The Upanishads say that the path of Jnana is like walking along a razor’s edge. This is perhaps most true in acquiring a proper understanding of the Bhagavad Gita, which teaches both the path of Knowledge and the path of Action, and also has chapters referring to Bhakti Yoga, Dhyana Yoga, etc. It can indeed be a razor’s edge to know which is being referred to at different points of this text. Hence it is critical to be guided by Sankara’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, and to assimilate it as a whole. In this article, I restrict myself predominantly to quotes from BG and Sankara’s bhasya thereon, in order to maintain Sankara’s consistency in exegesis, and also as BG is said to be the epitome of the Upanishads.
Chapter two of BG is said to articulate all that needs to be known, and the rest of the book is just an elaboration thereof, because Arjuna did not quite understand Krishna’s teaching. In this chapter, Krishna articulates directly ajata vada, in verses 19 to 21. Let’s consider verse 21 as it is exemplary of this, and Sankara’s bhasya is extensive, covering many salient points:
2.21: “O Partha, he who knows this One as indestructible, eternal, birthless and undecaying, how and whom does that person kill, or whom does he cause to be killed”
The problem of agency
This verse says that the Self is untouched by the actions of the body – it is not killed, nor does it kill; the Self is not the doer. This is an undeniable fact of ajata vada: that Brahman is untouched by Maya. It can be misconstrued to imply that the body-mind can do any action – however immoral or egoic desire oriented – and that a Knower of the Self can rest happy in the Knowledge that one is not the doer. Indeed the sruti says that the jnani is beyond all constraints in behaviour – though Sankara points out elsewhere that this is said eulogistically.
The problem with this premature conclusion is that it is the mind that is the source of ignorance; it is the mind that needs to acquire Knowledge; and such a mind that has dispelled ignorance is said to ‘become’ Brahman – ie have the qualities of Brahman in terms of nonduality, fearlessness and desirelessness. Sankara sets this out in his bhasya to 2.21:
“the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is the result of ignorance. Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that such agentship etc. are caused by ignorance is a common factor in all actions without exception . . .
the Sruti says, ‘It is to be realized through the mind alone, (following the instruction of the teacher)’ (Br. 4.4.19). The mind that is purified by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the instrument for realizing the Self”
A person that continues to act in whatever way, is moved by his mind (and its desires) to do so; for that person to argue ‘whatever act I do, I know I am not the doer’, is actually just another thought of the mind. It is not a mind that is desireless (has viveka / vairagya), has become Brahman and is therefore actionless. As there is no fear or desire in Brahman, logically a mind that has become Brahman can have no cause for action. Sankara makes the logic of this clear in his bhasya on Taittiriya Upanishad:
Introduction: “Desire must be the source of karma, since it stimulates action; for no impulsion to activity is possible in the case of those whose desires have been fulfilled, they being then established in their own Self as a result of the absence of desire”
1.11.4: “since desire cannot rise with regard to oneself, owing to non-difference, there ensues liberation consisting in existence in one’s own Self. From this also follows, that Knowledge and karma are contradictory”
Only the ‘pure’ mind can acquire knowledge
The method provided by sruti for acquiring this knowledge is initially purification of the mind (through karma yoga and sadhana chatushthya), then sravana / manana of the scriptures and finally nidhidhyasana (through neti, neti and renunciation of actions).
The importance of this ‘purification’ of the mind is addressed in the following verse in the second chapter:
2.45: O Arjuna, the Vedas have the three qualities [gunas] as their object. You become free from worldliness, free from the pairs of duality, ever-poised in the quality of sattva, without (desire for) acquisition and protection, and self-collected.
Krishna elaborates on this more extensively in chapter 14:
14.23: He who, sitting like one indifferent, is not distracted by the three qualities; he who, thinking that the qualities alone act, remains firm and surely does not move;
14.24: He to whom sorrow and happiness are alike, who is established in his own Self, to whom a lump of earth, iron and gold are the same, to whom the agreeable and the disagreeable are the same, who is wise, to whom censure and his own praise are the same;
14.25: He who is the same under honour and dishonour, who is equally disposed both towards the side of the friend and of the foe, who has renounced all enterprise – he is said to have gone beyond the qualities.
14.26 And he who serves Me through the unswerving Yoga of Devotion, he, having gone beyond these qualities, qualifies for becoming Brahman.
Krishna is saying that one who is not moved by the drives of the three gunas, is fit to become Brahman. Sankara’s bhasya on 14.25 captures this:
“’who has renounced all enterprise’ i.e. who is apt to give up all undertakings, who has given up all actions other than those needed merely for the maintenance of the body; he is said to have gone beyond the qualities. The disciplines leading to the state of transcendence of the qualities [gunas], which have been stated (in the verses) beginning from ‘he who, sitting like one indifferent,’ and ending with ‘he is said to have gone beyond the qualities’ have to be practised by a monk, a seeker of Liberation, so long as they are to be achieved through effort”
Logically, a mind that has become pure – desireless and fearless, with no sense of ‘me and mine’ – and subsequently attains jnana: for what possible reason would it then revert to become ego-centric and desire-filled? So the statement that a jnani can act in whatsoever way he chooses, is indeed purely eulogistic.
