Bhagavad Gita Sthitaprajna lakshna - Verses 67 to 69: Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Commentary from Gita Study Program

[Guest guest]

indriyanam hi caratam yanmano'nuvidhiyate

tadasya harati prajnam vayurnavamivambhasi Verse 67

 

hi - indeed; caratam - of the moving; indriyanam - of the senses; yat manah -

that mind which; anuvidhiyate - follows in the wake (of); tat - that; asya -

his; prajnam - knowledge; harati - robs away; vayuh - the wind; navam - a

small boat; iva - just as; ambhasi - on the waters

The mind that follows the moving senses indeed robs the person of his

knowledge, just as the wind carries away a small boat on the waters. For the

one whose mind is not resolved, and is therefore in the hands of raga-dvesas,

there is no knowledge. Even if knowledge is there, it is not adequate, as it

has already been pointed out. This is because the mind follows, goes behind,

the moving senses, all of which are engaged in their own spheres of activity.

For example, the eyes have their sphere of seeing in forms and colours and the

ears have their sphere in sounds. Thus, you find that each sense organ has its

own sphere of activity. As the sense organs experience the objects according

to their own spheres, the mind naturally has some fancies that one goes after

as they arise. In other words, you go along with the sense cravings.

 

The person being discussed in this verse is one whose mind joins with the

sense perceptions, with reference to which there are certain inner cravings or

fancies. A mind that joins the senses robs away one's knowledge, the knowledge

born of the discriminative inquiry of oneself. This means that whatever

self-knowledge one may have had is as good as gone! The mind, meaning the

will, of such a person, is one that says 'yes' to everything that is not to be

done and 'no' to whatever has to be done. To illustrate this point, Krsna used

the example of the wind with its capacity to take a small boat away from its

destination. Robbed of self-knowledge, the mind is busy with objects alone. It

has no time for self-knowledge. In fact, there is no time for anything because

there are so many raga-dvesas. Because situations do not happen as you want,

there is nothing but concerns, one after the other. First, the pressure of

raga-dvesas is in the form of undifferentiated concern and then the concern is

in the form of desire, regret, disappointment, sorrow, despair, anxiety, and a

constant sense of loss.

 

When the mind is occupied with objects, there is concern, whereas when it is

occupied with the self, the atma, there is no concern, only tranquillity. The

self will not run away. It stays put. Even if you come back after twenty

years, atma will still be sat-cit-ananda. Regardless of which book you read,

atma will not grow into asat-cit-ananda. Ëtma is always fullness,

limitlessness, ananda. If the object of your knowledge is the atma, the self,

then there is ananda for you. Krsna summed up all that he had said with

reference to one's knowledge becoming steady in the following verse:

 

tasmadyasya mahabaho nigrhitani sarvasah

indriyanindriyarthebhyastasya prajna pratishita Verse 68

 

tasmat - therefore; mahabaho - Oh! Mighty armed (Arjuna); yasya - whose;

indriyani - senses; indriya-arthebhyah - from sense objects;sarvasah -

completely; nigrhitani - are withdrawn, mastered; tasya - his; prajna -

knowledge; pratishita - is steady

 

Therefore, Oh! Mighty armed Arjuna, the knowledge of one whose senses are

completely withdrawn (mastered) from their respective objects is steady. The

word tasmat indicates that Krsna was summing up this section dealing with

description of the mind of a person who has some vision and is making an

effort to make his or her knowledge steady. He explained that because the

senses are turbulent, they could rob away the mind of such a person. How they

do this was also discussed. Krsna addressed Arjuna here as 'mahabaho,' meaning

'Oh!, Mighty armed Arjuna.' One may be mighty armed with reference to one's

prowess and skill, but what is needed for self-knowledge is to be mighty

armed, i.e., strong in the mind, which is more difficult. The prowess and

skills that Arjuna had gathered to earn him the name 'Mighty-armed' were great

in their own sphere in that he was able to control all external enemies, but

his ability to control this inner one was the issue here.

