I contend that Shankara
imparts too much of his Advaita Vedanta Hindu philosophy’s penchant for renunciation in
interpreting the momentous chapter two of the Bhagavadgita. I know in having
translated a text that it is all too tempting to “embellish” a text by re-phrasing
beyond what is necessary for clarity. Sometimes, in reading another translation
of a text that I am translating, I am astounded to find even entire subordinate
clauses that do not correspond to the original text in its language. I believe
Shankara does something similar in both his emphasis on the self (atman)
as non-agent and his disavowal of action in favor of renunciation. Krishna’s
advice to Arjuna is not to renounce fighting in the war, which even Shankara
describes as righteous even though it is for earthly power. To fight dispassionately
is obviously not the same as not fighting (i.e., not acting). Krishna is not
in favor of Arjuna’s refusal to fight, whether Arjuna has knowledge of the Samkhya
(i.e., discrimination of metaphysical reality: that eternal, immutable atman
is Brahman).
Interpreting the Gita,
Shankara acknowledges that “knowledge of Samkhya . . . has been imparted to” Arjuna
by Krishna.”[1] In
spite of the fact that knowers of Samkhya are to practice renunciation
in line with the knowledge that an individual atman (self) is immutable and
thus cannot act, Krishna tells Arjuna, “stand up, determined to fight.”[2]
Take care, though, for being determined can be taken wrongly as wanting to
fight; for in the next line, Krishna says, “Looking with an equal eye on
pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, strive to fight; thus
will you incur no sin.”[3]
Krishna is preaching indifference in dispassionate fighting, rather than
acquiescing to Arjuna’s desire not to fight. That desire, like all desire, occasions
karma (i.e., the residue from righteous as well as unrighteous action) and thus
keeps the self (atman) from losing itself even as an entity in Brahman.[4]
To Shankara, it is only as a
non-knower of the nature and essence of one’s self (atman) that a person
is excused for acting—for such a person doesn’t know any better. Only a person
knows that one’s self cannot possibly act (because the atman has no
parts and thus is not subject to change) that one should practice renunciation.
Whereas the non-knower’s righteous actions can result in heaven, the knower’s renunciation
(and thus lack of karma) can result in liberation (moksa).[5]
I’m not convinced that
Shankara realizes the contradiction in admitting that Arjuna is now a knower even
as Krishna rejects Arjuna’s decision of renunciation from fighting and even
urges him to fight. To be sure, Shankara could reasonably retort that in acting
dispassionately on the battlefield, Arjuna is honoring the fact that his
atman cannot act and is perhaps not even acting. Shakara could charitably
be interpreted as referring to a person’s atman in stating “that it
is impossible for the Self-Knower to act, whatever actions have been enjoined
by the Sastras have reference only to the non-knower.”[6]
That is, the “Self-Knower” here being referred to could be an individual’s immutable
atman, which does not act even as a person is performing duties by acting. The
“immutability of the Self” negates “all actions on its part; such immutability
is the “specific reason for ruling out all activities.”[7]
It is a person’s atman that cannot act, so presumably this is so even
when a person is acting, and so Krishna could be interpreted as telling Arjuna:
act, for you have a duty to engage in righteous battle, but know that your
inner self is not that which is acting. But Shankara makes it clear that just
acting is not proper for a knower-of-Self, which Shankara acknowledges Arjuna
to be once Krishna has imparted Knowledge of the Self.
Therefore, it is difficult to
reconcile the narrower reading that atman, as immutable, cannot
act with Shankara’s claim that “the science of the Gita [is that] the
Self-Knower is obliged to renounce and not to perform works of all kinds.”[8]
Shankara even refers to this as a doctrine! It is the performance
itself, whether done dispassionately or with a desire to conquer or for wealth,
that is forbidden for a Ksatriya who knows one’s own self (atman).[9]
Again, Shankara states that “both the Self-knower perceiving the immutability
of the Self, and the seeker after liberation, are called upon exclusively to
renounce all Veda-enjoined works,” which, according to Shankara, include even the
duty of a warrior to participate in righteous battle (even for earthly power)
even though such participation can get a person to heaven.[10]
That a non-knower has a duty
to act is not relevant here because Krishna imparts knowledge of the Self to Arjuna
and tells him that, even with such knowledge, he should still fight.