In this context, it is important to recognise that Sankara teaches, as in his bhasya to 2.55, that the sadhanas to acquire jnana, also describe the characteristics of the jnani:
“For in all the scriptures without exception dealing with spirituality, whatever are the characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result of effort. And those that are the disciplines requiring effort, they become the characteristics (of the man of realization)”
[Swami Ghambirananda’s note: There are two kinds of sannyasa — vidvat (renunciation that naturally follows Realization), and vividisa (formal renunciation for undertaking the disciplines which lead to that Realization). According to Ananda Giri, the characteristics presented in this and the following verses describe not only the vidvat-sannyasin, but are also meant as disciplines for the vividisa-sannyasin]
The question of renunciation of actions
Krishna, in verse 3.4, seems to flatly contradict any requirement for renunciation:
3.4: “A person does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from action; nor does he attain fulfilment merely through renunciation”
It is important to remember Krishna is speaking to Arjuna who wants to escape from battle and become a sannyasin; but Krishna recognises that this Arjuna is not ready for Knowledge, and must still purify his mind through karma yoga. Sankara’s bhasya makes this clear:
“Karma-yoga is the means to the Yoga of Knowledge characterized by freedom from action . . . Therefore the Lord said: nor does he attain fulfilment / steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge, characterized by freedom from action, merely through the renunciation of actions which is devoid of Knowledge”
Further, Sankara in his bhasya to 4.20, clarifies the idea of ‘seeing action in inaction, and inaction in action’, writing:
“Finding inaction etc. in action etc. is jnana, wisdom . . . He again who, having been engaged in actions under the influence of past tendencies, later on becomes endowed with the fullest Self-knowledge, he surely renounces (all) actions along with their accessories as he does not find any purpose in activity. For some reason, if it becomes impossible to renounce actions and he, for the sake of preventing people from going astray, even remains engaged as before in actions- without attachment to those actions and their results because of the absence of any selfish purpose – still he surely does nothing at all! His actions verily become ‘inaction’ because of having been burnt away by the fire of wisdom”
Sankara has a remarkable ability to anticipate questions. So returning to his bhasya on the critical ajata vada verse 2.21 we commenced with, he directly and unambiguously addresses the question of mental vs physical renunciation of actions:
“the Lord will also speak of renunciation of all actions in, ‘having given up all actions mentally,’ etc. (5.13)
Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, ‘mentally’, (it follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced?
Vedantin: No, because of the categoric expression, ‘all actions’.
Objection: May it not be argued that ‘all actions’ relates only to those of the mind?
Vedantin: No, because all oral and bodily actions are preceded by those of the mind, for those actions are impossible in the absence of mental activity.”
Conclusion
One’s understanding of the ajata vada and non-doership espoused by Krishna in 2.21, takes a far more nuanced turn when it is considered in the context of Sankara’s bhasya thereon and the whole of the Bhagavad Gita.
The ultimate truth is that there is only the Self, and the individual ego-mind, the doer/enjoyer is an erroneous super-imposition. When realisation / jnana is attained, there is no more ego, that can have a desire, which can motivate an action; hence the jnani is said to be actionless.
Dennis has mischievously caused confusion by promulgating a concept “Yoga Advaita”, which he also conflates with Vivekananda’s views. There is no such path. All agree that Knowledge is the key to moksha; but also all agree that purification of the mind, primarily through viveka, vairagya, single-pointedness, introversion and renunciation (undoubtedly primarily mental, but likely manifested to some extent physically as well) are pre-requisites for assimilating this Knowledge.
Vivekananda when he propounded the four yogas – jnana yoga, karma yoga, raja yoga (concentration / introvertedness of the mind) and bhakti yoga (devotion to the Self) – was simply teaching the sadhanas that Sankara would have endorsed, in an accessible way to a diverse audience. Vivekananda understood that most people, like Arjuna, were not ready for the path of jnana yoga.
Dennis, following Swami Paramarthananda, has also espoused the idea that there can be a gap between jnana and jivanmukta – because the sadhanas have not been completed. Nowhere in Sankara or Sureswara is such a distinction found. However, as SSSS points out in his commentary to Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.5.1, once sravana/manana has been completed, the seeker needs to have the strength to live by this jnana, to reject all that is not-self, in order to attain mouna – to be a ‘genuine, consummate jnani par excellence’.
Arguably this is just linguistic disagreement – if Dennis / Paramarthananda want to separate out a jnani from a jivanmukta, it does not really matter, as our aim is jivanmukta.
I would recommend logical, rational and comprehensive reasoning in understanding the advaita of Sankara and Gaudapada. Its system of sadhanas to purify the mind, conveyance of the Knowledge of ‘tat twam asi’, and living on the strength of that, is a comprehensive and logical assertion of ajata vada for the jiva to indeed realise its identity with (‘become’) Brahman.