 

To control the senses, to withdraw them from their respective objects, means

to be able to withdraw them at will, just as the turtle withdraws its head and

limbs into its shell whenever it senses any danger. If you want to release the

senses, release them; if you want to withdraw them, withdraw them. This means

that the senses are under your control. Only when you have the capacity to

withdraw your senses at will, can your knowledge be steady. The idea here is

that the knowledge becomes steady only when the mind is freed from the

pressure of raga and dvesa. To the extent that you master your likes and

dislikes, to that extent your knowledge stays. Because your raga-dvesas are

neutralised, you can enjoy the benefits of your knowledge. The pressure of

raga-dvesas being less, the benefits of the knowledge are more. The knowledge

is complete when the raga-dvesas have no say in your life, when they are all

neutralised, when it makes no difference to you whether a desire is fulfilled

or not. Only then is there no hindrance to self-knowledge.

 

KNOWLEDGE AND MASTERY OF THE MIND GO HAND-IN-HAND

There is a certain trick to all this in that, as one's knowledge grows in

clarity, mastery of the mind over the raga-dvesas also takes place. With a

karma-yoga attitude, the raga-dvesas are mastered to a certain extent and the

knowledge becomes clearer. Thus, there is a mutual kinship between the two.

The entire presentation of yoga in the Gita is with reference to raga-dvesas.

The psychology of the Gita is raga-dvesa psychology and, as a psychology, the

Gita itself is adequate and complete. When we are dealing with normal people,

raga-dvesa psychology is enough. It implies an order, dharma-adharma, which is

looked upon as Ìsvara, the Lord, the giver of the fruits of action - all of

which bring about a certain neutralisation of one's raga-dvesas. Taking care

of raga-dvesas itself brings about a certain tranquillity, a cheerfulness to

the mind. And as the cheerfulness increases, one's knowledge becomes clearer.

Conversely, as the knowledge becomes clearer, one's cheerfulness increases. In

other words, the pressure caused by raga-dvesas is less. Just as a bird

requires both wings to take off, so too, we require both wings - inquiry and a

proper attitude - to glide into this knowledge. One wing is as important as

the other.

 

ya nisa sarvabh£tanam tasyam jagarti samyami

yasyam jagrati bh£tani sa nisa pasyato muneh Verse 69

 

sarvabh£tanam - for all beings; ya - that which; nisa - night; tasyam - in

that; samyami - one who has mastery over oneself (who is wise); jagarti - is

awake; yasyam - that in which; bh£tani - beings; jagrati - are awake; sa -

that; pasyatah muneh - for the wise man who sees; nisa - night

 

In that which is night for all beings, the one who is wise, who has mastery

over oneself, is awake. That, in which beings are awake, is night for the wise

one who sees. Krsna had been answering Arjuna's question about how a person of

wisdom, a sthitaprajna, is defined and how such a person interacts with the

world. Upon analysis, we find Krsna's answer a very interesting one. First, he

defined a sthitaprajna as one who is happy with himself by himself and thereby

one who is free from the hold of all desires. One who is able to give up all

binding desires as they arise in one's mind, being happy with oneself, in

oneself, is awake to the nature of oneself and is, therefore, wise. The wisdom

of such a person is steady. Although Arjuna expressed the second part of his

question with the words, 'How does a wise person talk, sit, and walk?' the

spirit of his question was, 'How does such a person interact with the world?'

Taking the spirit of Arjuna's question into account, Krsna replied that one's

wisdom is steady only when one's mind is no longer a problem.

 

Krsna said that raga-dvesas are the cause for one's knowledge being stifled or

inhibited. For the person whose sense organs are freed from raga and dvesa,

and whose pursuits are not backed by raga-dvesas, the knowledge remains

because he or she has a cheerful mind, a mind that is not in the hands of

raga-dvesas. Krsna then summed up by saying that for the one who has withdrawn

the sense organs from the sense objects, the one who has the sense organs with

oneself, if indeed this person has self-knowledge, that knowledge will be

steady. Having said all this Krsna was not very happy with his reply to

Arjuna's question because he knew that to know whether or not another person

is wise, you yourself must be wise. How else are you going to know otherwise?

Only a person who is wise knows what it takes to be wise. Arjuna thought that

the characteristics of a wise person could be a kind of sadhana for him, a

means for becoming wise. But how could he understand these characteristics if

he himself was not wise? This is what Krsna still had to convey to Arjuna.

