Bhagawad Gita Ch.3 INTRODUCTION verses & 1-7 [Sri Adi Shankara]

[Guest guest]

Om Srikrishna parabrahmaNE namaH

Om namO brahmAdibhyO brahma vidyA saMpradAya kartubhO vaMSaRishibhyO

mahadbhyO namO gurubhyaH...

=======

 

** Please read and contemplate on the following 8 paras are a must read for

all the seekers. ***

 

========

 

0.1 In the science of the Gita the Lord has pointed out, as causes of

action

And abstention from it, two kinds of intelligence pertaining to Yoga and

Samkhya. Now, beginning from the verse 2.55 upto the end of the second

Chapter,

the duty of renunciation has been laid down for those resort to the

intelligence

of the Samkhya and it has been taught that they achieve life's goal; vide

verse

2.72. The Lord told Arjuna to perform works as a matter of duty depending

on

the intelligence of Yoga; vide verse 2.47, but He did not affirm that

through

such performance alone, he would secure the highest good. Noticing this, in

a

dejected state of mind, Arjuna spoke. Arjuna's dejection was in place;

having

introduced to him the subject of the discipline of the intelligence of the

Samkhya, the direct cause of the highest good for a devotee and seeker after

the

highest good, which Arjuna admittedly was, the Lord bade him plunge into

works,

the well-known source of numerous evils, which, at the same time, was no

certain

means to the highest good. The question Arjuna raised has been appropriate;

 

vide 3.1; and equally apporpriate has been the Lord's answer to that

question,

once the two-fold division of this science is given.

 

0.2 However, some commentators put a different construction on Arjuna's

question and make it out that the Lord's response is contrary to its spirit.

 

Further, they contradict themselves, as their explanation of Arjuna's

question,

as also of the Lord' response thereto, does not harmonise with the sense of

the

Bhagavad Gita as set forth by themselves at the beginning of their

commentary

while discussing the structure of that sense. How? They said that in the

analysis of that structure, the firm doctrine of the science of the Gita is

the

synthesis of knwoledge and works as regards all people occupying the various

 

stations of life. Again, they have specially asserted that the Gita

absolutely

repudiates the vies that emancipation may be attained through knowledge

alone,

once the rites prescribed as valid for the entire life-period of man have

been

renounced. Here, on the contrary, pointing to optional courses (of

renunciation

or performance of works), what is taught is the renunciation of those very

rites

taught as valid for the whole of the life-period. How can the Lord impart

instruction riddled with such contradictions to Arjuna? How can the latter

comprehend such contradictory notions?

 

 

0.3 An explanation may be advanced as follows: the repudiation of the

view

that the way to emancipation is through mere knowledge preceded by the

renunciation of works prescribed by sruti and smrti, is applicable to

householders alone. But even this position involves a contradiction between

 

what had been affirmed and what is now being affirmed. How? Having already

stated that the indisputable doctrine of the Gita is the synthesis of

knowledge

and works, a synthesis valid for the occupants of all stations of life, can

it

be stated here that the non-householders may win emancipation through

knowledge

alone? Perhaps you may argue as follows: Emancipation cannot accrue to the

householders through knwoledge alone, divorced from the rites enjoined by

the

Sruti. The phrase 'through knowledge alone' is not to be literally

understood;

it has been used, ignoring the fact that these householders have,

nevertheless,

to perform works enjoined by the Smrti. Even this argument is self-

contradictory. How can men of discrimination accept the position that to

householders alone emancipation won't accrue from knowledge though combined

with

Smrti-enjoined works, but not so to the non-householders? Besides, if, as

means

to emancipation, Smrti-enjoined works are to be combined with knoweldge in

the

case of celibate aspirants, in the case of householders, too, let only such

works be combined with knowledge and not Sruti-enjoined works also.