I will end, as ever, with Sankara’s unambiguous and cogent bhasya on Brhad Up 4.5.15:
“Therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of ‘Not this, not this’ and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality . . . The discussion of the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in renunciation, is finished. This much is the instruction, this is the teaching of the Vedas, this is the ultimate goal, this is the end of what a man should do to achieve his highest good.”
“The ultimate truth is that there is only the Self, and the individual ego-mind, the doer/enjoyer is an erroneous super-imposition. When realisation / jnana is attained, there is no more ego, that can have a desire, which can motivate an action; hence the jnani is said to be actionless.”
So, the Jnani just sits in one place 🙂
“This verse says that the Self is untouched by the actions of the body – it is not killed, nor does it kill; the Self is not the doer. This is an undeniable fact of ajata vada: that Brahman is untouched by Maya. It can be misconstrued to imply that the body-mind can do any action – however immoral or egoic desire oriented – and that a Knower of the Self can rest happy in the Knowledge that one is not the doer. Indeed the sruti says that the jnani is beyond all constraints in behaviour – though Sankara points out elsewhere that this is said eulogistically.”
Who decides what is immoral behaviour? How? Who is the judge?
What is the end that I being sought? Behaviour? What is the main purport of the Srutis, their final purport, to talk about how to be a particular kind of individual?
The problem with this premature conclusion is that it is the mind that is the source of ignorance; it is the mind that needs to acquire Knowledge; and such a mind that has dispelled ignorance is said to ‘become’ Brahman – ie have the qualities of Brahman in terms of nonduality, fearlessness and desirelessness. Sankara sets this out in his bhasya to 2.21:
“the idea of the Self being an agent, the object of an action, or an indirect agent, is the result of ignorance. Also, the Self being changeless, the fact that such agentship etc. are caused by ignorance is a common factor in all actions without exception . . .”
The mind is always Brahman because there is nothing but Brahman. Shankara’s quote above, does not contradict my statement.
Also, what I Shankara saying, Self is not the doer. Of course Self is not the doer. Who is the doer? Mind/Ignorance
But the mind is also Self because there is nothing apart from Self. Maya is Self. The snake on the rope is the rope. So from a Paramarthika point, Self is not a doer, from a Vyavahrika viewpoint, Self “appears to be a doer” The samsaris knows himself only as doer. The Jnani knows himself as Witness of the doer.
“A person that continues to act in whatever way, is moved by his mind (and its desires) to do so; for that person to argue ‘whatever act I do, I know I am not the doer’, is actually just another thought of the mind. It is not a mind that is desireless (has viveka / vairagya), has become Brahman and is therefore actionless. As there is no fear or desire in Brahman, logically a mind that has become Brahman can have no cause for action. Sankara makes the logic of this clear in his bhasya on Taittiriya Upanishad:
Introduction: “Desire must be the source of karma, since it stimulates action; for no impulsion to activity is possible in the case of those whose desires have been fulfilled, they being then established in their own Self as a result of the absence of desire”
1.11.4: “since desire cannot rise with regard to oneself, owing to non-difference, there ensues liberation consisting in existence in one’s own Self. From this also follows, that Knowledge and karma are contradictory”
The mind was Brahman before it knew Brahman and the mind is Brahman after it knows itself as Brahman because there is nothing else apart from Brahman anytime. Whole of Maya is only Brahman. The snake on the rope is rope only. Mind can never become actionless. A Jnani has a mind because he thinks, talks, speaks and debates. Shankara was the most deeply involved in action establishing Mathas, debating opponents, writing books and teaching students. Who was doing all this? Self? ……or mind?
If all Jnanis would lose their minds, who would teach ?!
Please read your own quotes carefully by Shankara. What are they talking of as the end? Establishment in Self. Knowledge and Karma are contradictory. Yes, they definitely are. What is actionless? Self. What is Shankara talking about? Establishment in Self.
“Logically, a mind that has become pure – desireless and fearless, with no sense of ‘me and mine’ – and subsequently attains jnana: for what possible reason would it then revert to become ego-centric and desire-filled? So the statement that a jnani can act in whatsoever way he chooses, is indeed purely eulogistic.”
So Shankara was desireless??!! Who decides? How? (He debated, established Mathas, taught students) And all these he did without the sense of me and mine??!! Without me and mine, there is no teacher and no taught, and no question of debates because there is nothing to distinguish, no other, no plurality.
How were his activities different from other Swamis you have mentioned in the article?
I left my last lines incomplete
“How were Shankara’a activities different from other Swamis you mention in this article that qualify him to be a Jnani and others not?”
“Finding inaction etc. in action etc. is jnana, wisdom . . . He again who, having been engaged in actions under the influence of past tendencies, later on becomes endowed with the fullest Self-knowledge, he surely renounces (all) actions along with their accessories as he does not find any purpose in activity. For some reason, if it becomes impossible to renounce actions and he, for the sake of preventing people from going astray, even remains engaged as before in actions- without attachment to those actions and their results because of the absence of any selfish purpose – still he surely does nothing at all! His actions verily become ‘inaction’ because of having been burnt away by the fire of wisdom”
All Jnanis, whether they are acting or not acting are “not doers” because their actions are burnt in the fire of Self Knowledge.
