action/thought

[Guest guest]

Came across the following in an article and wondered if anyone here might have

comment on it:

 

" In both the traditions, Eastern and Western the idea of pure thought and pure

action have given rise to insoluble philosophical problems. This is visible in

the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz. The Mimamsakas by laying

emphasis on karma (action) and the Advaitins on Jnana (thought) bring the

conflict into sharp focus.The karmakanda and the vedic rituals had to be

protected against the onslaught by the Buddhist and the great Sankara did it by

introducing the concept of pure Jnana bereft of all kinds of admixtures and

adjuncts. It was left to the author of Bhagwat Geeta to take a comprehensive

view of the debate by introducing the concept of Jnanakarmasamuchaya (synthesis

of knowledge, thought and action). This means that thought is action oriented

and action is thought-based. It can be said in this connection that both the

Mimamsakas and the Advaitins were one-sided in their approach to the problem. "

~ Xavier P. Mao

[Guest guest]

Shree Richarkar, PraNAms

 

It is unfortunate people make comments without understanding. The quoted message

is a typical example. For a better understanding of advaita you can recommend

the author of the paragraph - introduction to Vedanta posted in

www.advaita.org.uk.

Hari Om!

 

 

--- On Sat, 2/20/10, richarkar <richarkar wrote:

 

 

richarkar <richarkar

action/thought

advaitin

Saturday, February 20, 2010, 3:19 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Came across the following in an article and wondered if anyone here might have

comment on it:

 

" In both the traditions, Eastern and Western the idea of pure thought and pure

action have given rise to insoluble philosophical problems. This is visible in

the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz. The Mimamsakas by laying

emphasis on karma (action) and the Advaitins on Jnana (thought) bring the

conflict into sharp focus.The karmakanda and the vedic rituals had to be

protected against the onslaught by the Buddhist and the great Sankara did it by

introducing the concept of pure Jnana bereft of all kinds of admixtures and

adjuncts. It was left to the author of Bhagwat Geeta to take a comprehensive

view of the debate by introducing the concept of Jnanakarmasamuchaya (synthesis

of knowledge, thought and action). This means that thought is action oriented

and action is thought-based. It can be said in this connection that both the

Mimamsakas and the Advaitins were one-sided in their approach to the problem. " ~

Xavier P. Mao

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The following excerpt from an article titled: 'The Shortest ever 'commentary' on

the Veda-s' available in the Files Section could be of help in knowing the

traditional view:

 

//Does this mean that Shankaracharya, Sri Krishna and Veda Vyasa have no value

at all for the veda pUrva? No, not at all. Sri Krishna explicitly states the

true worth of the Veda pUrva in verse Bhagavadgita 18.5:

 

 

Vedic sacrifices, gifts and austerities ought not to be given up; they have to

be necessarily performed. Why? They purify the performer. 18.6

 

//With what attitude should one engage in them? Being unattached to the action

and their fruit one should perform these veda-prescribed actions. This is My

firm stand. //

 

The Lord has said in 3.8:

 

 

//All actions not done as an offering to the Lord will be only binding the doer.

Hence perform all prescribed actions as an offering to Him, O Arjuna, with

detachment.//

 

Shankaracharya, in the commentary to this verse quotes a Yajurvedic passage:

yajno vai vishnuH (Taittiriya Samhita 1.7.4) `The term `yajna' verily means

VishNu.' For Vishnu's sake perform all prescribed actions without attachment to

the doership and the fruit of the action.

 

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.4.22) too says: `By reciting the veda, by

engaging in sacrifices, gifts and austerities those pure-hearted Brahmanas

develop the thirst for knowing the Supreme Spirit.' This indeed is the real

purpose of the veda-pUrva.

 

Thus Shankara, in keeping with the Upanishads, the Lord and Veda Vyasa, invokes

the veda purva only to the barest minimum; just what is necessary to convey its

real purpose/purport and no more. Not being based predominantly on the

veda-pUrva, Shankara's system does not become subject to the Lord's censure.

 

What Sri Krishna, Veda Vyasa and Shankara mean is this: The Veda pUrva has a

place, relevance, a role, in a certain situation. Once that is accomplished, it

ceases to be a direct means for Vedantic Non-dualistic enquiry. Once a person

has made its appropriate use, one has to transcend it, move on to the higher

Advaitic realm. That is the view with which Krishna denounces dvaita-drishti

throughout the Gita.

 

Comments Shankara for the mantra 8 of the Ishavasyopanishad:

 

//…and this is so because, nothing enjoined by the scriptures can be unworthy of

performance.//

 

The Veda while prescribing something, it addresses that to a particular

individual; it is person-specific. //

 

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Shree Richarkar, PraNAms

>

> It is unfortunate people make comments without understanding. The quoted

message is a typical example. For a better understanding of advaita you can

recommend the author of the paragraph - introduction to Vedanta posted in

www.advaita.org.uk.

> Hari Om!