 

0.4 If, however, the emancipation of the householders alone calls for a

synthesis of knowledge and works, both Sruti-enjoined and Smrti-enjoined,

while

that of the celibates may leave out Sruti-enjoined works, the result would

be a

heavier burden of painful labour for householders to bear. This latter

position

may not be readily accepted, because in all the Upanishads, Itihasas,

Puranas

and Yoga-texts renunciation of works, as such, has been laid down as

obligatory

on all who seek liberation, and because sruti and smrti teach either a

combination of, or choice among, the various stations of life. It does not

follow from this that the occupants of all stations of life must combine

knowledge and works; for, the seeker after liberation must needs renounce

all

forms of works, Sruti-enjoined and Smrti-enjoined: vide: "Overcoming the

desire

for sons, wealth, and worlds, they take to a life of mendicancy"

(Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad 3.5.1);"therefore, they say that renunciation exceeds these

austerities"; (MahaNarayana Upanishad 24.1); "Renunciation alone excelled"

(MahaNarayana Upanishad 21.2); "Not by works, not by progeny and wealth,

(but)

renunciation, they say, some won immortality" (MahaNarayana Upanishad 10.5)

(Kaivalya Upanishad 2); "One shall renounce from the station of celibacy

itself"

(Jabala Upanishad 4); "Give up (works) rihgteous and unrighteous; give up

the

true and the false, give up that which prompted you to give up" (Santi

parvan,

329.40, 331.44); "Beholding the transmigratory life as void of all contents,

and

desiring to vision the Essence, the celibates, in a mood of supreme

detachment,

go forth into a life of mendicancy" (Naradapari Upanishad 3.15); "Work binds

the

living being; knowledge liberates. Therefore, the ascetics, the beholders

of

the Supreme, refrain from work" (santi parvan 241.7) Here, in Bhagavad Gita

 

also occurs, in 5.13 etc., "Renouncing all works, mentally."

 

0.5 Also because emancipation is not an effect, its seeker stands to gain

 

nothing from works. The argument that works have to be done to avoid the

sin of

omission is futile; for only the non-renouncers may incur that sin. The sin

of

omission may not be ascribed to a renouncer who omits the performance of the

 

fire sacrifice and so forth; while the matter is different as regards the

non-

renouncing celibate students who will incur that sin due to non-performance

of

of enjoined works. Again it is impossible to assume that a positive entity

like

the sin of omission will spring a state of non-existence, namely the non-

performance of obligatory Vedic works. Witness the Chandogya Upanishad

6.2.2:

"How can being arise from non-being?" This authoritatively denies the birth

of

aught positive from a state of non-being. If, however, the Veda were to

assert

the birth of the inconceivable sin of omission from the non-performance of

Veda-

enjoined works, it would tantamount to the assertion that the troublesome

Veda

is no source of valid knowledge; for, what it prescribes, whether carried

out or

omitted, is a source of pain only. Further, there would result the false

doctrine that the authoritative scripture forces one to work, and does not

merely supply information. This is not acceptable. Therefore, ritualistic

works are not binding on the renouncers. So, the plea for the synthesis of

knoweldge and works is untenable.

 

0.6 Again, this conclusion is strengthened by the unreasonableness of

Arjuna's question formulated in Bhagavad Gita 3.1; "If, in your view,

knoweldge

is superior to work." In chapter II, if the Lord had affirmed that Arjuna

should practice synthesized knowledge and work, his question would obviously

be

unreasonable. If Arjuna was personally bidden to practise synthesised

knowledge

and work, the knowledge that is superior to work has also to be practised,

of

course. There is thus no room for the reproach expressed in the words,

"Why,

Krsna! do you bid me do this dreadful work?" Bhagavad Gita 3.1. Nor is this

 

question itself reasonable. To make this question reasonable, it is not to

be

supposed that the Lord had asked Arjuna alone not to practise this

knoweldge, so

superior to works.

 

0.7 To make the question reasonable, the Lrod may be taken to have stated

 

that the opposing disciplines of knowledge and works cannot be practised by

one

and the same person simultaneously; only different persons may practise

them.