 

IGNORANCE AND KNOWLEDGE ARE LIKE NIGHT AND DAY

Krsna had talked about the person who is happy with himself or herself and,

since a mad man can also be happy with himself, he also pointed out that a

sthitaprajna must have knowledge. Recognizing, however, that his description

of a wise person was not complete, Krsna adds this very interesting verse. In

essence, what he says is that a wise person is like a wise person and the

'other-wise' cannot really understand such a person without becoming wise. He

illustrated his point by saying that what is night for all people is day for a

wise person who has the mind and senses with him or her. Such a person is

called a samyami here. The word yama means mastery or control over the mind

and senses, and samyami, one who has that mastery, along with knowledge.

Further, Krsna said, that which is day for everyone else is night for the wise

person, called muni here. Muni means the one who sees things clearly,

mananasila. For this person of clear vision, the state that everyone else

thinks of as day is night. In other words, when all beings are awake, the

sthitaprajna sleeps. And when they are asleep, the wise person is awake. Does

this mean, then, that one who is wise is some nocturnal being, like a bat, or

a thief who prowls about at night? Not at all. Just as the darkness of night

does not allow you to see objects as they are, night here represents darkness

with reference to one's knowledge not being clear. The wise person is awake to

what is night for all beings, the night of avidya, ignorance.

 

What is not known to people is called the sleep of night, the sleep of

darkness, or ignorance, avidya-nidra. In this sleep of ignorance, people are

like somnambulists, sleepwalkers. This state is more than just sleep; these

people are all dreamers. They are sleeping, but awake, just like in dream.

They are awake and perform all kinds of activities, but still they are asleep

because they are not awake to certain realities. If you are totally asleep or

totally awake, you have no problem. The problem is when you are only

half-awake, this being a state where mistakes are possible. In dream, a person

is partly awake, meaning that there is some projection by the mind. The person

is not identified with the body and the physical reality, but is identified

with memories and thoughts, from which a dream world is set-up.

 

THE REALITY OF DUALITY

In the dream world, everything is dual, dvaita for the person. The knower is

distinct from the known; the known is distinct from the knower, and the

knowledge, of course is distinct from the knower, being something that the

knower has and for which there is distinct object, i.e., the known. This

division in dream is a reality for the dreamer. But, upon waking, all the

three - the knower, the known, and the knowledge - become one and the same.

The known objects in the dream are not separate from knowledge. The knowledge

is not separate from the knower; and the knower is not separate from the

waker. All the three that belong to the dream resolve in to the waker, when

the person who is dreaming wakes up. The waker was the knower, the known, and

the knowledge in the dream. The knower is the waker. That is why one says, 'I

dreamt.' The atma, the self of the knower that obtained in the dream, obtains

also in the waking state, as evidenced by the expression of the experience as,

'I dreamt. I was the one who was dreaming.' In the dream, however, everything

is a reality. Even the Veda recognises duality, addressing you as a doer, a

karta. Sankara discusses this in his commentary to this verse. The Veda tells

you to perform certain karmas and it also tells you what you will gain by

doing them. There are very specific differences mentioned also. It says, 'This

karma will produce this result if it is done in this manner by this person at

this time.' Thus, rituals to be performed are set out in the Veda - all of

which implies duality because it addresses a karta who is different from the

karma he does.

 

The Veda that says you are the non-dual Brahman addresses you, in the earlier

sections, as a person who wants certain results and who is going to get these

results later. The connection between the person and the results is

established by performing certain prescribed rituals, the result of which is

punya. This punya is what connects the person to the result. The people,

rituals, and the results are all different and therefore constitute duality.

Your perception also tells you that one object is different from another

object. Perception gives rise to different types of knowledge and based on

that knowledge you conclude that everything is different from you. The first

part of the sruti, as we have seen, also confirms this difference by

addressing you as a doer and not as param brahma. If the Veda were to address

you as param brahma, it could not ask you to perform action. Thus, it can only

address you as a doer. The sruti deals with the person who is available right

now. You are now a doer and that doer is addressed. Further more, the doer is

told that he or she will be an enjoyer later if certain karmas are performed.

If they are not done, or not done properly, the person will have problems

later. Even if a wrong action is done, the doer will still be an enjoyer, but

the 'enjoyment' will not be very pleasant! In this way, the sruti keeps the

person in view and talks about what is good and bad for the person, what

should be done and what should be avoided. Thus, it looks as though the sruti

is for the doer alone and that duality is a reality. Naturally, then, the

person looks upon himself or herself, in the waking state, as someone

different from the world, just as in the dream. This is what is meant by the

sleep of ignorance. Because of ignorance alone, the person is said to be

sleeping. Sleeping here means that one is a dreamer. The person is not totally

sleeping. He or she is awake doing various activities. There is even a valid

pramana available to the person, enabling him or her to know that certain

actions are right and others are wrong. As long as this sleep of ignorance

continues, everything is valid for the person in the waking state, just as it

is in dream. One doer is different from every other doer and one enjoyer is

different from every other enjoyer.