Absolutely true and absolutely correct !! This is the Crux of the Matter.
“the Lord will also speak of renunciation of all actions in, ‘having given up all actions mentally,’ etc. (5.13)
Objection: May it not be argued that from the expression, ‘mentally’, (it follows that) oral and bodily actions are not to be renounced?
Vedantin: No, because of the categoric expression, ‘all actions’. ‘”
Please read this quote carefully. It means, all oral and body actions are to be renounced mentally. Which means one is the Witness to all actions of body/mind/intellect.
Hi Venkat,
There is most definitely a difference in the teachings of ‘Yogic Advaitins’ like Vidyaranya and Vivekananda. It is called prasa~NkhyAna vAda. As I explain this in the book:
“The idea is that knowledge of the Self cannot arise by just the threefold practice of shravaNa, manana, nididhyAsana. After that, there is still the need for “repeated affirmation” (abhyAsa – constant repetition, practice) in order to gain “concrete experience”. After simply hearing the truth, the “metaphysical ignorance” may be removed but it is in its nature to keep recurring, as a result of the “impressions accumulated during many previous lives”.
“The scriptural citation supposedly supporting this claim is Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.21. Swami Madhavananda’s translation is: “The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, knowing about this alone [i.e. after hearing about it from the teacher}, should attain intuitive knowledge.” (Ref. 8) He comments: “i.e. practice the means of this knowledge, viz. renunciation, calmness, self-control, withdrawal of the senses, fortitude and concentration.” Swami Krishnananda is even clearer with his implications: “Having understood the character of this Reality through the analytical reason, one should try to fix one’s mind in this understanding. Practice should follow correct understanding.” (Ref. 101)”
And I go on to point out: “But Shankara himself makes it clear in the previous mantra that, having gained the knowledge, we do not need to do anything else.”
Shankara also specifically refutes prasa~NkhyAna vAda in his bhAShya-s on Mandukya 7 and on Bhagavad Gita 18.66.
I am not reproducing all the discussion here (I will end up posting the entire book if we go on like this)! 🙂
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dennis, this potentially requires a longer response. But first can I clarify your intent.
You set out Sankara’s bhasya in Brhad Up 4.4.21 of “practice the means of this knowledge, viz. renunciation, calmness, self-control, withdrawal of the senses, fortitude and concentration”. You then imply that this is refuted by Sankara in the previous mantra.
(1) But the practices set out are just the sadhana chatushtya which I don’t think you disagree as pre-requisites (at least to some extent) for acquiring knowledge? Indeed, you say that these sadhanas may have to be continued in order for a jnani to overcome obstacles and become a jivanmukta.
Further in your comment to my article on Gaudapada’s manonigraha, you wrote:
“it would seem that Gaudapada is effectively saying that seekers require mental disciplining both to be able to assimilate the teaching (and gain Self-knowledge) and to get rid of misery”.
And as I pointed out in that article, Paramarthananda comments:
“Knowledge should not remain mere information but should result in transformation. This is transformation of our mental state . . . Only when the mind is disciplined (śama) the following practical benefits of jīvanmukti will be obtained: abhayam, being fearless and less anxious regarding future, duḥkha kṣaya, end of complaints, varieties of grief and despondency, akṣaya śānti, lasting peace of mind, and prabodha, UNOBSTRUCTED KNOWLEDGE.”
So, whilst Sankara has clearly said that for the advanced / mature seeker, just a single sravana is sufficient; for the rest of us surely repeated practice to obtain unobstructed knowledge is indeed required – per your own words and those of Paramarthananda? (Leave aside quibbling about whether this is to become a jnani or a jivanmukta)
(2) I would also point you to my post setting out SSSS’ commentary on Brhad 3.5.1, where Sankara talks about panditya (complete scholarly knowledge of Atma-jnana), balya (having the strength to abide in that knowledge, rejecting all that is anatma) and thereby becoming established in Mouna, truly becoming a Brahma Nishtha.
(3) You also need to consider that Sankara throughout the Bhagavad Gita, and even Gaudapada in MK, talks about sages being free from blemishes (attachment, fear, spite, anger) – e.g. MK2.35 and MK4.86. And Sankara makes clear in BG 2.55 (from the article above):
“whatever are the characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant”
To arbitrarily obviate all such commentary by Sankara, and indeed his espousal of renunciation of all actions, seems to me cherry-picking, and not taking his teaching as a whole. Again, to reiterate, I am not disputing that only Knowledge can remove ignorance; however the understanding / assimilation of this Knowledge, clearly needs a previously prepared, ‘purified’ or introspective, disciplined mind; and a high degree of desirelessness / renunciation.