Even if the question of Arjuna is held to have sprung from lack of

discrimination, the Lord's reply that the disciplines of knowledge and works

 

pertain to different agents does not stand to reason. Nor may the Lord's

reply

be set down to His ignorance. Also from the nature of his reply that

different

agents should practise the two disciplines, the incompatibility of the

synthesis

of knoweldge and works follows. Therefore, the indubitable doctrine of the

Gita

and the Upanishads is that emancipation ensues from the self-sufficient

knowledge alone.

 

0.8 If knowledge and works could possibly be synthesised, the request in

verse 3.2 'to point out the one sure means' would be inconsistent with

reason.

In 4.15 the Lord will emphatically rule out the discipline of knwoeldge as

far

as Arjuna is concerned: "Therefore, you must perform work."

 

KARMA YOGA BHASHYA

 

1. O Krsna! If your view is that knwoledge is superior to work, why do

you

bid me to undertake this fearful work of war?

 

1.1 In relation to works, if your view or opinion is that knowledge is

superior to works... O Krsna." If knowledge and works were sought to be

combined, the means of the supreme good or emancipation would be just one

only;

and arjuna would be unreasonable in treating knowledge as something voer and

 

above works. Indeed, one and the same thing cannot exceed itself with

reference

to the effect it produces. Therefore, what the Lord had declared was that

knowledge contributes to a greater good in comparison with works. Still, He

 

tells Arjuna to perform works that produce but little good. Reproaching, as

it

were, the Lord for doing it, Arjuna asks:why do you bid me do this fearful

work-

this cruel slaughter? this procedure of Arjuna is unreasonable. On the

other

hand, had the Lord taught, and Arjuna clearly understood, that the synthesis

is

with works enjoined by Smrti, how can his reproach, "Why do you bid me,

etc.,"

be deemed reasonable?

 

Moreover,

 

2. Moreover by words that seem confused, You bewilder my intelligence, as

it

were. Therefore set forth one sure course by which I may attain the highest

 

good.

 

2.1 Though the Lord spoke distinctly to 'me', Arjuna, who am feeble in

intelligence, His words seem to be confused. With them, "You bewilder my

intelligence, as it were." How can you, who sought to dispel the confusion

of

my dull wits, bewilder me, instead? So I say, "You bewilder my

intelligence, as

it were." But if you think that the disciplines of knowledge and works,

meant

for different agents, cannot be observed by one and the same person, then

affirm

with certitude which one of these two would suit me, i.e. be in accordance

with

the power of my intelligence and my standing in life. Thus by either

knwoledge

or works I shall achieve the highest good." (Even this plea is not

reasonable.)

 

2.2 Had the Lord assigned to knowledge even a subordinate place in the

discipline of works, how could Arjuna seek instruction in 'one on these

two'?

He did not say earlier that He would speak only about one of the two

disciplines

of knowledge and works, and not about both of them. Were that the case,

thinking that instruction on both was impossible, Arjuna might request

instructiion in one.

 

The blessed Lord said:

3. O sinless one! Two kinds of disciplines in this world were set forth

by

Me in times of yore-for the Samkhyas, the discipline of knoweldge, and for

the

Yogins, that of works.

 

3.1 In this world, in times of yore, i.e. at the beginning of creation,

after

bringing forth mankind, a two-fold discipline was promulgated by Me for the

members of the first three classes, who are entitled to carry out the

injunctions of the sastras,-by Me, the omniscient Lord. O sinless prince! I

 

sought to reveal a tradtion for implementing the Vedic scheme of life whose

goals are worldly prosperity and emancipation. What is this two-fold

discipline? Listen: (i) The discipline of knwoeldge. Knoweldge of the Self

 

itself is the Yoga or discipline meant here. This has been promulgated for

the

followers of Samkhay who have the discriminative knowledge between the Self

and

the non-self. From the stage of celibacy itself, they have embraced the

life of

renunciation. Through their mastery of the Vedanta, they have acquired an

unshakable grip over the principles of that sastra. They are the renouncers

of

the Paramahamsa order who have established themselves in the ulitmate

Reality.