 

The physical body is the place of enjoyment, the counter of experience from

which you encounter the world; it is the point from which one operates. You

are an enjoyer and a mosquito is also an enjoyer, you being the object of its

enjoyment. Thus, you find there are many enjoyers and different kinds of

enjoyments; there are different doers and different types of doing - all of

which are valid. Therefore, pain and pleasure are valid. That I am a small

person is valid. That I am someone who is struggling to prove myself to be

somebody is valid. That the struggle never comes to an end is also valid.

 

THE REALITY OF ONENESS

Everything seems to be valid to those who see themselves as distinct. But,

amidst all this validity, one thing alone is not known - the

paramartha-tattva.The word tattva means reality and paramartha-tattva is the

ultimate reality, that which is the essential reality of everything. The

differences that seem so real in dream and waking have no independent reality

apart from this essential reality. What is essentially there, is only one

thing and that is what I am - tad aham asmi. The knower is myself, the known

is myself, the knowledge is myself, the doer is myself, the doing is myself,

and the done is myself. The world is myself and the knower of the world is

also myself. That all three - knower, known, and knowledge - are myself is an

entirely different vision altogether. In reality there is no difference

whatsoever.

 

For a wise person, the paramartha-tattva is one thing alone and it is oneself.

This paramartha-tattva is not recognised by those who are not wise. For them,

everything is real. This means that there is more than one reality for such

people, which is why the world is always too much for them. To think that

everyone is different from you means that everyone is as real as you are.

Words, too, will have their own realities so that everything is as real as

everything else. Naturally, then, you find a world, which is dual. In other

words, you experience samsara. While others are in this great sleep of

ignorance, the wise person is awake to the paramartha-tattva. He or she is

awake to the reality of the 'I.' the knowledge of which nullifies the division

between the knower and the known since, in reality, there is no division.

Therefore, 'I am all of this - aham idam sarvam.' Previously, I was only one

among the many. Now the vision is that, immanently, I am everything, and

transcendentally, I am free from everything. To this fact, the wise person,

the samyami, is awake.

 

COMPARISON IS NOT POSSIBLE

Those who are not wise are awake only to divisions. These divisions are very

real for such people, whereas for the wise person, for the person of inquiry

whose vision is very clear, any division is night. The samsara that people

complain about, he or she does not see at all. One person may say, 'I am sad,'

but the wise person does not see any sadness. Others complain that the world

is too much for them, but the wise person does not find it to be so. It is not

that the world is too much. You are too much. You are everything. Therefore,

'I am limitless - aham p£rnah' is the vision for the wise person, whereas

other people say, 'I am limited - aham p£rnah.' This is their vision, which

for the wise person is like night, because this is not their understanding at

all. What is day to every one is night for the wise and what is night for

every one else is like day for the wise. Thus wise are wise and the other-wise

are other-wise. The other-wise do not know the wise and the wise do not see

like the other-wise because night and day do not meet. They cannot co-exist,

one being the opposite of the other. When the day breaks, night is gone. When

night comes, day is gone. The day always ensures that night has gone before it

comes. This is the role of the dawn. Lord Sun tells the dawn, Aruna, messenger

of the sun, to go and make sure that the way is clear. Dawn then comes and

clears the way. Thus, before the sun comes, night has already gone. In this

way, the sun and the night do not meet. Here is my story about why the sun

rises every morning. Narada, who is often found in mythological stories, was

able to go to the gods without any particular passport or visa. Or, one could

say that he had a cosmic passport, as it were, since he could go from one

world, loka, to another. In this particular story, Narada went from the earth

to the sun. The sun asked Narada what the people thought of him on earth. 'Oh!

Lord sun,' Narada responded, 'in India they do salutations to you in the early

morning. Do you not see that when you come up?' 'Nowadays very few do it,' the

sun replied, 'in the past, they did, but not now. But what is it that they say

about me?' Narada told him that everyone praises the sun, that when the sun

comes out, everyone is happy. 'You are always praised everywhere, Oh! sun,

except, of course, in the Sahara Desert and Saudi Arabia!'

