Gita Satsang - cogitations - Ranade on Antinomies -CONCLUSION

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

 

Examination of the two Theories of j~naana-karma-samuchchaya and

j~naanottra-karma :

 

We cannot close this chapter without referring to two theories of

classical

Vedantic scholarship, namely, the theorv of j~naana-karma-samuchchaya

and the

theory of j~naanottara-karma.

The theory of j~naana-karma-samuchchaya occupied great attention at

the time of

Shankaracarya and the Mimamsakas :

 

ubhaabhyaam eva pakshaabhyaa.n yathaa khe pakshiNaa.n gatiH .

tathaa eva j~naanakarmabhyaaM praapyate brahma shaashvatam.h ..

 

says the sage Harita. Just as a bird cannot close without two wings,

so Jnana

and Karma are both necessary for the flight of the individual to the

Absolute.

In the same way there is a passage in the Ishopanisad

 

vidyaa.n cha avidyaa.n cha yaH tat veda ubhaya.n saha .

avidyayaa mR^itu.n tiirtvaa vidyayaa amR^itam ashnute .. 2.

 

This has been interpreted on the one hand as involving a

reconciliation and a

synthesis of Jnana and Karma. Shankara on the other hand has his own

arguments

to disprove it. He wants nothing else except Jnana pure and simple,

and has got

nothing to do with the Karmas.

There is another important theory which is advanced by a great modern

Indian scholar,

the late Lokamanya Tilak. It is the theory pointed out in a previous

chapter, where

he is criticising Shankara. According to Shankara, j~naanottara karma

is impossible.

Karma stops as soon as j~naana is reached. On the other hand, Tilak

advocates that

man has a duty to perform even after the realisation of the highest self.

In the first place, it is pointed out that action belongs to the body

and so

long as the body remains, we cannot extricate ourselves from the

influence of

actions. Then secondly, selfless action or Nishkama Karma would alone

enable us

to move out of thraldom to actions. Hence a man who performs selfless

actions

cannot be said to be performing any actions all :

 

anaashritaH karma-phala.n kaarya.n karma karoti yaH .

saH sa.nnyaasii cha yogii cha na niragniH na cha akriyaH .. VI:1

 

Finally, it is the responsibility of a realised soul to point the way

to erring

humanity and hence action becomes indispensable even for the realiser :

 

loka-sa~Ngraham eva api sampashyan kartum arhasi . III:20

 

Lokamanya Tilak has advanced these and other arguments for proving the

imperativeness of actions even after the attainment of the highest

knowledge.

The question, however, arises whether there is any 'ought' after God-

realisation. We shall not go into the details of the controversy, but

shall

point out only one principle which will resolve not merely this

controversy

about j~naanottara-karma but also the earlier controversy about

j~naana-karma-

samuchchaya, a point which has not been hitherto noticed, namely, that

Jnana

is not an event but a process.

Jnana might be regarded to be knowledge, but the illumination is its

proper meaning

for the word. Illumination never comes finally and fully. We always

keep making an

asymptotic approach to illumination, but never actually reach it.

Jnanesvara has

told us that there is always that difference between the aspirant and

God as

between the gold of fifteen carats and the gold of sixteen carats, or

between

the moon on the fourteenth day and the moon on the fifteenth. So Jnana

is a

process and not an event.

The doctrine of be debated between the Mimamsakas and Shankara and

the doctrine of

j~naanottara karma debated between Shankara and Tilak - both fight shy

of this principle of the nature of Jnana as being a process instead of

an event.

So when we remember that we always keep making an asymptotic approach

to the

Absolute, then everything else becomes clear.

j~naanottara-karma does not occur, j~naana-karmasamuchchaya does not

occur. We

are free to do our actions as we like in the process of attainment of the

highest illumination. If we are activists by temper, nothing can

prevent us from

doing actions at any stage of our progress towards the attainment of

our ideal.

If we are contemplatives, nothing can stir us from a life of

God-enjoyment to

which we are naturally born, though we may not wholly set aside the

principle of

action to which we are not born. Finally, if we are philosophers, the

issue will

be how best to determine the nature of the highest Reality and leave

the rest to

God. Temperamental differences may be modulated but they cannot be so

radically

changed as to wear an entirely new aspect altogether.

 

[CONCLUDED.