(ii) The discipline of works, wherein works constitute Yoga, has been

promulgated for the Yogins or performers of works.

 

3.2 If, according to the Lord, both knoweldge and work are to be

practised in

combination by one and the same person and therefore have been set forth or

are

going to be set forth in the Vedas and the Gits, how can He say to Arjuna

here,

His beloved and confiding disciple, that these disciplines are meant for

differently qualified agents? It may be suggested that the Lord's idea is

as

follows: After listening to Me, of his own accord, Arjuna will practise

both

knowledge and works; for others, I shall teach that they are to be practised

by

different agents. A suggestion like this, however makes the Lord guilty of

partiality and antipathy; He can no longer be an authoritative teacher. Of

course, this is an unreasonable procedure. Therefore, by no line of

reasoning

whatsoever, is it possible to combine knwoledge and works.

Thanks and kind regards

 

4.0 The superiority of knowledge to works that Arjuna affirmed remains,

since

it has not been repudiated by the Lord. The world-renouncers alone may

practise

the discipline of knowledge, since the Lord has stated that the two are to

be

practised by different agents. That this position alone has the Lord's

sanction

may be understood. To Arjuna who grieves, saying to the Lord, "You enjoin

on me

work alone that binds", and who, therefore, proposes to avoid works, the

Lrod

say, "not by refusing to work at all" (Bhagavad Gita 3.4). Alternatively,

since

one and the same person cannot address himself to the opposed disciplines of

 

knowledge and works at the same time, it should follow that they can promote

the

ends of life only independent of each other. Even so, the discipline of

works

may promote life's ends by endowing the agent with the fitness to adopt the

discipline of knowledge, and not independently, by itself, whereas the

discipline of knoweldge, generated by that of works, is a totally

independent

means to life's supreme end. In order to elucidate this view, the Lord

says:

 

4. Man does not achieve freedom works by abstention therefrom. None

attains

perfection through the mere renunciation of works, either.

 

4.1 By abstention from-the mere non-initiation of-works like sacrifices,

man

cannot achieve freedom from them, i.e., the discipline of knoweldge or

existence

as pure Self. Works performed in this life or past lives seve to attrnuate

the

sins incurred and to purify the mind; thus they give a start to the

discipline

of knowledge by generating knowledge. Vide, the Smrti: "Due to the

exhaustion

of evil deeds there springs up knowledge. As in a mirror, in the mind one

perceives the Self (Santi-parvan, 204.8). 'Abstention' means

non-inititation.

Freedom from works is the state of one performs no works; it is the utter

absence of works or the discipline of knoweldge. It is restful being, the

very

essence of the Self that works not. Man may not achieve this state merely

by

abstaining form works. This is the sense of the verse.

 

4.2 "Man does not attain freedom from works by abstention form them",

these

words suggest that by its opposite, i.e., by the performance of works man

may

attain such freedom.

Why does he fail to attain freedom by abstention from works? Because, the

means

to such freedom is the performance of works. An end cannot be attained

without

the employment of means. To the discipline of knowledge, whose

characterestic

is freedom works, Karma yoga is the means. So has it been taught both in

the

sruti and in the Gita. The sruti states the means of knowing the sphere of

the

Self, the contextual object of knowlege, thus: "Brahmanas seek to know this

 

sphere of the Self throguh the study of the Vedas, through sacrifice."

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22), which makes the Karma Yoga instrumental to

the

discipline of knowledge. Here in Bhagavad Gita 5.6 too, this idea will be

set

forth thus: "It is hard, O mighty armed! to achieve renunciation without

Karma

Yoga." "Unattached, the Yogins perform works for purifying the mind" 5.11;

"Sacrifice, gift-giving, and penance purify the intelligent" 18.5. But the

attainment of freedom from works through the renunciation of works has also

been

laid down, Vide: "Ensuring freedom from fear to all living beings, practise

abstention from all works" (Aswamedha-parvan 46.18). Besides, the world is

more

familiar with the freedom from works resulting from the non-commencement of

works. Therefore, why should one perform works at all, when the aim is

freedom

from works? "Because, none attains perfection through renunciation alone."