Dennis, let me also add Sankara’s bhasya to Brhad Up 4.4.23, two verses following your 4.4.21:
“Since this glory of the knower of Brahman is thus unconnected with work, and is described as ‘Not this, not this,’ therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, desisting from the activities of the external organs ; also calm, averse to the desires of the internal organ or mind ; withdrawn into himself, free from all desires, a monk ; enduring, indifferent to the pairs of opposites (pleasure and pain, etc.); concen- trated, attaining one-pointedness by the dissociation from the movements of the organs and mind. This has been stated before in the words, ‘Having known all about the strength that comes of knowledge, as well as scholarship,’ etc. (III. v. I) . . . SUCH A MAN BECOMES IN THIS STATE A BRAHMANA (LIT. A KNOWER OF BRAHMAN) IN THE PRIMARY SENSE OF THE WORD. BEFORE LIVING IN THIS STATE OF IDENTITY WITH BRAHMAN, HIS BRAHMANAHOOD WAS BUT FIGURATIVE.”
Dear Venkat,
Honestly, I had not read Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita Bhashya’s till today. After going through your comments, I went through his B.G Bhashya and read some of his commentaries of verses, sporadically.
To be fair to you, yes Shankaracharya, does lean to no-action in many or all his comments as the final state of a Jnani. One can see in him a very strong leaning towards monasticism and to also saying that only monks can get enlightenment. Since I read rapidly and sporadically, I cannot substantiate this with quotes. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you or Dennis can do it or I shall do it later.
But Bhagavad Gita does lean a lot towards action and wherever there are verses which clearly talk of action in the state of liberation, Shankara seems to give in very grudgingly.
Overall, I am not happy with Shankar’s monastic leanings and monastic conditions to Enlightenment, which contradicts Gita at many places. All this quotes business takes a lot of time and energy. So just giving subjective impressions.
But I am providing a quote of one of the several instances where Shankara seems to be forced to admit that actions are not in contradiction to Self Knowledge
4.14 Actions do not taint Me; for Me there is no hankering for the results of actions. One who knows Me thus, does not become bound by actions.
English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya’s Sanskrit Commentary – Swami Gambhirananda
4.14 Because of the absence of egoism, those karmani, actions; na limpanti, do not taint; mam, Me, by becoming the originators of body etc. And me, for Me; na sprha, there is no hankering for the results of those actions. But in the case of transmigrating beings, who have self-identification in the form, ‘I am the agent’, and thirst for actions as also for their results, it is reasonable that actions should taint them. Owing to the absence of these, actions do not taint Me. Anyone else, too, yah, who; abhijanati, knows; mam, Me; iti, thus, as his own Self, and (knows), ‘I am not an agent; I have no hankering for the results of actions’; sah, he; na badhyate, does not become bound; karmabhih, by actions. In his case also actions cease to be the originators of body etc. This is the import.
Anurag – note that its says “Because of the absence of egoism” and “no hankering for the results of actions”. Any action done without desire, without ego does not taint. Hence why Sankara said a jnani would either renounce all activity, or if prarabdha put him in a position where action was necessary, it would be for the good of others.
Venkat, you write: “Krishna, in verse 3.4, seems to flatly contradict any requirement for renunciation… It is important to remember Krishna is speaking to Arjuna who wants to escape from battle and become a sannyasin; but Krishna recognises that this Arjuna is not ready for Knowledge, and must still purify his mind through karma yoga.”
That can’t be. In 18:73, Arjuna says: “Destroyed is delusion, and I have gained recognition through thy Grace, O Achyuta. I am firm, with doubts gone. I will do Thy word.”
Sankara’s bhashya on this sloka says: “Recognition: of the true nature of the Self. When this recognition is obtained, then will all the ties of the heart be loosened.—This questioning and answering about the destruction of delusion shows conclusively what the purpose of a knowledge of the teaching of the whole sastra is, namely, the destruction of delusion and the attainment of a recognition of the Self….Arjuna means to say “Through Thy Grace I have achieved the end of life ; I have naught to do'”
Interesting observation. He says he has ‘naught to do’ (no action to perform!), having been rid of delusion; and therefore awaits Krishna’s instruction. We know he went on to fight, and in 2.33 Krishna says this is a righteous battle. Therefore, I suggest Sankara would say prarabdha has put him in a position, where he needs to act for what is good and righteous?
I think so. One could say prarabhda or one could say Ishwara’s will. Whatever you want to call it. Precisely the same thing happens to Rama at the end of the Yoga Vasistha.
Rama gains mukti and falls into a sitting nirvikalpa samadhi… but Vasistha enters his sushumna nadi and wakes him up, saying “O Rama, this is not the time to rest! Get up and bring joy to the world. When people are still in bondage, it is not proper for the yogi to merge in the self.”
Rama then wakes up and says: “There is nothing I should do or should not do. However, your words should be honored.”
A straight-up contradiction! But there we are… neither being engrossed in samadhi nor waking up and helping the world are actions in the light of jnana, is the real point.
“A straight-up contradiction! But there we are… neither being engrossed in samadhi nor waking up and helping the world are actions in the light of jnana, is the real point.”