 

'What did you see that you liked on the earth?' the sun then asked Narada. In

response, Narada told him that there was one person whom he thought the sun

should see someone that he had never seen before. 'Everyone praises you as

omniscient, but I would have to say that you are not omniscient because there

is someone I think you have never seen' 'What!' the sun exclaimed. 'I am not

omniscient! I am the sun. I see everything. Who is it that you think I have

not seen?'

 

'There is one lady called Miss Darkness,' Narada told him. 'Where is this Miss

Darkness?' the sun then asked. 'You can see her on the earth,' Narada replied.

'Where will I find her right now?' asked the sun. 'She is in India. If you go

there, you will see her,' Narada told him. Eager to see Miss Darkness, the sun

rose in the eastern sky. But Miss Darkness had gone to the west, to the

Antipodes, the opposite side of the globe. The sun then became angry. He

really wanted to meet this woman and so he set out after her again. But when

he went to the Antipodes, Miss Darkness had already gone to the other side and

when he went to that side, she was again on the opposite side. In this way,

the sun continued to move around trying to find Miss Darkness and is still

doing so, even today. When he comes to the east, Miss Darkness goes to the

west. When he goes to the west, she comes to the east. They never meet each

other, just as day and night never meet each other, because they are

opposites. You cannot even compare the two; thus, it can only be said that the

sun is like the sun and darkness is like darkness.

 

THE VISION OF THE WISE AND THE OTHER-WISE

So too, a wise person is like a wise person, which means that no comparison is

possible. Therefore, Arjuna did not become wiser by Krsna's statement. For the

wise person, what is reality is limitless. Oneself being everything is

reality. The reality is that Ìsvara is myself. For other people, Ìsvara is

located somewhere, in heaven perhaps, and is only a matter of belief. He sends

people down and then meddles in their affairs, they think. People have so many

kinds of beliefs, because, for them, the statement, 'I am everything,' is not

a reality. Therefore, there are all kinds of conjectures, speculations,

faiths, and beliefs. We find that for the ignorant, the ajnanis, everything is

guesswork, whereas for the jnani, the wise person, there is no problem. The

jnani sees no problem at all, whereas for the other person, everything is a

problem. For the wise person, everything is a glory. The physical body, the

mind, and the world are all glories, vibh£tis - my glories, mama vibh£tayah. I

am the food eaten, aham annam, and again I am also the eater of the food, aham

annadah. I am the thinker and I am the object of thought. I am free from all

these, also.

 

The ignorant are asleep to this vision of the reality and the wise are asleep

to what the ignorant are awake to. This is something like one person seeing a

snake and another person seeing a rope in the same object. The person seeing

the snake sweats and shivers in fear. Even the sound of the snake's rattle is

heard by this person in spite of the fact that there is no snake. There is

only a rope mistaken for a snake. Once a snake is seen, everything else comes

along with it - the sound of the rattle, the sight of its head rising, and so

on. For this person, the snake is a reality, whereas for the other person, all

that is there is a piece of rope - and he or she does not see what the

frightened person is fretting about. The one who sees the rope as rope will

either treat the other person with compassion or simply walk away because he

or she does not see a problem. Even if a person is told that there is a snake,

he or she will only reply that there is no snake, there is only the rope.

 

TO KNOW A WISE PERSON, YOU NEED TO BE WISE

This is strictly a matter of two different visions. How, then, is Arjuna going

to understand a wise person? Krsna was saying here that he could only do so by

being wise. There is no other way. Being ignorant, you want to understand a

wise person. In fact, there is really no such thing as a wise person. Wisdom

is you. You are the wisdom. The wise person is one who knows himself or

herself and if you know yourself you are a wise person. And until you know

yourself, how are you going to understand a wise person? To be a wise person

you have to be wise. There is no other way, then, of knowing the wise person.

In response to Arjuna's request for a description of a wise person, Lord Krsna

told him, the verse under study, that it takes wisdom alone to be a wise

person. The wise person is a wise person; he or she is awake to a reality to

which everyone else is sleeping. This answer could only have created despair

in Arjuna because he wanted to know the characteristics of a wise person so

that, by emulating them, he himself would become wise. The sleep of ignorance

that prevents one from knowing a wise person was explained further by Sankara

in his commentary on this verse. For the wise person, there is no activity

because he or she no longer takes himself or herself to be a doer. This

applies not only to the performance of Vedic rituals and prayers,

vaidika-vyavahara, but to worldly activities, laukika-vyavahara as well, such

as eating, cooking, dishwashing, bathing, laundering, vacuuming, and

conducting business. The notions, 'I am doing this, I am the doer,' are no

longer there.