I must admit to being perplexed: Was Shankara so oriented to presenting his own
philosophy of the Self (Advaita Vedanta) that he overlooked this vital
point, or am I missing something? Because
disinterested yogic action is for people who do not know the Self, and is thus
inferior to the renunciation for people who know the Self and even those people
who seek liberation, Krishna’s urging of dispassionate action to Arjuna after
Krishna has taught Arjuna on the Self contradicts Sankara’s philosophy. Shakara’s
writings evince great intelligence, hence my theory that the explanation for
the contradiction lies not with his reasoning, but that he was interested in
using the opportunity of commentary on the Gita to state his philosophy
of renunciation over yogic action—which is to say, knowledge of Self over
ignorance and delusion.
It’s interesting that even the non-violent Gandhi acknowledges in his commentary on the Gita that Krishna enjoins Arjuna to fight, whereas Shankara insists that knowers of the Self are prohibited from fighting. To impart a commentary on a text should be centered, and thus not depart from, the ideas that are in the text, especially if its central idea, rather than used as an unabashed opportunity to present one’s own philosophy, especially where it diverges from that of the text. It is nothing short of astonishing that Shankara characterizes the Gita as being oriented to removing “the cause of transmigratory life consisting of grief, delusion, etc., and not to compel anyone to initiate action of any kind.”[11] But compelling action is precisely what Krishna does in the pivotal scene! It is Arjuna’s decision to renounce action that is being castigated and strongly refuted. That an atman, being eternal—neither born nor subject to decay and death—cannot be slayed does not mean that Krishna is urging Arjuna not to fight. Arjuna is in fact compelled by Krishna to initiate action on the battlefield befitting the Vedic duty of a warrior, even though Krishna knows that Arjuna has become a Knower-of-Self.
2. Gita 2.37. Quoted by Sankara in Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya, p. 60.
3. Gita 2.38. Quoted by Sankara in Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya, p. 61.
4. Interestingly, Samuel Hopkins, who studied under Jonathan Edwards (and even lived with the Edwards for some time), was so keen on disinterested benevolence that he castigates in his text even the desire for heaven; hence, the proper belief is that the soul ceases to be an entity when it is in union with God. Because Edwards studied comparative religion, whether Hopkins got his idea from the Hindu notion that an individual atman ceases to be an entity when it is liberated (moksa) from the cycle of reincarnations (samsara).
5. This is an interesting dual-track: righteous action, say if the “battle is for the sake of righteousness and people’s security, though the conquest [is] of the world,” can get person to heaven(“happy the warriors [who] encounter battle, occurring by chance and opening the gate to heaven”, Gita, 2.32); whereas renunciation can result in liberation. What is the difference here between heaven and liberation (moksa)?
6. Shankara, Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya of Sri Samkaracarya, p. 44.
7. Ibid., pp. 43-4.
8. Ibid., p. 49. The translator even puts the doctrine in italics.
9. Interestingly, Shakara claims that the essence of an individual atman is delusion and thus cannot be known (or, can be known to be an illusion). The knower of self thus even has insight (for an atman cannot be perceived or even pondered, and yet “the sruti teaches that ‘by the mind alone is the Self to be perceived’” according to Sankara (p. 47) that one’s own self exists but has no essence. Though is not beingness, taken as an adjective, the essence, and if so, being cannot be a delusion, for Brahman is being and consciousness writ large (and writ small).
10. Shankara, Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhasya of Sri Samkaracarya, p. 46.
11. Ibid., p. 39.