I agree Akhilesh.
Dear Venkat,
Yes, I get that he says, “because of the absence of egoism” . So now the question is how do we define absence of egoism? I would say it is when identification shifts from being a thinker/doer/enjoyed to bring Self/Awareness/Witness. Having a firm, direct intuitive experience of Self. (after completing sadhana chathisthaya etc.)
How would you define it? Is there any other way, which can do justice to this quote from Gita.
When I know myself as Self, as a non-doer, there is no action performed and no questions of expectations of results as Self. All actions and results are gunas.
Please understand I am not making these statements just to debate and argue.
My understanding, in this quote perfectly matches with that of Gita.
But I concede that Gita is full of contradictions and paradoxes.
The contradictions in Gita are not wherever there is talk of Self and Gunas. It remains very consistent in all this. The contradictions are there wherever there are subjective description of Jnanis’ behaviour. To me these are very superfluous considering these are all in the realm of Maya, in which nothing is beyond the pale of the three gunas…….which are constantly recycling.
Hi Anurag,
I’d say the Gita does seem to have contradictions; but not Sankara, though one needs to understand his whole structure.
Jnana is a matter of ‘personal’ liberation. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know when our actions are motivated out of ego, out of desire or anger. There is no need for an objective definition is there? Having said that, I liked what Ramanamaharishi said (can’t recollect where):
“Those alone are good actions which are done lovingly and with a peaceful and pure mind. All those actions which are done with an agitated, desirous and impure mind are to be classed only as evil actions.”
Dear Venkat,
I cannot comment on Shankara because I am not a scholar on him. But definitely I was disparaged by whatever I read about his monastic inclinations. I like his philosophy though and continue to read this part. I will cherry pick 🙂 I don’t see eye to eye with him on physical traits of Jnanis. Especially, when he is accepting that actions do take place after Jnana
Regarding liberation, I shall make a correction in your statement. It is not personal liberation. It is a personal seeking that ends with seeing that the person is not who you are. Rather you are Awareness/Self/Witness, which remains unchanged in all three states/avasthas. I have described below, how this happens.
About knowing whether our acts are egoistic or not, where is the need for any dualistic concept of knowing and honesty etc. when one is not the thinker/doer/experiencer..The doer does whatever it does. You are not the doer. Why are you not the doer? Because it does not exist in the sleep state amd it changes it’s nature in dream and waking states. A changing entity is not you. You are that to which all changing entities appear.
Now all this is inferential reasoning I am providing. But the direct knolwedge of Self is not inferential,. It happens through an akhandakara vritti. It’s an unmistakable shift from being the Jiva as a seer one moment to being Self/Witness/Awareness as seer next moment, with the Jiva becoming an object to it. And one cannot generate this vritti at will. It just comes about when the mind has become ready, after years of Sadhana Chatusthaya, shravana and Manana.
It’s a definite Non-dual experiential shift which without any doubt cuts asunder all identification with the Jiva or thinker/doer/experiencer. When you talk about knowing whether one’s act is egoistic or not, one’s identity there is still that of the thinker/knower, not that of Self/Witness which is motionless and choiceless.non-doer across all three states/avasthas. The thinker/knower/doer drops in the sleep state, so it cannot be you as Self/Witness.
Hi Anurag
I know the term akhandakara vritti is common in advaita circles, but I have never seen it referenced by Sankara or Suresvara. Could you point me in the right direction?
Thanks.
Dear Venkat,
The exact term akhandakara vritti is not used but the concept as I have described exactly is found in Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankara. I am quoting from SSS and Swami Gambhirananda.
Verse (B.S.Bh 1.iii.19)
1.)Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi
When the true nature of the soul is not yet discriminated from the body and other apparent conditioning adjuncts, the cognition arising from the Veda that effects this discrimination constitutes ‘transcending the body’. And the ‘attainment of the soul’s true nature’ is nothing other than the direct intuition of the true nature of the Self resulting from the discriminating cognition’.
2. ) Swami Gambhirananda
The individuality of the individual persists as long as, like the elimination of the false idea of a man superimposed on a stump of a tree, he does not eradicate ignorance expressing itself as the world of duality and does not know that Self as “I am Brahman” – the Self that has no change and is eternal and a witness by nature. But when the individual is roused from the assemblage of body, senses, mind, and intellect by the Upanishad which makes him understand, “You are not the assemblage of body, senses, and intellect, nor are you a transmigratory being. What are you then? That which is truth – the Self of the nature of our Consciousness – that thou art”, then he realizes the Self that has no change and I eternal and a witness by nature, and then that very individual rises above it’s identity with the body and the rest to become the Self Itself- unchanging, eternal, and a Witness by nature. This is declared in such Upanishadic texts as, “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed” (Mu. III.ii.9). And that is the soul’s supremely real nature by virtue of which it attains it’s essential nature after rising above the body.
