gita rahasy athava karmayog shastr -bal gangadhar tilak
|
pandrahavaan prakaran
saraansh yah hai ki karmayog ki upapatti vedantashastr hi ke adhar par ki ja sakati hai, aur ab sannyas margiy log chahe kuchh bhi kahean, parantu isamean sandeh nahian ki ganitashastr ke jaise-shuddh ganit aur vyavaharik ganit-do bhed haian, usi prakar vedant shastr ke bhi do bhag-arthath shuddh vedant aur naitik athava vyavaharik vedant-hote haian. kant to yahaan tak kahata hai, ki manushy ke man mean “parameshhvar (paramatma) amritattv aur (ichchha-) svatantry” ke sanbandh mean goodh vichar is nitiprashhn ka vichar karate karate hi utpann hue haian, ki “maian sansar mean kisatarah se bartav karooan ya sansar mean mera sachcha kartavy kya hai?’’ aur, aise prashhnoan ka uthtar n dekar niti ki upapatti keval kisi bahy sukh ki drishti se hi batalana, mano manushy ke man ki us pashuvriti ko, jo svabhavatah mean lipt raha karati hai, uttejit karana evan sachchi nitimatta ki j d par hi kulha di marana hai. [1]ab is bat ko alag karake samajhane ki koee avashhyakata nahian, ki yadyapi gita ka pratipady vishay karmayog hi hai to bhi usamean shuddh vedant kyoan aur kaise agaya. kanht ne is vishay par “shuddh (vhyavasayathmak) buddhi ki mimaansa’’ aur “vyavaharik (vasanatmak) buddhi ki mimaansa’’ namak do alag alag granhth likhe haian. paranhtu hamare aupanishadik tattvajnan ke anusar bhagavadgita hi mean in donoan vishayoan ka samavesh kiya gaya hai; balki shraddhamoolak bhaktimarg ka bhi vivechan usi mean hone ke karan gita sab se adhik grahy aur pramanabhoot ho gee haian. mokshadharm ko kshanabhar ke liye ek or rakh kar keval karm-akarm ki pariksha ke naitik tattv ki drishti se bhi jab “samyabuddhi’ hi shreshth siddh hoti hai; tab yahaan par is bat ka bhi tho da sa vichar kar lena chahiye, ki gita ke adhyatmik paksh ko chho d kar nitishastroan mean anhy doosare panth kaise aur kyoan nirman hue? daktar pal karas namak ek prasiddh amerikan granthakar apane nitishastr vishayak granhth mean is prashhn ka yah uttar deta hai ki “piand- brahmanhd ki rachana ke sambandh mean manushy ki jaisi samajh (ray) hoti hai, usi tarah nitishastr ke mool tattvoan ke sambandh mean usake vicharoan ka rang badalata rahata hai. sach poochho to, piand brahmand ki rachana ke sambandh mean kuchh n kuchh nishchit mat hue bina naitik prashhn hi upasthit nahian ho sakata. piand-brahmand ki rachana ke sambandh mean kuchh pakka mat n rahane par bhi ham logoan se kuchh naitik acharan kadachit ho sakata hai; parantu yah acharan svapnavastha ke vyapar ke saman hoga. |
|
tika tippani aur sandarbh
- ↑ Empiricism, on the contrary, outs up at the roots the morality of intentions (in which, and not in actions only, consists the high worth than men can and ought to give themselves)... Empiricism, moreover, being on this account allied with all the inelinations which (no matter what fashion they put ons) degrade humanity when they are raised to the dignity of a supreme pratical principle,… is for that reason much more dangerous,” Kant’s Theory of Ethics, pp. 163, and 236-238. Ses also Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, (trans by Maxmuller) 2nd Ed. Pp. 640-657. See the Ethical problem, by Dr. Carus, 2nd Ed. P. 3. “Our proposition is that the leading priniciple in ethics must be derived from the philosophical view back of it. The world- conception a man has, can alone give character to the principle in his ethics. Without any world-conception we can have no ethics (i.e. ethics in the highest sense of the word). We may act morally like dreamers or somnabulists, but out ethics would in that case be a mere moral instinot without any rational insight into its raison d’ etro.”
sanbandhit lekh
| prakaran | nam | prishth sankhya |
varnamala kramanusar lekh khoj