SankarAcArya's bhagavad gItA bhAshya: 2. 11 - Part II.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

In part I of the commentary on verse 2. 11, we saw that SankarAcArya
traces Arjuna's confused state of mind to Soka (grief) and moha
(delusion), which motivate him to abandon the course of action he had
prepared for, but for the wrong reasons. The AcArya also points out that
the only way to root out Soka and moha is through the higher renunciation
of all action, culminating in Self-knowledge. In the rest of the
introductory comments, SankarAcArya proceeds to explicate his stand
further, through the standard procedure of raising objections
(pUrvapaksha) and answering them in his own conclusions (siddhAnta).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation -

Some say - "Kaivalya (isolation) is not obtained only through
Self-knowledge preceded by total renunciation of works. On the other hand,
the definite sense of the entire Gita is that kaivalya is obtained through
Self-knowledge associated with the performance of works, such as
agnihotra, enjoined in the Sruti and the smRtis."

In support of this position, they quote some verses from the Gita -
"1. atha cet tvam imaM dharmyaM sangrAmaM na karishyasi (2. 33 - if you do
not fight this righteous war), 2. karmaNyeva adhikAras te (2. 47 - you
have a duty to perform only your work), 3. kuru karmA eva tasmAt tvam (4.
15 - therefore, do work alone), etc."

"It need not be doubted whether Veda-enjoined action that inflicts pain
promote adharma. For example, the dharma of the warrior, characterized by
war, is extremely cruel, and it inflicts pain even upon one's gurus,
brothers, sons etc. Still, it is the proper dharma for the warrior
(kshatriya), and therefore, it does not result in unrighteousness. On the
other hand, for not performing this enjoined action, it is said, "tatas
svadharmaM kIrtiM ca hitvA pApam avApsyasi" (2. 33 - thus, by losing your
own dharma and your reputation, you will incur sin). Therefore, by such
affirmations, it is clearly taught that actions enjoined in the Vedas are
obligatory and should be performed all through one's life. Even if they
entail pain to sacrificial animals, they are not sinful."

Notes -

The above objection is a standard one found from the ritualist minded
adherent of the Vedas. One can see the background of different kinds of
objections to Vedic sacrifice, notably the avoidance of inflicting pain
(ahimsA), probably arising from Jaina and Bauddha objections to ritual
sacrifice. The opponent's argument is two-fold - Vedic sacrifice is not
sinful even if it inflicts pain, and that such action must be performed
throughout one's life, so that it must never be renounced. SankarAcArya
proceeds to reply to this as follows.

Translation -

The above argument is false. The discipline of action and the discipline
of knowledge have been explicitly demarcated from each other, as they are
based upon two different temperaments. The text beginning with aSocyAn (2.
11) and ending with svadharmam api ca avekshya (2. 31) sets out the
highest truth (paramArtha tattvam), which is called the sAMkhya. The topic
of the sAMkhya and the understanding generated by studying its relevant
context is this - the Atman, being free from the six-fold transformations
beginning with birth, is a non-agent. Those for whom this knowledge is
appropriate are the jnAnis, also called the sAMkhyAs. Before the birth of
this understanding of the Self comes the stage of yoga, characterized by
discrimination between dharma and adharma, and performance of activities
that are conducive to liberation. Performance of yoga depends on the
notion that the Self is other than the body, but that it is a performer of
actions, an enjoyer of the fruits of actions, etc. Those for whom this
understanding of yoga is appropriate are the karmins or the yogins.

Thus, the Lord separates the two kinds of understanding of the Self, "eshA
te 'bhihitA sAMkhye buddhir yoge tv imAM SRNu" (2. 39). Of these two, that
which is based on the sAMkhya-buddhi, the discipline of jnAna-yoga, and
that which is based on the yoga-buddhi, the discipline of karma-yoga, are
demarcated thus - "purA vedAtmanA mayA proktA" and "karmayogena yoginAm"
(3. 3). This separation of the sAMkhya understanding and the yoga
understanding, and consequently, of jnAna and karma, has been done by the
Lord Himself, as they are based respectively on notions of non-agency and
agency, and the perception of either unity or plurality. It is clear that
it is impossible for the same person to hold both kinds of understanding
simultaneously.