 

TO PERFORM ACTION I HAVE TO KNOW 'I AM A DOER'

When you look upon yourself as a doer, you perform rituals and if you do not

perform them, you will do something else. And this something else may incur

sin. With reference to the performance of rituals, then, the Veda only

addresses the person who takes himself or herself to be the doer. A

brahmacari, a student, has to have the notion, 'I am a brahmacari,' in order

to perform the karma enjoined for brahmacaris by the Veda. If a brahmana is

enjoined to do certain karma, then the person doing it must look upon himself

or herself as a brahmana. The same thing applies to other varnas and asramas.

The Veda does not say that sat-cit-ananda should perform karma. It says that a

brahmana, a brahmacari, or a married person, a grhastha, should perform

karmas.

 

Karma, then, is enjoined only for the one who looks upon oneself as something

or other such as - 'I am this, I am that,' etc. It is not meant for the person

who has jnana, in whom self-knowledge has taken place. Once this knowledge has

dawned, it stays. Self-knowledge is not a dawning knowledge; it is a fully

blazing, mid-day sun. In the wake of this knowledge, worldly and scriptural

karmas both go away because all activity, vyavahara, is born out of the

notion, 'I am the doer.' Unless you consider yourself a doer, you cannot

perform scriptural or worldly activities, activity itself being a product of

self-ignorance. But, for the one who has self-knowledge, this ignorance is not

there and, thus, it is said that the vyavahara, all activity, goes away.

 

KNOWLEDGE REMOVES THE NOTION OF DOERSHIP

Does knowledge remove the product of ignorance or does it remove the ignorance

itself? Sankara deals with this question in his commentary on this verse. When

knowledge takes place, the ignorance is removed. This knowledge, which is of

the nature of a discriminative understanding between the real and the unreal,

atma-anatma-viveka-jnana, is opposed to ignorance. Thus, when self-knowledge

takes place, self-ignorance goes away. And when ignorance goes away, its

broods, its products, also go away. To take the classic example of the seeing

of the rope as a snake, ignorance of the rope produces a snake. When the rope

ignorance goes away, the snake also goes away. And when, we may ask, does the

rope ignorance go? When the rope is seen, when it is known. Rope ignorance

will go only in the wake of rope knowledge. Therefore, rope knowledge is the

opposite of rope ignorance. When rope ignorance goes, anything that was there

due to that ignorance will also go because when the cause of a problem is

removed, the symptoms also disappear. Similarly, for the person who has

knowledge, all activity is gone. Such a person becomes a sarva-karma-sannyasi,

one who renounces all karma.

 

The Veda sets out the karmas that have to be done and Sankara clarifies as to

who has to do them - the person who has such notions as 'I am a brahmacari,'

'I am a brahmana,' 'I am a married person,' 'I am bound by time, spring, new

moon day, full moon day, morning, evening.' The one who has these kinds of

notions about himself or herself, the one who thinks that he or she is

time-bound, place-bound, and group-bound, is the person whom the sruti, the

Veda, addresses with reference to the performance of rituals. If the person

knows 'I am sat-cit-ananda,' the sruti does not address him or her at all. In

fact, it says that you are sat-cit-ananda, but it reserves this particular

statement for the last chapter, which is what we call Vedanta. Until then, the

Veda talks exclusively about rituals and meditation, all of which are dvaita,

dual. Only at the end of all this does it say, 'You are that Brahman, tat tvam

asi.'

 

WHY SHOULD I PERFORM KARMA?