That

is, through the non-performance of works alone, without knowledge, none

attains

perfection, freedom from work, establishment in the discipline of knoweldge.

 

 

5.0 Due to what reason does a man fail to attain perfection or freedom

from

the obligation to work, by renunciation of works, sans knowledge? The

answer to

this demand for reason follows:

 

5. None indeed, even for a moment, remains without work. All, being

dependent, are made to work by the constituents of Prakrti.

 

5.1 Because, not even for a moment, does anyone remain without doing

work.

Why? Beign dependent, all living beings are made to work by Prakrti's

constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas. This applies to the ignorant only,

for

in 14.23, a reference is made to 'one who is not pushed about by the

constituents'. The verse 3.3 places the Samkhyas, the followers of the

discipline of knowledge, in a separate class. So Karma Yoga is prescribed

for

the ignorant alone, and not for those who know. These latter, not subject

to

Prakrti's constituents, stir not, of their own accord; so, Karma Yoga would

not

suit them. Thus, it has been elucidated in the commentary on 2.21.

 

6.0 The non-knowers of the Self, who refuse to do work prescribed by the

scripture, are in error. This is pointed out here:

 

6. Controlling the organs of action, he who lets his mind dwell on their

objects has a confounded mind; he is said to be a hypocrite.

 

6.1 The organs of action are the hande etd., 'Controlling them' i.e.

immobilizing them, 'he who lets his midn dwell or think of their

objects'-his

'mind' or inner sense, is confounded. His conduct is false; he is said sin.

 

7. Controlling the sense organs with the mind, he who commences the Yoga

of

action with the organs of action, unattached, is held to excel, O Arjuna!

 

7.1 But, Arjuna! the ignorant man, called upon to act, who mentally

controls

the organs of ccognition, and begins the Yoga of action with the organs of

action, i.e., tongue, hands, etc. 'unattached' or without desire for the

fruits

of actions, is superior to the hypocrite (vide verse 6).

[Guest guest]

Om,

 

I have a question regarding Sri Acharya Shankara's commenatary on Karma Yoga.

Some people who give lectures on the Bhagavad Gita say that Acharya Shankara

held the view that karma yoga leads to purification of the mind only. Whereas

other commentators like Sri Ramanuja have held that by Karma Yoga alone the

supreme realization will be made. This view is supported in the Mahabharatha in

stories such as the Vyadha Gita which extole Karma yoga as a direct means to

realization.

Therefore, is it true that Adi Shankara does not hold that karma yoga alone

leads to realization ?

 

Anand

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends

 

Pardon my ignorance but what is the Vyadha Gita ? Does anyone know if

anything on Vyadha Gita exists on the net ?

 

Ram

 

>

> Anand Natarajan [sMTP:anandn]

> Friday, May 26, 2000 10:17 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Bhagawad Gita Ch.3 INTRODUCTION verses & 1-7

> [sri Adi Shankara]

>

>

> Om,

>

> I have a question regarding Sri Acharya Shankara's commenatary on Karma

> Yoga. Some people who give lectures on the Bhagavad Gita say that Acharya

> Shankara held the view that karma yoga leads to purification of the mind

> only. Whereas other commentators like Sri Ramanuja have held that by Karma

> Yoga alone the supreme realization will be made. This view is supported in

> the Mahabharatha in stories such as the Vyadha Gita which extole Karma

> yoga as a direct means to realization.

> Therefore, is it true that Adi Shankara does not hold that karma yoga

> alone leads to realization ?

>

> Anand

>

>

>

> A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

> Network.

> Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

>

> ------

> Looking for SUPPORT on lowering Long Distance bills? Join beMANY!

> Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance rates which fall

> monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!

