Gita Satsang - Chapter 5 : Verse 1 - Jan. 1, 2001

[Guest guest]

Motto:-

mat chittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH parasparam.h .

kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti cha ..

shriimad-bhagavad-giitaa 10:9

 

'With their thought on Me, with their life absorbed in Me,

instructing each other, and ever speaking of Me,

they are content and delighted.' Ch.10:v.9.

____________________

----

For Gita Dhyana Shlokas/Mantras and Mahatmya

/message/advaitin/6987

----

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Swami Gambhirananda, at URL:

[kindly supplied by Madhava-ji]

advaitin/Gita/Shankara1/gmbCH5.htm

___________________

 

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Shri Varriar, at URL:

[kindly supplied by Shankara-ji]

advaitin/GCh5SYAABV1-24

____________________

 

Swami Chinmayananda's commentary at URL:

[kindly supplied by Ram-ji]

advaitin/Gita/Chinmaya/COMM5.HTM

____________________

 

atha pa~nchamo.adhyaayaH . Chapter 5.

 

sa.nnyaasa-yogaH . THE WAY TO RENUNCIATION OF ACTIONS.

 

Shankara's Commentary [tr. Sw. Gambhirananda]

 

In the instructions beginning with 'He who finds inaction in action'

(4.18), and in, 'he is engaged in yoga and is a performer, of all

actions' (ibid.), 'whose actions have been burnt away by the fire

of wisdom' (ibid. 19), 'performing actions merely for the

(maintenance of the ) body' (ibid. 21), 'Remaining satisfied with

what comes unasked for' (ibid. 22), 'The ladle is Brahman, the

oblation is Brahman' (ibid. 24), 'Know them all to be born of action'

(ibid. 32), 'O son of Prtha, all actions in their totality culminate

in Knowledge' (ibid. 33), 'the fire of Knowledge reduces all actions

to ashes' (ibid. 37) ending with 'actions do not bind one who has

renounced actions through yoga' (abid. 41), the Lord spoke of

renunciation of all actions. And in the words, 'take recourse to

yoga by cutting asunder with the sword of Knowledge this doubt'

(ibid. 42), the Lord has said, 'You undertake yoga consisting in the

performance of actions'.

 

Between these two, viz the performance of actions and renunciation of

actions, since there is mutual opposition as between rest and motion,

therefore it is not possible for the same person to undertake them

together. Nor has it been enjoined that they should be practised at

different times. That is to say, should be practised at different

times. That is to say, there arises the contigency of having to

undertake one of these as a duty. In such a case the one which is

more commendable of these two, viz performance of actions and

relinquishment of actions, ought to be undertaken, not the other.

 

Thinking thus and with a view to knowing the one that is more

commendable, Arjuna said, 'O Krsna, You speak of renunciation of

actions,' etc.

 

Objection: Is it not that in the verses quoted above, the Lord,

intent on elaborating steadfastness in Knowledge, spoke of

renunciation of all actions for a knower of the Self, but not for one

ignorant of the Self? And consequently, since performance of actions

and their renunciation are meant for different persons, therefore

the question with a view to knowing the perference of one over the

other does not become logical.

 

Reply: It is true that from your point of view the question is not

rational. We say, that, on the other hand, the question is certainly

justifiable from the questioner's (Arjuna's) standpoint.

 

Objection: How?

 

Reply: In the foregoing passages the emphasis is on the renunciation

of actions (not on the agent), because it was intended by the Lord to

present that as a duty. But it is impossible to undertake that

(renunciation) as a duty unless there is an agent to do so.

Therefore, from one point of view, even he who has not realized the

Self becomes approved as fit for renunciation. On the other hand, it

is not intended that renunciation has to be undertaken only by a

knower of the Self.

 

To Arjuna, who thus thinks that even an ignorant person is entitled

to both performance of actions and their renunciation, there is

mutual contradiction between the two as shown above. And if one of

the two has to be undertaken, the more commendable one has to be

preferred, not the other. In this way, the question with the

intention of knowing the more commendable one is not unjustifiable.

>From an ascertainment of the meaning of the answer, too, it is

understood that the questioner's intention is just this.

 

Objection: How?

 

The answer (of the Lord) is: Renunciation and Karma-yoga lead to

Liberation. But among these, Karma-yoga excels (cf : 5.2). The

point to be ascertained is this: Is it that after stating the

purpose of renunciation and Karma-yoga-which are resorted to by a

knower of the Self-to be Liberation, it is being hereby [in verse

(cf: 5.2).-Tr.] said (by the Lord) that between those two themselves,

the preeminence of Karma-yoga over renunciation of actions is owing

to some speciality, or is it that both those [both those (idea)-that

Karma-yoga, too, leads to Liberation, and also that it is superior to

renunciation of actions.-Tr.] (ideas) are asserted (by Him) with

respect to renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga practised by one

who is ignorant of the Self?

