्र्यं यत्र कर्तुः स्यात्तत्रैवासौ नियुज्यते ।
फलं कर्त्रनधीनत्वात्सम्बन्धायैव शक्यते ॥ ३३६ ॥

svātantryaṃ yatra kartuḥ syāttatraivāsau niyujyate |
phalaṃ kartranadhīnatvātsambandhāyaiva śakyate || 336 ||

English translation of verse 2.336:

A person can be commanded to do only that thing in respect of which he has freedom of will. Since the fruit

Notes:

(viz., Brahman-knowledge) is not dependent on the will of the agent, only the relation (between the means and the end) is made known.

It may be argued that the Bhṛguvallī does not enjoin the investigation of the means through the method of anvaya and vyatireka. On the contrary, it enjoins Brahman-knowledge which is to be attained. This is obvious from the śruti statement, “He knew bliss as Brahman.” (ānando brahmeti vyajānāt). That is to say, the purport of śruti here is in the injunction of Brahman-knowledge and not in the means thereto. If this be not the case, so the critic argues, why should it be said even at the commencement of the Ānandavullī that the knower of Brahman attains the highest?

This argument is not satisfactory as it fails to understand the scope of an injunction. A person can be commanded to do only that thing which is dependent on his will, which falls within the scope of his actions and in respect of which he has freedom of will. Man has the “liberty of indifference” in respect of that which is dependent entirely on his will, for he has the freedom in this case to do, or not to do, or do it differently. It is open to an individual to do a certain action, or not to do it, or do it differently. But there is nothing to be done by him in respect of the end or fruit (phalam). This is the case whether we take into consideration an end like heaven (svarga) or Brahman-knowledge. Since the performance of a scriptural rite falls within the scope of the will of the individual, it is intelligible to say that there is injunction thereto, but there can be no injunction with regard to heaven. Further, knowledge is object-dependent and not person-dependent, and so Brahman-knowledge does not fall within the scope of an injunction. The work of śruti comes to an end as soon as it reveals the means-end relation—that understanding the nature of the sheaths through the method of anvaya and vyatireka is the means, and that the knowledge of Brahman-Ātman is the end. This is how the relation between Bhṛgu’s investigation contained in the Bhṛguvallī and the opening statement in the Brahmavallī has to be understood.