The question may then be asked, 'Why did the sruti not say this in the

beginning?' If it had done so, I need not have done all this karma. I did the

morning and evening prayers because the Veda said to do them and I had faith

in the Veda. Now I find that these karmas have become a colossal waste

because, at the end of it all, the Veda tells me that I am Brahman and that

karma is of no use. If karma will not give me moksa, why did it not say so in

the beginning?' The reason the Veda does not tell you right in the beginning

that you are Brahman is because you have to be ready for this knowledge. By

performing karma you are able to eventually get to the last chapter of the

Veda and understand what it says. By not performing karma you will be neither

a jnani nor a devout person. You will only be driftwood with no moorings

whatsoever. The rule is that those who are not ready for the knowledge should

not be disturbed with it. We will see this later in the Gita. Instead, people

are encouraged to perform karma in order to prepare their minds for the

knowledge. They are told about svarga, heaven, in the beginning, so that they

will perform the enjoined rituals for gaining svarga. In this way, they will

definitely avoid papa, and punya will follow. The person who performs karma

will have a value for dharma-adharma, right and wrong, and will come to

believe that there is an atma, a self, other than the body. That much is

enough in the beginning.

 

Once you respect dharma-adharma, the ability to discriminate between the real

and the unreal will not be far behind. To respect dharma-adharma is not to be

swayed by your raga-dvesas. Therefore, the pressure of raga-dvesas will be

less. This is what is meant by viveka. Viveka begins as soon as you start to

question what is what. First, there is an internal leisure and then viveka

naturally comes. Once viveka is there, you will naturally turn to Vedanta.

Only in this way can you proceed properly. Therefore, as long as

self-ignorance is there, one should perform karma, whereas once there is

self-knowledge, there is renunciation of karma, sarva-karma-sannyasa. Sankara

repeats this argument throughout his commentary on the Gita. This is because

there was a notion, prevalent in his day, that the Veda enjoins one to do

karma and, at the same time, to gain the knowledge that 'I am Brahman. ' This

position maintains that both will give you moksa, and is refuted by Sankara at

every opportunity. Or, if either karma or jnana is adequate for moksa why

should anyone do the other? If moksa is something that I produce, why do I

need jnana? And, if karma is not going to produce moksa, there is no reason to

do karma. If I am Brahman and I merely need to know it, which is Sankara's

contention, then jnana is moksa, and I do not need to do anything. Thus, the

question, why should one do karma? The answer is that one performs karma in

order to purify the mind, for citta-suddhi. Citta means 'mind.' We have seen

the word suddhi with reference to raga-dvesas. Reality is already

accomplished; it is not something to be created. Reality is. Whatever the

reality, that is what is. It is a thing to be recognised. Therefore even if

you do millions of karmas, you do not create the reality that exists. Because

of the prevalence in Sankara's time of the synthesis argument of combining

karma and jnana, he goes all out to clarify the difference between karma and

jnana. There are certain topics that every teacher has to highlight, given

the views of his or her time. In Sankara's time, the

jnana-karma-samuccaya-vada, the contention that moksa is not gained by

knowledge alone, but by a combination of knowledge and action. was widespread.

Therefore, he found it necessary to refute it by continually pointing out the

fallacies in it. This is the job of a teacher. Here, also, Sankara points out

that karma applied only until knowledge comes. For one who does not have

knowledge, the karma enjoined by the Veda is a valid pramana, whereas for the

wise person, it is not. Once the jnana is there, the person is a simple

sannyasi, one who is not a doer and therefore one for whom no karma is

enjoined by any sastra.

 

A WISE PERSON CANNOT BE EMULATED BASED ON ACTION

Since a wise person does not do karma, you cannot emulate him or her. You

cannot say that because he or she does not do karma, you will not do karma.

The wise person does not perform karma because the need to do so is no longer

there. Because you still need to perform karma, you cannot imitate a wise

person in this respect. Krsna did not say that the wise person is one who does

not do any karma. To say that this person has no duty whatsoever could be

interpreted by a mumuksu in such a way that he or she would not live a life of

karma-yoga and, instead, would become nothing more than a lazy person. This is

why Krsna pointed out here that, for a wise person, night is what is day for

everyone else, meaning that no karma is enjoined. What is a means of

knowledge, pramana, for you is not a pramana for the wise person. In fact,

what Krsna was saying here is that for the wise, there is no pramana at all.

Even the usefulness of the last pramana, Vedanta, is over for them. Vedanta

says that you are Brahman. Until you know this, Vedanta is a pramana and

afterwards it, too, becomes mithya. With knowledge, there is no means of

knowledge, known, or knower, the differences between these three having been

swallowed. The pramana, the means of knowledge, is gone; it is Brahman, as are

the pramata, the knower, and the prameya, the object to be known. The very

knower is cancelled by the knowledge that says you are not a knower.