 

Objection: What does it matter if the statement means that Liberation

can be attained through renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga

undertaken by a knower of the Self, and that, of them Karma-yoga is

superior to renunciation of actions; or that both those (ideas) are

asserted in respect of renunciation of actions as well as Karma-yoga

resorted to by one ignorant of the Self?

 

Vedantin: As to this, the answer is: Since it is impossible that

renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga can be undertaken by a knower

of the Self, therefore, to say that both of them lead to Liberation,

and to call his Karma-yoga as superior to renunciation of action-both

these positions are absurd. If it were possible for one ignorant of

the Self to undertaken renunciation of acitons and its opposite,

Karma-yoga consisting in the performance of actions, then the two

statements that both of them lead to Liberation and that Karma-yoga

is superior to renunciation of actions become justifiable. But in

the case of the knower of the Self, since it is impossible to pursue

both renunciation of actions and Karma-yoga, therefore, to say that

they lead to Liberation and that Karma-yoga is superior to

renunciation of actions is illogical.

 

With regard to this the Opponent says: Is it that renunciation of

actions and Karma-yoga are both impossible for a knower of the Self,

or that one of the two is impossible? If one of the two be

impossible, then is it renunciation of actions or Karma-yoga? And

the reason for this impossibility should also be stated.

 

As to this, the answer is: In the case of the knower of the Self,

since there has occured a cessation of false knowledge, Karma-yoga,

which is based on erroneous knowledge, will become impossible.

 

What is being established in various places here in the scripture

(Gita), in the various portions dealing with the ascertainment of the

real nature of the Self, is this: Having stated that for the knower

of the Self, who has realized as his own the Self which is actionless

owing to Its being free from all such transfromations as birth etc.

and from whom false ignorance [The compound mithyajnana is to be

split as mithya ajnana: that which is false and is ignornace.] has

been eradicated as a result of full enlightenment, there follows

renunciation of all acitons characterized by abiding in the state of

identity with the actionless Self, it is then stated that because of

the contradiction between correct knowledge and false ignorance, and

their results, Karma-yoga-which is opposed to renunciation of

actions, which has false ignorance as its basis, which is preceded

by the idea of agentship, and which is preceded by the idea of

agentship, and which consists in being established in the active-self-

is nonexistent for him. This being so, it will be logical to say

that Karma-yoga, which has erroneous knowledge for its source, is

impossible for the knower of the Self who has become freed from false

knowledge.

 

Objection: In which places, again, dealing with the ascertainment of

the true nature of the Self, has been established the absence of

actions for the knower of the Self?

 

The answer to this is: Beginning the topic with, 'But know That to be

indestructible' (2.17), the absence of actions in the case of the

knower of the Self has been stated in various places such as, 'He who

thinks of this One as the killer' (2.19), 'he who knows this One as

indestructible, eternal' (ibid.21), etc.

 

Objection: Is it not that in the various places dealing with the

ascertainment of the real nature of the Self, Karma-yoga, too, has

surely been expounded, as for instance in, 'Therefore, O descendant

of Bharata, join the battle' (ibid. 18), 'Even considering your own

duty' (ibid. 31), 'Your right is for action alone' (ibid. 47), etc.?

And consequently, how can Karma-yoga be impossible for the knower of

the Self?

 

To this the reply is;

 

Because there is contradiction between right knowledge and false

knowledge, and their effects; because, by the text, 'through the

Yoga of Knowledge for the men of realization' (3.3), the

steadfastness of the Sankhyas, the men who have known the reality of

the Self, in the Yoga of Knowledge characterized as dwelling in the

state of identity with the actionless Self, has been distinguished

from the steadfastness in Karma-yoga which is resorted to by one

ignorant of the Self; because, from the fact of his having attained

fulfilment, there is no need of any other means for the knower of the

Self; and because absence of any other duty has been pointed out

in, 'for him there is no duty to perform' (3.17); also because, in 'A

person does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from action'

(ibid. 4) and 'But, O mighty-armed one, renunciation (of actions) is

hard to attain without (Karma-) yoga' (5.6), Karma-yoga has been

prescribed as a means to the knowledge of the Self; and because, with

regard to one in whom has arisen full relization, the absence of

Karma-yoga has been stated in, '[For the sage who wishes to ascend

(to Dhyana-yoga), action is said to be the means.] For that person,

when he has ascended to (Dhyana-) yoga, inaction alone is said to be

the means' (6.3); and because, actions other than those needed for

the sustenance of the body have been ruled out in, 'he incurs no sin

by performing actions merely for the (maintenance of the) body'

