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

[Guest guest]

Continued from part II, which was posted on November 3, 1998. SankarAcArya

continues his discussion of why jnAna and karma are not combined, by

reference to the context of the gItA and the questions posed by Arjuna.

 

Vidyasankar

 

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

 

Translation -

 

Also, if a combination of knowledge and action is taught to everybody,

such a combination would apply to Arjuna also. How would it be appropriate

for him to have asked, as if he were asking about something quite

unrelated, "Of these two, tell me for certain, which is superior?" (yac

chreyam etayor ekaM tan me brUhi suniScitam - 5. 11). When a doctor

prescribes a food that is sweet and cooling, in order to cure a patient's

problem with bile, there is no need to ask, "tell me about something else

that will cure bile, and that is neither sweet nor cooling." One may think

that Arjuna's question about that which is superior is prompted by his not

having understood properly the combination taught by the Lord. In that

case, the Lord should have answered with another question, "I have

specified the combination of knowledge and action. Why are you so

confused in regard to it?" (If combination were the purport of the Lord'

teaching, it would also not have been appropriate for Him to have said

elsewhere, "two courses have been taught by Me, in ancient times" (dve

nishThe mayA purA prokte - 3. 3).

 

Nor is it possible to limit the combination of knowledge and action to

that which is taught in the smRtis. [1] Besides, Arjuna knew very well

that his own dharma, as taught in the smRti for a kshatriya, is one of

waging war. In which case, it is not seemly for him to ask, "why do you

command me to embark upon this horrible action?" (tat kiM karmaNi ghore

mAM niyojayasi? - 3. 1). Therefore, it is not possible for anybody to

demonstrate that there is the smallest iota of a teaching to combine

knowledge and action in the SAstra of the gItA.

 

Notes -

 

[1]. This is a response to those who argue that action, as enjoined in the

Sruti, is not to be combined with knowledge, but action and knowledge

taught in the smRti should be combined. SankarAcArya rejects such an

argument here.

 

Having shown how the combination view is untenable, the commentator

proceeds to give the correct view of what it is that the gItA teaches.

 

Translation -

 

However, a person may proceed to act, due to ignorance or due to faults

like passion etc. During the course of such action, by means of the

sacrifice (yajna), donation of gifts (dAna) or austerities (tapas), his

intellect may get purified, and knowledge can arise, in the form, "all

this is One alone, Brahman, a non-doer" (ekam eva idaM sarvaM brahma

akartR ca). He continues to act, as of old, for the welfare of the world,

even though he has really withdrawn from action and its motive. However,

this is not action that is to be combined with knowledge. For example, the

Lord, vAsudeva, carried on the kshatra-dharma (the law of action of the

warrior), but this is not taught to be combined with knowledge, for the

sake of liberation. The Self-knower is like this too, because he has no

connection with egoism and the expectation of results of action. The

Self-knower does not think, "I do" (ahaM karomi), nor does he desire the

fruits of actions. [2] For example, an AhitAgni (a householder who

maintains the ritual fires), who desires heaven and other such results,

begins the agnihotra or other sacrifice, to attain his desires. In the

course of performing the sacrifice, even if his desire is destroyed, he

continues performing the sacrifice according to rule, but this action is

no longer motivated by desire. Similarly, the Lord shows, "Though acting,

he is not stained" (kurvann api na lipyate - 5. 7), "he does not act, and

does not get stained" (na karoti na lipyate - 13. 31), and so on.

 

Notes -

 

[2]. The bhAshya reads, "tattvavit tu na aham karomi iti manyate na ca

tatphalam abhisandhatte." Sri Krishna Warrier (see publication details in

the introductory post) translates, "the knower of the Truth maintains: 'I

act not'; and he does not seek the fruits of his actions." I translate

differently, as "The Self-knower does not think, 'I do." To my mind, the

difference is somewhat significant. To say, "I act not" leaves the

possibility that there is an "I" that thinks, but does not act, so that

the I-sense remains. On the contrary, what is meant here is the absence of

the I-sense. Also, in the sentence just before this one, SankarAcArya

mentions ahaMkAra-abhAva, which is the reason behind my translation.

 

-----

 

To be continued ...