> http://click./1/4264/5/_/489436/_/959350810/

> ------

>

> Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

> focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

> are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To

> from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other

> contact, Email to <advaitins

>

[Guest guest]

Vyadha Gita is the song of the butcher (so to say). It is a story in the

Mahabharath wherein a young arrogant sadhaka who has acquired some siddhis by

tapas is shown that even house holders can attain to the realization just by

doing their duty as an offering to God. I am not aware of any website which has

it.

 

Anand

 

 

On Fri, 26 May 2000 10:23:35 Thommandra, Rama K. wrote:

>Pardon my ignorance but what is the Vyadha Gita ? Does anyone know if

>anything on Vyadha Gita exists on the net ?

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Anandji:

 

More details on Vyadha Gita are enclosed below. Your

question regarding Karma Yoga and purification of mind

is a good one. Please note that, Shankara (just like

Ramana Maharishi) is of the view that we are always

Brahman whether we realize it or not. The question,

"Who am I?," arises in the impure mind. When the mind

gets the purification through Karma Yoga, the doubts

get dissolved. I do not see any inconsistency!

 

Whenever we get doubts, it just indicates that our

mind needs purification and the best purification is

possible through Karma Yoga. Performing Karma Yoga

with the Yagna spirit requires strong conviction that

we are just serving the Lord who is present everywhere

in all names and forms! This conviction come natural

to a Bhakti Yogi who needs to acquire jnana yoga to

grasp that he/she is the "Brahman." These yogas are

inseparable and Gita discusses these yogas separately

for clearer understanding.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

=========================

Vyadha Gita from a WebSite

==========================

The story and Vyadha Gita are stated in the Web Page

on Karma Yoga - Swami Vivekananda (Originally

published by President, Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati,

Pithoragarh, Himalayas)

http://www.primenet.com/~subru/Yoga.html (Reproduced

only for discussion )

 

The only way to rise is by doing the duty next to us,

and thus we go on gathering strength until we reach

the highest state. A young Sannyâsin went to a forest;

there he meditated, worshipped, and practiced Yoga for

a long time. After years of hard work and practice, he

was one day sitting under a tree, when some dry leaves

fell upon his head. He looked up and saw a crow and a

crane fighting on the top of the tree, which made him

very angry. He said, "What! Dare you throw these dry

leaves upon my head!" As with these words he angrily

glanced at them, a flash of fire went out of his

head--such was the Yogi's power--and burnt the birds

to ashes.

 

He was very glad, almost overjoyed at this development

of power--he could burn the crow and the crane by a

look. After a time he had to go to the town to beg his

bread. He went, stood at a door, and said, "Mother,

give me food." A voice came from inside the house:

"Wait a little, my son." The young man thought: "You

wretched woman how dare you make me wait! You do not

know my power yet." While he was thinking thus the

voice came again: "Boy, don't be thinking too much of

yourself. Here is neither crow nor crane." He was

astonished, still he had to wait. At last (the) woman

came, and he fell at her feet and said, "Mother, how

did you know that?" She said, "My boy, I do not know

your Yoga or your practices. I am a common everyday

woman. I made you wait because my husband was ill, and

I was nursing him. All my life I have struggled to do

my duty. When I was unmarried, I did my duty to my

parents; now that I am married, I do my duty to my

husband; that is all the Yoga I practice. But by doing

my duty I have become illumined; thus I could read

your thoughts and know what you had done in the

forest. If you want to know something higher than

this, go to the market of such and such a town where

you will find a Vyadha who will tell you something

that you will be very glad to learn." (Vyadha

represents the lowest class of people in India, who

used to live as hunters and butchers).

 

The Sannyâsin thought: "Why should I go to that

town and to a Vyadha!" But after what he had seen, his

mind opened a little, so he went. When he came near

the town, he found that market and there saw at a

distance a big fat Vyadha cutting meat with big

knives, talking and bargaining with different people.

The young man said, "Lord help me! Is this the man

from whom I am going to learn? He is the incarnation

of a demon, if he is anything." In the meantime this

man looked up and said, "O Swami, did that lady send

you here? Take a seat until I have done my business."

