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

[Guest guest]

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