Verse 2.16

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

कर्तव्यता न साध्यस्य विदितत्वाद्विधीयते ।
दुःखत्वाच्च न यागस्य ह्युपायस्त्ववबोध्यते ॥ १६ ॥

kartavyatā na sādhyasya viditatvādvidhīyate |
duḥkhatvācca na yāgasya hyupāyastvavabodhyate || 16 ||

English translation of verse 2.16:

Since the end is known, it is not enjoined as what is to be achieved. The performance of a sacrifice, too, (is not enjoined), since it is painful. The means, indeed, is made known by (Scripture).

Notes:

The Mīmāṃsaka argues that the ritual section (karma-kāṇḍa) of the Veda has validity inasmuch as it enjoins the performance of karma. In the same way, the knowledge section (jñāna-kāṇḍa) has validity since it enjoins the practice of meditation. There is, for instance, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka text (II, iv, 5): “The Self should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on, and meditated upon.” If so, it is wrong to say, the Mīmāṃsaka contends, that only a person who has renounced all works is eligible for Brahman-knowledge.

This argument is wrong. There is no scope for injunction even in the karma-kāṇḍa. Yāga and svarga are related as means and end. What is it that is enjoined here? Is it the end or the means? It cannot be the end, for heaven which a person desires as an end is already known to him without any injunction. Nor can it be the means, for the performance of yāga is painful; it cannot be the case that Scripture which has man’s happiness in view compels him to do what is painful.

Scripture purports to reveal what is not known (ajñātajñāpakaṃ śāstram). That yāga is the means to svarga is not known by us. The ritual section makes known to us that the one is the means to the other. In the same way, the Upaniṣad makes known to us the non-difference of Brahman and Ātman; here also there is no scope for injunction.