Notes -

The clear senses in which the Gita and SankarAcArya use the terms sAMkhya
and yoga are succinctly described here. It should be obvious that what is
called sAMkhya and what is called yoga in the Gita and in the commentary
is not limited to the schools of philosophy known as sAMkhya and yoga. In
SankarAcArya's treatment of the Gita, sAMkhya corresponds with jnAna and
yoga with karma. In turn, this is based on an explicit declaration to that
effect in the Gita itself (verse 3. 3).

Translation -

This declaration of separation [of jnAna and karma] is shown also in the
Sathapatha brAhmaNa [bRhadAraNyaka upanishad 4. 4. 22], "etam eva
pravrAjino lokam icchanto brAhmaNAH pravrajanti" (desiring only this world
of the Self do mendicant brAhmaNas wander). Having declared the
renunciation of all action, it is said, "kiM prajayA karishyAmo yeshAM no
'yam AtmA 'yaM lokaH" (what will we do with progeny, we who have this
Self, this world? i. e. of what benefit are sons to those who know the
Self?). The Veda enjoins actions only on those who are subject to
nescience and desire (avidyA-kAma). Thus, before marriage, man is said to
be unregenerate (prAkRta). Having investigated the sphere of enjoined
actions, man desires the three worlds and the means to obtain them. These
three worlds are sons, human wealth and divine wealth. The human wealth
consists of works through which the world of the fathers is obtained,
while the divine wealth is the knowledge through which the world of the
gods is obtained. Therefore, the renunciation of all action and the life
of a mendicant is meant only for him who seeks only the world of the Self
and has renounced his desires. If the Lord's opinion is that knowledge
and action are to be combined and pursued simultaneously, the above
distinction between knowledge and action would be meaningless.

Notes -

SankarAcArya is referring to the oldest requirement of asceticism. No monk
can be truly a monk unless he loses his desire for progeny and wealth. On
the other hand, if the opponent says that jnAna and karma are to be
combined, it also implies that the life of a monk and the life of a
householder can be combined. One may follow the other, but only in a
specific order, from householder to monk, and not vice versa. There is
also no combination of the two that is rigorously possible. This is one
aspect of jnAna-karma-samuccaya that is not appreciated in modern analyses
of advaita vedAnta.

Translation -

(If the Lord had taught the combination of jnAna and karma) Arjuna's
question would also not be valid, when he asks, "jyAyasI cet karmaNaH te
matA buddhiH" (3. 1 - if according to you, knowledge is superior to
action) etc. If the Lord had not explicitly declared the superiority of
knowledge to action, how could Arjuna have falsely superimposed such a
question on what the Lord had taught him?

Notes -

SankarAcArya points out that Lord Krishna explicitly declares knowledge to
be superior to action, and that he never teaches the combination of both
for the same person. Throughout this discussion, there is one major idea
that underlies the thought-process. This is the idea of whom the teaching
is meant for. SankarAcArya's interpretation of the Gita has not been well
understood in recent times. What he says is that the Gita teaches pravRtti
dharma and also nivRtti dharma; it teaches jnAna yoga and also karma yoga.
These are meant for two different kinds of men. What the Gita does NOT
teach is a doctrine of combination of the two. Anyone familiar with his
commentaries on the brahmasUtras and the upanishads will recognize this as
a distinctive position of SankarAcArya.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be continued,
Vidyasankar

================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
================================================================

>From  Thu Nov  5 11:34:26 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.NOV.1998.113426.0600.>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:34:26 -0600
Reply-To: msr at isc.tamu.edu
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ravisankar Mayavaram <msr at ISC.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: AmnAya stotram.h - 6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Continuation of the details of dvArakA maTha

vikhyAtaM gomatItIrthaM sAmavedashcha tadgatam.h |
jIvAtmabrahmAtmaikabodha yatra bhaviShyati || 6 ||

================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
================================================================

>From  Thu Nov  5 11:39:21 1998
Message-Id: <THU.5.NOV.1998.113921.0600.>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 11:39:21 -0600
Reply-To: msr at isc.tamu.edu
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ravisankar Mayavaram <msr at ISC.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: shrI shAntAnda SarasvatI
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

namaste

 I received a personal request about shrI shAntAnda SarasvatI,
former pontiff (or claimant of the seat) jyotir maTha. Whatever
little I knew was from the pages of Vidyasankar. I have passed on
that info.

If there  are any references about the biography and
the works of svAmiji, please send that information. I will pass
it on.

Thank you.

With regards,
Ravi

================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
================================================================