Thanks Venkat for making me do this homework. I did not know that all this existed. As you may see it matches exactly with what I wrote (without having any prior knolwedge of these comments)
Warm wishes,
Anurag
Hi Venkat,
My intent was simply to point out that ‘Yogic Advaita’ has the teaching that one gains Self-knowledge and then one has to ‘do’ something else before gaining mokSha. This might be prolonged nididhyAsana or it might be nirvikalpa samAdhi. Traditional Advaita as taught by Shankara however is quite specific – you ONLY need to gain Self-knowledge in order to recognize that you are already free.
The idea that you have to do something after knowledge is called prasa~NkhyAna vAda and, if you do not agree that Shankara specifically rejects this in Brihad. bhAShya, then look at Chapter 18 of upadesha sAhasrI – that is totally unambiguous.
But if you prefer to recognize only the authority of Brihad. Up., look at the bhAShya on 1.4.7:
“Others say that meditation generates a new special kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through which the latter is known, and which alone removes ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Vedic dicta about the Self. And in support of this view they cite such texts as the following: ‘(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge’ [4.4.21]; ‘)The Self is to be realized –to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon’[2.4.5, 4.5.6]; ‘That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realize’ [Chandogya Up.8.7.1-3].
“Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question. To be explicit: The sentence ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly… Apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as ‘Not this, not this’, there is no scope for human activity… because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity.” Once you have gained the knowledge that there is no other entity but the Self, “no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.”
I agree entirely that actions in the form of sAdhana chatuShTaya sampatti are necessary to ‘purify the mind’ for fruitful shravaNa but no action is required for mokSha post-enlightenment. (It is understood here that nididhyAsana may be needed in order to gain jIvanmukti.)
Best wishes,
Dennis
Thanks Dennis for clarifying that. I wouldn’t argue with either. And I don’t think I implied action after Self-Knowledge in this article.
Interesting to note that:
– BU 4.4.20 talks of Knowledge simply being the cessation of identification with external things (such as the body)
– BU 1.4.7 talks of “train of remembrance of the Knowledge of Self through renunciation and dispassion”
-BU 3.5.1 talks of balya – living on the strength of panditya, by eliminating ideas of non-Self
– BU 4.4.21 talks of gaining “intuitive knowledge through practising means of knowledge (like renunciation, etc)
– BU 4.4.22 says ” As the study of the Vedas have been enjoined as means to the realisation of the Self are to be taken literally, and not as eulogies, so also the renunciation of home cannot be a eulogy . . .After this Self is known as one’s own Self, work can no more be done”
– US 18.21 says “this superimposition, though not a fact appears to be a fact, an the text neti, neti, serves to prohibit its practice further”
– 18.230: For a man does not engage in action for the sake of obtaining that to which he has become indifferent. Having become indifferent to the three worlds, for the sake of what could the one desirous of liberation strive?
Putting all this together then says that Vedanta points to the negation of identification with all that is not-Self. For that Self-knowledge to become steady and established, one must “maintain a train of remembrance of this” – or expressed differently, live on the strength of this Knowledge – ie to continuously be aware of and negate any ideas that arise of non-Self. As this becomes established, there is nothing in the world, including one’s own body, to identify with or be attached to – hence renunciation of all actions.
Dear Dennis,
You quoted,
“Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question. To be explicit: The sentence ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly… Apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as ‘Not this, not this’, there is no scope for human activity… because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity.” Once you have gained the knowledge that there is no other entity but the Self, “no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.”
Please make it clear as to whom these attributes from your quote, which I have delineated below, are being made to – Self or body/mind/intellect of Jnani
1.) “there is no scope for human activity… because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity.”
2.) “Once you have gained the knowledge that there is no other entity but the Self, “no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.”
I am asking for this clarification from you because Venkat seems to say these attributes of actionlesness applies to the Self AS WELL AS body/mind/intellect apparatus of the Jnani.
Hi Anurag,
This question just refers back to all that I have been saying about ‘Who am I?’ etc. The Self (Atman) does not act because it is nirvikAra. The body-mind cannot act because it is jaDa. The only ‘element’ that has scope for doing/thinking/enjoying is the chidAbhAsa-ego which, for the sake of providing a sort-of-explanation, we say is Consciousness ‘reflected’ in the mind. Or a ‘mixture’ of Atman and body-mind.
We must never lose sight of the fact that ‘outwardly’, i.e. empirically, nothing changes. Apparent actions continue, whether ‘performed’ by an aj~nAnI or a j~nAnI. It is just that the latter has the knowledge that no one is really ‘doing’ anything at all: –
naiva ki~nchit karomIti yukto manyeta tattvavit
Absorbed in the Self, the knower of truth thinks: ‘I do nothing at all’ (BG 5.8)
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dennis,
The bhasya to BG5.8 reads:
“For the man who has known the Truth thus, who finds nothing but inaction in action- in all the movements of the body and organs, and who has full realization, there is competence only for giving up all actions because of his realization of the nonexistence of actions. Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage thinking that water is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking water even after knowing that no water exists there!”