The Sannyâsin thought, "What comes to me here?" He

took his seat; the man went on with his work, and

after he had finished, he took his money and said to

the Sannyâsin, "Come, sir, come to my home." On

reaching home the Vyadha gave him a seat, saying "Wait

here," and went into the house. He then washed his old

father and mother, fed them, and did all he could to

please them, after which he came to the Sannyâsin and

said, "Now, sir, you have come here to see me; what

can I do for you?" The Sannyâsin asked him a few

questions about soul and about God, and the Vyadha

gave him a lecture which forms a part of the

Mahâbhârata, called the Vyâdha-Gita. It contains one

of the highest flights of the Vedanta. When the Vyadha

finished his teaching, the Sannyâsin felt astonished.

He said, "Why are you in that body? With such

knowledge as yours why are you in a Vyadha's body, and

doing such filthy, ugly work?My son," replied the

Vyadha, "no duty is ugly, no duty is impure. My birth

placed me in these circumstances and environments. In

my boyhood I learnt the trade; I am unattached and I

try to do my duty well. I try to do my duty as a

householder, and I try to do all I can to make my

father and mother happy. I neither know your Yoga, nor

have I become a Sannyâsin, nor did I go out of the

world into a forest; nevertheless, all that you have

heard and seen has come to me through the unattached

doing of the duty which belongs to my positions.

[Guest guest]

Om,

 

I agree purification is what is needed.My question was how is this purification

defined.

There are two methods here.

1. As given in the Vyadha Gita, do one's duty without questioning and as an

offering to God. This by ITSELF bestows the highest knowledge.

 

2. Karma Yoga makes the unripe mind ripe enough to pursue Jnana Yoga. Then by

means of enquiry, the aspirant reaches the goal. This implies that one pointed

enquiry is also a necessity.

 

My question was does Acharya Shankara advocate only method 2, that is

purification that bestows one pointedness of mind is the result of karma yoga

and not destruction of the mind which is the goal?

 

Anand

 

 

 

On Fri, 26 May 2000 10:03:41 Ram Chandran wrote:

>Hari Om Anandji:

>

>More details on Vyadha Gita are enclosed below. Your

>question regarding Karma Yoga and purification of mind

>is a good one. Please note that, Shankara (just like

>Ramana Maharishi) is of the view that we are always

>Brahman whether we realize it or not. The question,

>"Who am I?," arises in the impure mind. When the mind

>gets the purification through Karma Yoga, the doubts

>get dissolved. I do not see any inconsistency!

>

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Anandji:

 

These yogas are inseparable and happen simultaneously.

We can understand Shankara's framework with the

following example. When there are clouds on the sky,

we can't see the sun even though He is present. When

the clouds disappear, Sun becomes visible!

 

Sun is the Brahman; Blue Sky is the Pure Mind;

Clouds are the clouded mind!

 

I hope this makes it clear.

 

Once again, Shankara is quite consistent according to

his framework.

 

It is possible to look at realization of Brahman using

different frameworks with different assumptions. Even

these frameworks appear different and their

differences will also dissolve with the realization.

 

Finally, your question assumes the presence of "time

parameter" and it doesn't exist. Person with pure mind

is a karma, bhakti and jnana yogi all simultaneously!

The concept of 'mind' enters the mind when the mind is

impure. The concept of mind is destroyed when the mind

is pure!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

-

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

<advaitin >

Friday, May 26, 2000 3:12 PM

Re: Bhagawad Gita Ch.3 INTRODUCTION verses & 1-7 [sri

Adi Shankara]

 

> Hari Om Anandji:

>

> These yogas are inseparable and happen simultaneously.

[cut]

 

Namaste,

 

Very much so Ramji..

Also, let's also look at it this way :

in Karma Yoga the worker is supposed to make

a total or an almost flawless and perfect offering

(of the results) of the action to the Supreme,

the same as the Bhakta's offering his love

to his Beloved, to the point he is willing to lose

everything fo Love's sake .

