B.G 3.14, 15 and 16
अन्नाद् भवन्ति भूतानि पर्जन्यादन्नसम्भवः। यज्ञाद् भवति पर्जन्यो यज्ञः कर्मसमुद्भवः ॥१४॥
annād bhavanti bhūtāni parjanyādannasambhavaḥ। yajñād bhavati parjanyō yajñaḥ karmasamudbhavaḥ ॥14॥
कर्म ब्रह्मोद्भवं विद्धि ब्रह्माक्षरसमुद्भवम्। तस्मात् सर्वगतं ब्रह्म नित्यं यज्ञे प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥१५॥
karma brahmodbhavaṁ viddhi brahmākṣarasamudbhavam। tasmāt sarvagataṁ brahma nityaṁ yajñe pratiṣṭhitam ॥15॥
एवं प्रवर्तितं चक्रं नानुवर्तयतीह यः। अघायुरिंद्रियारामो मोघं पार्थ स जीवति ॥१६॥
ēvaṁ pravartitaṁ cakraṁ nānuvartayatīha yaḥ। aghāyuriṁdriyārāmō mōghaṁ pārtha sa jīvati ॥16॥
From food comes beings, and food becomes possible from rains. The rains are produced from 'Yajna' and it is 'Yajna' that is the source of the prescribed duties. The actions have their origin in Brahman, and understand that the Vedas also arose simultaneously from that same Brahman. Therefore, the all pervading Brahman is always situated in the 'Yajna'. O Partha, he who does not adhere to the cycle thus set in motion, who only delights in the senses, is sinful, and lives in vain.
Gīta Bhāshya 3.14, 15 and 16
Why person should engage himself in 'Yajna' is further elaborated. It is 'Yajna' that sustains the food cycle. The actions and the natural duties are born from the Brahman. It is incorrect to apply secondary meaning when primary meaning applies. Hence 'Brahma' means the Brahman, and 'Akshara' means the Vēdas. To state Vēdas stem from unconscious activity of the lord, and thus are inferior is against the basic purport of scriptures. The omniscience lord is ever conscious. For entities and principles that are eternal (e.g. Vēdas, beings, etc), when words like creation and destruction are used, it implies manifest and unmanifest. In comparison to silo statements, authoritative texts have superior weight. Hence, following Brahmasutras "He from whom the creation and such activities are caused" (B.S.1.1.2), and Vēdas are authority on the origin of the universe (B.S.1.1.3) establish the authority of Vēdas. The Brahman being ever established in 'Yajna', and the expression of Vēdas by beings completes the cycle. 'Aghayu' - One who does'nt adhere to the cycle set in mothion and thus sinful.
Another reason (why one must continue to perform ones prescribed duties) is provided by 'annat' verse.
'Yajna' results in rain, which in turn results in food. Underlying cause is explained here. Original entry into the cycle of 'Yajna' at the beginning of creation is not the topic of discussion. Indeed, it is intended to explain the duties to be performed in the future. It is not just because of similarities (in these cycles of duties performed by the Devas) that the activities are prescribed.
The rain occurs from the cloud system. And clouds are formed because of 'Yajna':
"A properly given offering into fire raises up and reaches the Sun. Rain is formed from the Sun. From rain food comes forth, and from food the beings are born."
-states the Vēdic testimonial.
The sentences 'from the Sun' and 'from the Ocean' may appear contradictory. Hence, it is told 'from Yajna formation of rain becomes possible'. Yajna is sacrificing material substances addressing the Devas. 'Karma', i.e. prescribed duties, refers to other activities.
The actions and the natural duties are born from the Brahman.
"He only causes virtuous action to happen", "Wisdom and knowledge are from Him"
-there are such testimonials.
Without the primary source as testimonial, the orthodox practices cannot be justified. Tendency to act does not take place from inert matter on its own.
"From Him only are the Vēdas."
-such testimonials indicate, everything is under His governance.
"Even the actions and material substances (are under His governance)."
All these indicate His inconceivable power. The activities of the individual being are driven (by the lord) similar to the relationship that exists between the reflected image and the original object. The Gita verse 5.14 by stating "no doer ship or agency", rejects agency to (the individual soul).
'akṣara' is well known (as alphabets, i.e. Vēdas). From it, indeed, is realized the supreme Brahman. Otherwise, how can that Brahman be known who is without beginning, who is inconceivable, and who is complete.
Providing technical interpretation alone, while discarding common usage, is not appropriate. Also, one must base the argument on comprehensive analysis.
"Therefore, the all pervading Brahman..."
- stated thus.
Indeed, in the same context, for the same word, two different interpretations are not appropriate. There is no precedence for such interpretation unless mentioned explicitly.
The following sentences are conveying the Vēdas to be eternal-
"Vēdas are without form and eternal", "Without beginning or end, eternal, self created by speech, i.e. Vēdas are self-existent without beginning or end", "Therefore, indeed, (his creation cycle) is said to be eternal"
- such are testimonials from Vedas, texts, and proverbs.
We may have to attach defects to Vēdas, if we say it is created through human agency or if we say it is created without His knowledge. There are no testimonials to support such arguments. The word 'niḥśvasita', i.e. 'like breathing', is intended to convey the ease with which the lord brings forth the existing Vēdas, and does not indicate His ignorance in the matter. "He thus desired and created..." - this testimonial indicates the lord's intention, thus his conscious action. "The desires are sacrificed.." - and such statements indicate, even the manifestation of the world happens along with (Vēdas as a conscious activity of the lord).
It is contradictory to the main purport (of the lord being the independent and supreme principle) as well; as explained previously (2.24). Indeed, engaging in creation activities without being independent is not superiority. Not being independent can happen only with previously existing cause. Such experiences such as diseases and such miseries are limited to beings as birth has a cause.
The statements that refer to the creation of the universe are implicitly point to the governing deities as well. In this context, words "eternal" and "born" must be reconciled to mean "eternally existing principles re-manifests" at the time of creation. Sometimes statements indicate agency to mean "remanifestation of principles". There are testimonials to this effect:
"He constructed a section of the Brahmana named 'śatapatha'"
- described thus.
How can the Vēdas that were already stationed in the Sun be described as created (by Yajnavalkya)?
In comparison to a mere single statement, the section of literature that conveys conclusive knowledge has weight. Textual testimonials, i.e. Vēdas are authority on the origin (of the universe) is the right interpretation for 'śāstrayōnim' (Brahmasutra 1.1.3, and not 'Brahman is the cause of Vēdas'). Because the previous brahmasutra, 1.1.2, 'janmādyasya yataḥ' i.e. "He from whom the creation and such activities are caused" provides the context (and includes creation of Vēdas as well). Indeed, His i.e. Brahman's birth is not due to Vēdas. Certainly Vēdas cannot be the reason for the cause of the Universe. It is not impossible to comprehend the creation of the Vēdas by the Brahman, along with the creation of such a diverse and variegated universe. Attributing omniscience to the Brahman only because he is the cause of Vēdas is also not appropriate. Therefore, in the current context, the authority of the Vēdas as testimonials is only sought to be understood. Thus, the 'aksharani' i.e. Vēdas i.e. Knowledge is eternal.
Indeed, through the Disciple lineage as well, the Brahman is said to be expressed through 'Yajna'. Therefore, in that eternal 'Yajna' the Brahman is ever established.
From those beings the Vēdas are expressed. Thus is the cycle of universe.
Therefore, one who does not adhere to this universal cycle, because of his destructive nature, is called 'aghāyu'. One who spends his life span in sinful causes is called 'aghāyu'.