Dear Venkat,
Indeed ! The Bhashya very beautifully agrees with the B.G 5.8 by Dennis.
“who finds nothing but inaction in action- in all the movements of the body and organs”
P.S – inaction in action
”Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage thinking that water is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking water even after knowing that no water exists there!”
P.S – “One who proceeds” and “sure does not go there itself for drinking water”
Which means actions are performed, not for any personal satisfaction because
the Jnani knows that he does not find any completeness through them.
“After knowing that no water exists there”
Warm wishes,
Anurag
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree to it 🙂
Warm wishes,
Anurag
Dear Dennis,
I use the word intellect (seat of the ego) as the thinker/doer/experiencer. Or the word Vigyanmaya Kosha. Why would you like to introduce the word “chidabhasa” ?
Any special reasons?
Warm wishes,
Anurag
Intellect or vij~nAnamAya-koSha-s is still an inert aspect of mind. It has to be ‘animated’ by Consciousness before it can ‘do’ anything. chidAbhAsa is the name of this Consciousness-intellect ‘mixture’. It makes it seem as though the intellect itself is conscious but it is an AbhASa, a ‘phantom’.
Dear Dennis,
Thanks. If it’s not too much of a bother for you, Can you please direct me to where Shankara uses the word.
He talks about the entire concept throughout the upadesha sAhasrI, sometimes using the word pratibimba and sometimes AbhAsa. In 18.63, for example, he uses the former and in 64, the latter.
I have just posted part 6 1/2 (!) of the pratibandha series on ‘AbhAsa vAda’.
Hi Anurag
Thanks for your answer on akhandakara vritti.
I’ve just found a relevant Q&A here on this:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/akhandakara-vrritti-some-questions/
I tend to agree with Dennis’ response and Brhad Up extract.
best wishes,
venkat
Dear Venkat,
Thank you for pointing it out. I was already aware of this discussion thread. I am quoting the Brihadranyaka Upanishad extract by Dennis on that topic again here.
“The knowledge of Brahman means only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things (such as the body). The relation of identity with It has not to be directly established, for it is already there. Everybody already has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something else. Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that the false identification with things other than That should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that identity with one’s own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the statement that the Self is known. In itself It is unknowable–not comprehended through any means.”
[The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad with the commentary of Shankaracharya, Translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama, 4th Edition, 1965. ISBN 81-7505-102-7.]
Isn’t it absolutely the same as what I quoted from Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankara. Please see carefully what the above quote says,
“that identity with one’s own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the statement that the Self is known”
To reiterate…..”identity with one’s own Self is isolated” and this is what it means to say that “the Self is known”
In the Akhandakara Vritti, both the things happen simultaneously, as I already described in it – the Self is known and the thinker/doer/enjoyer is known as not-Self. I am quoting the relevant part of my previous comment (translation by Swami Gambhirananda, Brahmasutra Bhashya by Shankara)
“But when the individual is roused from the assemblage of body, senses, mind, and intellect by the Upanishad which makes him understand, “You are not the assemblage of body, senses, and intellect, nor are you a transmigratory being. What are you then? That which is truth – the Self of the nature of our Consciousness – that thou art”, then he realizes the Self that has no change and I eternal and a witness by nature, and then that very individual rises above it’s identity with the body and the rest to become the Self Itself- unchanging, eternal, and a Witness by nature.”
Further……..
I am quoting Dennis’ response here too. He does not deny akhandakara vritti completely anywhere; and shows more support than doubt, ironically 🙂
He said,
“As I said at the outset, I am somewhat skeptical about the whole idea, favoring a more gradual coming to a realization of the truth as the accumulation of intellectual understanding and insight overwhelms the habitual thought processes.”
What does Dennis mean by “accumulation of intellectual understanding and insight overwhelms the habitual thought processes”?!
I have clearly mentioned that the vritti happens in a mind prepared after years of Sadhana Cahtusthaya, Shravana and Manana.
These practices “overwhelm the habitual thought processes”
And further as Dennis says,
“One could always argue that a final vRRitti must ‘tip the balance’ but I doubt that it is noticed most of the time.”
Yes, the akhandakara vritti exactly tips the balance. I would say, it barely gets noticed because it happens in a flash. But the effect is total and complete. Again Dennis says that he ‘doubt’s’ that it gets noticed instead of saying, it ‘does not’ get noticed.
And then Dennis says,
“Certainly blinding flashes and the like are usually NOT Self-knowledge in my view.”
Again Dennis continues to remain doubtful as expressed by the word “usually” and not by the conclusive use of the word “never”.
Lastly, most certainly Akhandakara Vritti is not a “blinding flash” but an “enlightening flash” Quoting Shankara again through SSS
“When the true nature of the soul is not yet discriminated from the body and other apparent conditioning adjuncts, the cognition arising from the Veda that effects this discrimination constitutes ‘transcending the body’. And the ‘attainment of the soul’s true nature’ is nothing other than the direct intuition of the true nature of the Self resulting from the discriminating cognition’.
Warm wishes,
Anurag