This would involve a deep, concerted and

concentrated effort on his part, to the extent that

the doer disappears or becomes lost in the

activity.

The Jnana Yoga of Acharya Shankara

elucidates how to extend these timeless

gaps or glimpses obtained from the above yogas,

which itself may be a necessary starting point.

Hope this pointer is helpful to Anandaji.

 

~dave

[Guest guest]

>From :Anand

My question was does Acharya Shankara advocate only method 2, that is

purification that bestows one pointedness of mind is the result of karma

yoga and not destruction of the mind which is the goal?

 

=====

Madhava Replies:

 

Dear Anandji,

 

namastE!

 

I think you are right in your observation. I am requoting the text by our

AdiShankara he is saying that emancipation ensues from the self-sufficient

knowledge alone. I believe, Karmayoga is the performance of action with out

any attachment towards the fruit of action. The detatchment towards the

fruit of action is possible *ONLY* through valid knowledge. An action which

is performed with out the detachment is called Karma alone NOT karmayoga.

 

The anxieties towords the fruit of action do not disturb the karmayogi,

hence he/she achieves the onepointedness. AND as a result of onepointedness

the self within flashes and he enjoys the glimpse of the self in deep

meditations. Having continued in his daily duties (karma yoga) with the

awareness (knowledge) of the self, he fulfills all his obligatory duties and

kicks the body and gets off to the Sweet Home (OM)...

 

Please feel free to correct me...

 

I remain yours,

Madhava

>From Adi Shankara:

 

Even if the question of Arjuna is held to have sprung from lack of

discrimination, the Lord's reply that the disciplines of knowledge and works

pertain to different agents does not stand to reason. Nor may the Lord's

reply

be set down to His ignorance. Also from the nature of his reply that

different

agents should practise the two disciplines, the incompatibility of the

synthesis

of knoweldge and works follows. Therefore, the indubitable doctrine of the

Gita

and the Upanishads is that emancipation ensues from the self-sufficient

knowledge alone.

 

0.4 If, however, the emancipation of the householders alone calls for a

synthesis of knowledge and works, both Sruti-enjoined and

Smrti-enjoined,while

that of the celibates may leave out Sruti-enjoined works, the result wouldbe

a

heavier burden of painful labour for householders to bear. This

latterposition

may not be readily accepted, because in all the Upanishads, Itihasas,Puranas

 

and Yoga-texts renunciation of works, as such, has been laid down

asobligatory

on all who seek liberation, and because sruti and smrti teach either a

combination of, or choice among, the various stations of life. It does not

follow from this that the occupants of all stations of life must combine

knowledge and works; for, the seeker after liberation must needs renounce

all

forms of works, Sruti-enjoined and Smrti-enjoined: vide: "Overcoming

thedesire

for sons, wealth, and worlds, they take to a life of mendicancy"

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.5.1);"therefore, they say that renunciation

exceeds these

austerities"; (MahaNarayana Upanishad 24.1); "Renunciation alone excelled"

(MahaNarayana Upanishad 21.2); "Not by works, not by progeny and wealth,

(but)

renunciation, they say, some won immortality" (MahaNarayana Upanishad 10.5)

(Kaivalya Upanishad 2); "One shall renounce from the station of celibacy

itself"

(Jabala Upanishad 4); "Give up (works) rihgteous and unrighteous; give up

the

true and the false, give up that which prompted you to give up" (Santi

parvan,

329.40, 331.44); "Beholding the transmigratory life as void of all contents,

and

desiring to vision the Essence, the celibates, in a mood of supreme

detachment,

go forth into a life of mendicancy" (Naradapari Upanishad 3.15); "Work binds

the

living being; knowledge liberates. Therefore, the ascetics, the beholders

of

the Supreme, refrain from work" (santi parvan 241.7) Here, in Bhagavad Gita

 

also occurs, in 5.13 etc., "Renouncing all works, mentally."