SankarAcArya's interpretation of Arjuna's grief & delusion

[Guest guest]

T. Hari Krishna wrote:

> 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 ?

 

Let us take a phenomenological approach to the general questions being

asked here. Yes, Arjuna's prior disposition to fight was also the result

of wrong thinking, but that is not Arjuna's reason for wishing to desist

from the war. He does not say, "What is this? I've been hankering after a

kingdom for so many years, which is foolish. I have renounced all desires,

so I cannot fight any more." What he does say is, "How can I fight with

Bhishma and Drona? They are my elders. How can I fight other relatives?"

These questions are not born out of proper discrimination between what is

eternal and what is ephemeral. They are born out of fear and confused

thinking. Arjuna has not lost his desire for fame and victory. He is only

concerned about the effects of the war on himself and his relatives. This

is a wrong reason to desist from action. As it has been said in an old

verse,

 

kAryANAm anArambho hi prathamaM buddhi-lakshaNam |

Arabdha kAryasya pUrtaM dvitIyaM buddhi-lakshaNam ||

 

The first sign of intelligence is not to initiate any action. Having

initiated action, the second sign of intelligence is to carry it forward

to completion.

 

Arjuna's desire to withdraw from the war was basically an abdication of

responsibility. This is tAmasic in nature, and the only way out of it is

through rajas, i.e. activity. Arjuna's statement, that he did not want to

fight, was not born out of a realization of the ultimate futility of *all*

action. That would have been sAttvic. As we shall see, later in the gItA,

Krishna shows a way out of this complex problem concerning action.

> 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 ?

 

Yes, the mental resolve itself initiates the cycle of karmaphalam. Having

taken a resolve to act, it is wrong to leave this action half done. It is

only by rooting out the basic desire, which leads to the mental resolve

that one gets out of this cycle of karmaphalam. And so long as one thinks

that one deliberate effort will nullify another deliberate effort, there

is a problem. Ultimately, only proper knowledge can nullify action, so

that if at all any effort is done, it should not be towards more action,

but towards acquiring knowledge.

> 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 ?

 

There is no contradiction, so long as we keep in mind the concept of

adhikAra, and the stepwise leading to the goal. Good Karma does not

dissolve the bad Karma. It only balances it out. However, as we see in

daily life, it is impossible to do purely good karma, except in the most

exceptional cases. As it is said, the road to hell is paved with good

intentions. Often, action has unexpected results, some good and some bad.

 

In any case, your question is moot. The paradoxical thing about AtmajnAna

is that even when the Atman is always present, and it is the closest thing

to every being, it is also the farthest away, to the mind of one who is

steeped in evil or bad karma. One is advised to minimize the bad, balance

it out with the good, perform action with detachment as a prerequiste to

knowledge. Sankara does not say otherwise either. nishkAmya karma leads to

citta-Suddhi, which leads to a desire to know Brahman, which leads to

AtmajnAna. Thus, as it turns out, this detachment is a prerequisite for

the rise of proper knowledge. To overlook this aspect is to completely

misunderstand Sankara. AtmajnAna is not a prerequisite for anything. It is

not as if AtmajnAna is one thing, and "dissolution of karmaphala" is

another thing. By its very nature, AtmajnAna not only dissolves the bad

karma, it also dissolves the good karma - it dissolves all karma, period.

So long as you talk of good vs. bad, you are told to value one over the

other. AtmajnAna is beyond the duality of good and bad, just as it is

beyond all other kinds of such dvandvas.

 

Vidyasankar