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " richarkar " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Came across the following in an article and wondered if anyone here might

have comment on it:

>

> " In both the traditions, Eastern and Western the idea of pure thought and

> pure action have given rise to insoluble philosophical problems. This is

> visible in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz. The

> Mimamsakas by laying emphasis on karma (action) and the Advaitins on Jnana

> (thought) bring the conflict into sharp focus.The karmakanda and the vedic

> rituals had to be protected against the onslaught by the Buddhist and the

> great Sankara did it by introducing the concept of pure Jnana bereft of

> all kinds of admixtures and adjuncts. It was left to the author of Bhagwat

> Geeta to take a comprehensive view of the debate by introducing the

> concept of Jnanakarmasamuchaya (synthesis of knowledge, thought and

> action). This means that thought is action oriented and action is

> thought-based. It can be said in this connection that both the Mimamsakas

> and the Advaitins were one-sided in their approach to the problem. " ~

> Xavier P. Mao

 

Namaste Shri Richard:

 

It seems that the writer of the above article is implying that the author

of Gita tried to do a samanvaya of the concepts *after* Shankara. Such a

thinking goes against traditional thought, which puts the authorship of

Gita on Veda Vyasa, while Shankaracharya is the first of recent

commentators.

 

Beyond that, if author is implying that there is a major emphasis of

GYAna-karma-samuchhaya in Gita as he sees it, he is entitled to his opinion,

as other rival vedantic schools of thought (in particular, the dvaitins) saw

it too. But, for advaitins, it is the GYAna that is the sole means of

liberation.

 

How can rival schools think that it is karma vs. GYAna is something one can

never understand. An opposition is between two objects which are similar to

each other in one aspect or another. One can even choose between apples and

oranges, as they are fruits of different varieties. If someone is " choosing "

between karma and GYAna, then that person is ascribing a work aspect to

GYAna, which is ridiculous! Knowledge is not opposed to anything but

ignorance. If one does work, it has to originate in feelings in the mind,

named " desire to work " doership and a " desire for the enjoyments of the

results of work " named enjoyership. GYAna destroys that doership and

enjoyership.

 

As scholars repeatedly mention, what is the nature of knowledge that leads

to liberation? If knowledge is the only means, what is the purpose of

(karma) work and what is upaasana (worship)? Shankaracharya and later

advaitins, most notably Madhusudana Saraswati have defined bhakti as the

core message of Gita, with 11.55 being the single verse that explains it.

 

According to my understanding of these commentors: It is bhakti that

manifests as shraddha to that the work is performed with dedication so that

it leads to necessary preliminary purification. It is bhakti that manifests

as devotion to the personal God so that the necessary clarity of mind, the

preparation to knowledge is obtained and is expressed as love for all fellow

beings. It is bhakti that manifests in the path so that the seeker becomes a

jiGYAsu, a seeker of knowledge, rather than one who runs for removal of

distress and achievement of desired objects in the world. It is bhakti that

helps in finding a proper Guru, and giving him the necessary qualities so

that the teaching sticks in him, leading to him becoming a knower of Truth,

attaining non-difference with Ishvara.

 

A suggestion on Gita is to read the translations or notes from people who

have understood it, rather than from people who have tried to dissect it.

Some personal favorites are

 

Swami Chinmayananda-ji's book that is completely available online.

http://journeytothetruth.com/

 

If you are in U.S.A/India, please contact Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan

for " Bhagavad Gita: as a Philosophy of God-Realization " by R.D. Ranade. If

you are in U.S.A, the book is available from http://www.bhavanus.com

 

Of course Shri Prof. VK's book is completely available online!

http://www.krishnamurthys.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach11.html

 

It is always better to read these books like these as pointers to the

original, till one gets the meaning onself in pure sanskrit.

 

Namaste again

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Richarkar,

The article displays total ignorance on the part of the author.

The Gita is a part of the epic Mahabharata which is considered to be very

ancient. To say that it was written because of the debate on the place of karma

and jnana is surprising.

The theory of jnana karma samuccaya was adopted by some Mimamsakas. Sankara has

repeatedly rejected it in his commentaries. The author does not seem to know

what it means.

There are many books by such half-baked scholars which only misinterpret and

mislead.Better to avoid them.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , " richarkar " <richarkar wrote:

>

> Came across the following in an article and wondered if anyone here might have

comment on it:

>

> " In both the traditions, Eastern and Western the idea of pure thought and pure

action have given rise to insoluble philosophical problems. This is visible in

the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz. The Mimamsakas by laying

emphasis on karma (action) and the Advaitins on Jnana (thought) bring the

conflict into sharp focus.The karmakanda and the vedic rituals had to be

protected against the onslaught by the Buddhist and the great Sankara did it by

introducing the concept of pure Jnana bereft of all kinds of admixtures and

adjuncts. It was left to the author of Bhagwat Geeta to take a comprehensive

view of the debate by introducing the concept of Jnanakarmasamuchaya (synthesis

of knowledge, thought and action). This means that thought is action oriented

and action is thought-based. It can be said in this connection that both the

Mimamsakas and the Advaitins were one-sided in their approach to the problem. "

~ Xavier P. Mao

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you to those who responded to my post. My understanding of all this has a

long way to go. These replies are most helpful.