(4.21); also because, in the text, 'the knower of Reality should

think, "I certainly do not do anything"' (5.8), it is taught with

regard to one who has known the real nature of the Self that,

keeping his mind absorbed in the Self, he should never have the

idea 'I am doing', even in respect of actions such as seeing,

hearing, etc. dictated by the need of merely maintaining the body;

and because, in the case of one who has known the reality of the

Self, Karma-yoga which is opposed to full enlightenment and is caused

by false knowledge cannot be a possibility even in a dream- therefore

(for the above reasons), it is only with regard to the renunciation

of actions and with regard to Karma-yoga resorted to by one who is

ignorant of the self that the statement of their leading to

Liberation has been made. And the speciality of (his) Karma-yoga has

been spoken of as being easy of performance in comparison with his

renunciation of actions which, as distinguished from the renunciation

of all actions by the aforesaid knower of the Self, will be partial

owing to the persistence of the idea of agentship and will be

difficult to be practised along with yama, niyama, [Yama: non-

cruelty, forgiveness, truthfulness, harmlessness, control of the body

and organs, straightforwardness, love, serenity, sweetness and

absence of anger; Niyama: charity, sacrifice, austerity, meditation,

study, celibacy, vows fasting, silence and bathing.] etc.

It stands confirmed that even by interpreting the meaning of the

Lord's answer in this way, the above-mentioned intention of the

questioner (Arjuna) becomes well established.

In the verse, 'If it be your opinion that Wisdom is superior to

action' (3.1), when Arjuna, finding that Knowledge and action cannot

coexist, asked, the Lord, 'Tell me that which is superior of the

two,' He stated His conclusion that steadfastness in the Yoga of

Knowledge was taught for the knowers of the Self, the monks, while

steadfastness in Karma-yoga was for the yogis.

>From the statement that one does not attain fulfilment from mere

renunciation (cf. 3.4), it follows that (renunciation) associated

with Knowledge is intended as the means to fulfilment. And since

Karma-yoga, too, has been enjoined, therefore, with the intention of

knowing the distinction between these two to determine whether

renunciation devoid of Knowledge is better or Karma-yoga is better,

Arjuna asks:

___________________

 

shlokaH . [= verse] 1.

 

arjuna uvaacha .

 

sa.nnyaasa.n karmaNaa.n kR^ishhNa punaryoga.n cha sha.nsasi .

yachchhreya etayorekaM tanme bruuhi sunishchitam.h ..

____________________

 

pada-chchhedaH . [= words without euphony/sandhi]

 

arjunaH uvaacha .

 

sa.nnyaasa.n karmaNaa.n kR^ishhNa punaH yoga.n cha sha.nsasi .

yat shreyaH etayoH eka.n tat me bruuhi sunishchitam.h ..

___________________

 

pada-anvayaH . [= syntax]

 

arjunaH uvaacha .

 

kR^ishhNa! karmaNaa.n sa.nnyaasa.n punaH yoga.n cha sha.nsasi .

etayoH yat shreyaH eka.n, tat sunishchitaM me bruuhi ..

____________________

 

pada-arthaH . [= word-meanings]

 

arjunaH = Arjuna

uvaacha = said

kR^ishhNa = O Krishna!

karmaNaa.n = of actions

sa.nnyaasa.n = renunciation

punaH = again

yoga.n = performance of actions [with equanimity, skill, etc.]

cha = and

sha.nsasi = [you] praise

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

etayoH = of these two

yat = which

shreyaH = better

eka.n = one

tat = that

sunishchitam = conclusively, decisively

me = to me

bruuhi = tell

____________________

 

anuvaadaH . [= translation]

 

Arjuna said:

 

O Krishna! You praise renunciation of actions, and also skillful

peformance of actions.

Tell me conclusively that one which is better of the two.

____________________

 

 

(O Krsna,) samsasi, You praise, i.e. speak of; sannyasam,

renunciation; karmanam, of actions, of performance of various kinds

of rites enjoined by the scriptures; punah ca, and again; You praise

yogam, yoga, the obligatory performance of those very rites!

Therefore I have a doubt as to which is better-Is the performance of

actions better, or their rejection? And that which is better should

be undertaken. And hence, bruhi, tell; mam, me; suniscitam, for

certain, as the one intended by You; tat ekam, that one-one of the

two, since performance of the two together by the same person is

impossible; yat, which; is sreyah, better, more commendable; etayoh,

between these two, between the renunciation of actions and the

performance of actions [Ast. reads karma-yoga-anusthana (performance

of Karma-yoga) in place of karma-anusthana (performance of actions).-

Tr.], by undertaking which you think I shall acquire what is

beneficial.