 

RESOLUTION OF THE KNOWER, KNOWN, KNOWLEDGE

 

Sankara says that the final pramana, the statement, tat tvam asi, itself goes

away, having dismissed the pramana. An example generally given to illustrate

how the knowledge works is the method of using a thorn to remove the thorn

that is lodged in one's foot. Once the thorn is removed, we discard both the

thorns. There is also a more interesting example used. When a body is

cremated, a huge funeral pyre is made out of wood. If the person who died was

rich, the pyre will be made of sandalwood, but this is the only difference.

 

When the pyre is ready, the body is placed on it, covered with husks and small

pieces of wood, and then the fire is lit. Once the body has caught fire, the

people who came for the ritual all go away. But the ritual itself is still

incomplete and continues the next day when the person performing the ritual

comes to pick up the ashes and bones. This person is either the departed one's

eldest son or a cousin, someone who is closely related. When this person comes

to pick up the ashes, there should be no portion of the body left unburned. It

must be burnt thoroughly; there should be nothing remaining but the ashes and

bones. Until this happens, the ritual is incomplete. The person in charge of

the cremation ground is the one who must ensure that the body is completely

burned. Because the body is not to be touched and, being in the fire, cannot

be handled. A stick is used for this purpose. Once the person is sure that the

body is completely burnt, he throws the stick into the funeral fire. Having

done its job, the stick also gets burnt.

 

Similarly, the statement, 'You are That - tat tvam asi,' is a pramana. The

pramata, the knower, you, the jiva, is told, 'You are Brahman.' If you are

Brahman, there is no knower. After this knowledge takes place, the pramata is

just an 'as though' pramata. There is no real pramata any more. When the

knower is told, 'You are not a knower - You are Brahman,' the knower is

sublated. And when the knower is not there, where is the pramana? It too goes.

All three, the knower, known, and means of knowledge are understood to be

Brahman.

 

All duality goes in the wake of this knowledge, including the knower, the

known, and the knowledge itself. The known, the prameya, is gone because there

is nothing to know. Once knowledge takes place, all three - pramata, prameya,

and pramana - become meaningless. Therefore, all the knower-known-knowledge

activities resolve in the wake of the knowledge that I am Brahman. This is

what Krsna meant when he said that what is day for everyone else is night for

the wise person. This was alone conveyed by Sankara in his commentary. All

translations, therefore, should be read with this meaning in mind.

 

EMULATE THE VALUES OF A WISE PERSON

Any description of a person of steady wisdom, sthitaprajna, is useless, really

speaking. We can only talk about the wisdom, prajna, that makes a person wise.

Unless you have this wisdom yourself, you cannot understand what a wise person

is. A mahatma knows a mahatma, whereas one who is not a mahatma cannot

appreciate a mahatma. Therefore, any description, other than an unfoldment of

the wisdom that makes such a person wise, is really meaningless. But, still,

Arjuna wanted a description. He also wanted to know how a wise person reacts

to the world. In his response, Krsna told Arjuna certain things, including the

fact that one cannot emulate a wise person, except insofar as values are

concerned.

 

The wise person may not perform Vedic rituals. For such a person, these karmas

are no longer necessary because the previous performance of the scriptural

injunctions has found its fulfillment in wisdom. Whether the person has taken

sannyasa or not, he or she is a sarva-karma-sannyasi. The doership is already

negated in the person. There is no real doer. And when there is no real doer,

there is no real karma. In this way, the wise person is not bound by duty of

any kind. To emulate a wise person, therefore, is dangerous. Krsna mentioned

the mind, values, control, and mastery of a wise person because these alone

are to be emulated. In this way, Krsna confirmed for Arjuna that the

characteristics of a wise person, as demonstrated in his or her interactions

in day-to-day life, can become the means, the sadhana, for a seeker.

 

Finally, Krsna said that a wise person is as different from an ajnani as day

is from night, meaning that there is no way of unfolding what a wise person

is. What is night for all the people is day for the wise and what is day for

them is night to the wise. Arjuna was bound to be flabbergasted by this. He

was definitely not going to be any wiser for having heard this particular

verse. Therefore, out of sympathy and compassion, Krsna followed his

night-and-day example with another example, an illustration that Arjuna could

hold on to and one that would enable him to appreciate, in a way, what a wise

person is.