SankarAcArya's interpretation of Arjuna's grief & delu sion

[Guest guest]

I am posting this with reference to Sri Vidyasankar's translation of

Sankara's commentary of BG:

 

" Similarly, when blinded by grief and

delusion, people may give up

the course of action best suited to their

own nature, and take up

a forbidden course. Even if they are

prepared to live according to

their own dharma, a desire for other kinds

of results leads their

speech, minds and bodies to another dharma.

The root of this

wrong thinking is ahaMkAra - the sense of

I-ness. Thus, virtues

and vices accumulate, and the cycle of

transmigration continues

unchecked, consisting of desired and

undesired results, happiness

and sorrow, and continued rebirths. Thus is

it said that grief and

delusion are the seeds of saMsAra. There is

no cessation

from this, except through Self-knowledge

(AtmajnAna), preceded

by a total renunciation of all karman. To

teach this central truth to

Arjuna, and to bless the entire world

through this teaching, the

Lord Vasudeva says, "aSocyAn" etc. (2. 11)."

 

 

Questions: In this case, Arjuna actually intends to renounce action

(that of fighting his relatives). Sankara seems to uphold "an action

dictated by one's corporeal background (dharma)" above "grief and delusion".

Sankara makes a distinction between "wrong thinking" and "right thinking".

In this case, Arjuna's "grief and delusion" are being interpreted as the

result of wrong thinking. What about Arjuna's prior disposition to engage in

the fighting - how are we sure that it is not the result of wrong thinking ?

What will accrue "more karmaphalam" to Arjuna: his fighting or his delusion

& grief ?

There seems a somewhat hidden message in this: It conveys that

whatever corporeal position & dharma we are predisposed in (not withstanding

our conscious will to avoid or relinquish it), that is the best way to

dissolve one's karmaphalam. Any deliberate effort to change it, despite all

noble intentions, will not diminish one's burden of Karmaphalam & it will

have to be enjoyed/ born in an alternative form. In this case, what about

all the conscious judgemental decisions we make in all routine activities.

Do not all of them accrue one form other of Karmaphalam ? The message here

again seems to be that such conscious actions will not diminish one's

Karmaphalam even if they do not serve to increase it.

A second objection to the above statement of Sankara comes from the

popular teachings that the best way to ward off the "bad Karmaphalam" is to

perform "good Karmas" or to perform Karmas with a disposition of anAsakti

(disinterest). So a conscious effort to dissolve the "bad Karmaphalam" is

commended by the Sastras and Saints. Also, dissolving one's Karmaphalam

through good actions is stated as a prerequisite to Atmaj~nam by the Saints

& the Sastras. Sankara here states that Atmaj~Anam is a prerequisite for

dissolving one's Karmaphalam. Do I perceive a chicken & egg problem here ?

 

Regards,

T. Hari Krishna