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

[Guest guest]

Continued from yesterday's post.

 

Vidyasankar

 

--------

 

Translation -

 

When it is said, "as was done by your ancestors, in ancient times"

(pUrvaiH pUrvataraM kRtam - 4. 15) or "through actions alone did Janaka

and others attain perfection" (karmaNA eva hi saMsiddhim AsthitA

janakAdayaH - 3. 20), this has to be distinguished and understood. How? If

at the very beginning, you grant that Janaka and others were realized

beings (tattvavidaH), but still engaged in works, (then it should be

inferred that) this was for the welfare of the world (lokasangraha), and

that they attained perfection having realized the knowledge that, "the

qualities subsist in the qualities" (guNA guNEshu vartante - 3. 28). The

meaning is that, although qualified to renounce all works, they did not

renounce action, and perfected themselves through works.

 

On the other hand, (if one says that Janaka and others were not

Self-knowers), the meaning is that, by means of action dedicated to

ISvara, perfection is reached in the form of purifying the intellect

(sattva-Suddhi), and (followed by) the dawn of knowledge. The same meaning

is given by the Lord, in "for purifying the intellect, Yogins perform

action" (sattvaSuddhaye karma kurvanti - 5. 11). Having said that, "by

dedicating to Him (worshipping Him with) one's own actions, man attains

perfection" (svakarmaNA tam abhyarcya siddhiM vindati mAnavaH - 18. 46),

the Lord reaffirms only the discipline of knowledge (jnAna-nishThA) for

such a perfected man, by means of, "The way the perfected being

reaches Brahman" (siddhiM prApto yathA brahma - 18. 50) and the rest.

 

Therefore, in the teaching of the gItA, liberation is solely by knowledge

of the Truth, not through combination (of knowledge) with action - this is

the definite purport. We will demonstrate this meaning suitably with

reference to the text.

 

Notes -

 

The above passage should be read very closely. Ravi's questions in

response to the previous post in this series (part III) are very nicely

answered here, and in a nutshell. Greater elaboration of this relationship

and contrast between action and knowledge is found in the commentary on

the bRhadAraNyaka upanishad, in various places.

 

SankarAcArya, as a true philosopher, takes one question very seriously,

namely, "how does one know?" If we think about it, it should be very clear

that only a jnAnI knows that he is a jnAnI, the rest of us have no access

to any means of knowledge to decide this issue. Therefore, when an example

of Janaka is given in the teaching, tradition-minded compulsion would

dictate that he was a jnAnI, almost by definition. Still, one should allow

for the possibility that Janaka was also an ignorant person. This, in

turn, helps us to extract a dual sense, which is useful for the sAdhaka.

If we say a jnAnI acts, we may also explain this in terms of welfare of

the world, or if we say that one who acts is not a jnAnI, then we are

shown how the discipline of action helps in the transition to the

discipline of knowledge. Once we keep this central question in mind, "how

does one know?," all the complications simply rearrange themselves in a

self-consistent manner. The jnAnI does not think that he acts, and the

jnAnI also knows that he is the sole Atman, and that only the Atman

exists. It follows that the jnAnI does not see any action at all. A

perfect jnAnI has no identification with action, because the jnAnI does

not identify with the body. It is we who see the action, and link it with

the body, which we think belongs to the jnAnI. Once we see action, we ask

for an explanation, and "welfare of the world" is one reason given by

SankarAcArya.

 

For the next few verses, the commentary takes the shape of explaining each

word in the text of the gItA.

 

Translation -

 

Arjuna had become subject to wrong knowledge (mithyAjnAna) and had become

confused in regard to his own law, so that he was sinking in an ocean of

sorrow. Through compassion, and seeing that there was no means other than

Self-knowledge to lift Arjuna from this predicament, the Lord, Vasudeva,

said,

 

Verse and translation -

 

"aSocyAn anvaSocas tvaM prajnAvAdAMSca bhAshase |

gatAsUn agatAsUMSca na anuSocanti paNDitAH || 2. 11 ||

 

aSocyAn - those who are not to be grieved over,

anvaSocaH tvam - you have lamented,

prajnAvAdAn ca - and (also) words of wisdom

bhAshase - you speak.

gatAsUn - those who have gone

agatAsUn ca - and those who have not gone (those who are living),

na anuSocanti - do not grieve for

paNDitAH - the wise.

 

You have lamented for those who are not to be grieved over, and you also

speak words of wisdom. The wise do not feel sorrow for those who are dead

nor for those who are living.

 

Translation (Commentary) -

 

Bhishma, Drona and the like are not to be lamented over. Their conduct

here has been virtuous, and from the view of Supreme Truth, they are

eternal. Still, you have lamented over them, thinking, "these people will

die, due to my actions, but without them, what will I do with the

pleasures of a kingdom etc?" The sense is that you (Arjuna) lament for

those who are indestructible from the perspective of Supreme Truth,

therefore you appear to be stupid. Yet, you also speak words of wisdom.

The sense is that, like one insane, you (Arjuna) seem to mix the

contradictory qualities of confusion and wisdom in yourself. The wise,

those who know the Self, do not grieve for those whose prANas have gone

(the dead) and those whose prANas have not (the living). "paNDA" (wisdom)

is the understanding of the Atman, those who have it are the paNDitas. Re:

the Sruti, "Having gained wisdom" (pANDityaM nirvidya - bRhadAraNyaka 3.

5. 1).

 

--------

 

To be continued ...