Madhusuudana Sarasvatii's introduction to the Giitaa (6)

[anand hudli]

 yataH samuchchayo naasti tayorativirodhataH |
 bhagavadbhaktinishhThaa tu madhyame parikiirtitaa || 6 ||

 word for word meaning:

  yataH - since
  samuchchayaH - combination
  naasti - is not there
  tayoH - of the two of them (karma and jnaana)
  ativirodhataH - due to extreme opposition
  bhagavadbhaktinishhThaa - the practice of devotion to God
  tu madhyame - in the middle
  parikiirtitaa - is explained

  Translation:

   Since there cannot be a combination of the two (karma and jnaana),
   due to their complete incompatibility with each other, practice of
   devotion to God is explained as intervening (between the two).


  Notes:

 1) Shankara is very emphatic about the point that jnaana (knowledge)
   and karma (action) cannot be combined. He says, in his Giitaa
   Bhaashhya (introduction to verse 2.11):

   tasmaad-giitaashaastre iishhanmaatreNaapi shrautena smaartena vaa
   karmaNaa .atmajnaanasya samuchchayaH na kenachiddarshayituM shakyaH |

   Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to show even the slightest
   (sanction) for the combination of action, as enjoined by the Shruti
    and SmR^iti, with knowledge.

 2) The upadeshasaahasrii of Shankara has this to say:

     vidyaivaajnaanahaanaaya na karmaapratikuulataH |

    Vidya (knowledge) alone destroys ajnaana (ignorance).
    Not karma (action), because of its non-incompatibility
   (with ignorance).

   Since jnaana destroys ajnaana and karma is not incompatible with
   ajnaana, it follows that jnaana and karma are incompatible.

 3) Regarding why action and ignorance are not incompatible, Shankara
   explains (introduction to verse 2.11 of the Giitaa):

   dve nishhThe vibhakte bhagavataa eva ukte jnaanakarmaNoH
   kartR^itva-akartR^itva-ekatva-anekatva-buddhyaashrayoH
   yugapad-ekapurushha-aashrayatva-asaMbhavaM pashyataa

  The Lord has distinguished between two disciplines - karma and jnaana-
  knowing that:
    a) karma involves the notion of agency whereas jnaana involves
      the notion of non-agency
    b) karma involves the acceptance of plurality whereas jnaana
      involves the acceptance of unity,

   and as such, these notions of karma and jnaana cannot possibly
   be present simultaneously in the same person.

 4) A crucial note is that karma and ajnaana are said to be
    _not incompatible_, as opposed to saying compatible.
    Why? The answer lies in the Giitaa. Work may be performed with
   or without attachment. When work is done with attachment, it is
   under the influence of ajnaana. When done without attachment (to the
   fruits), it purifies the mind and leads to jnaana.

   Says Shankara (in his introduction to the Giitaa):

   shuddhasattvasya cha jnaananishhThaa-yogyataapraapti-dvaareNa
   jnaanotpattihetutvena cha niHshreyasahetutvamapi pratipadyate |

   The mind purified (by the performance of action without attachment)
   becomes eligible for the practice of knowledge, thus causing the
   rise of knowledge. This knowledge leads to liberation. So action
   (performed  without attachment to its fruits) (indirectly) causes
   liberation.

   Shankara further quotes Giitaa 5.10 and 5.11

   brahmaNyaadhaaya karmaaNi saN^gaM tyaktvaa karoti yaH |
   lipyate na sa paapena padmapatramivaambhasaa   || 5.10 ||

   Dedicating all actions to Brahman, he who acts abandoning attachment,
   is untainted by sin, as a lotus leaf by water.

   kaayena manasaa buddhyaa kevalairindriyairapi |
   yoginaH karma kurvanti saN^gaM tyaktvaatmashuddhaye || 5.11 ||

   With the body, mind, intellect, and senses alone, the Yogins
   perform work abandoning attachment, for the sake of purification
   of the mind.

   Lord Krishna advises how karma is to be performed (Giitaa 2.47):

   karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana |
   maa karmaphalaheturbhuurmaa te saN^go .astvakarmaNi ||

   You have a claim to work alone; but never to the fruits of work.
   Don't be the driven by the fruits of works; nor shall you lean
   towards inaction, ie. nonperformance of work.

   Shankara, in commenting on this famous shloka, says precisely why
   attachment to the fruits (results) of work is to be avoided. When
   you are attached to the fruits, you will have to reap the fruits
   of such works. And the fruits of works are the transmigratory
   cycle (birth and death). However, you should not consider work
   to be painful, due to undesirable fruits, and lean toward inaction.

   Karma is a cause of the transmigratory cycle, and hence sorrow,
   when done with attachment to its fruits. When the  karma is
  done without attachment to the fruits, it becomes a cause for
  liberation. This is one of the central ideas of the Giitaa.

 Again, in the fifth chapter, Arjuna asks Krishna (5.2) which of the two
 -- karmasannyaasa, renunciation of works, or karmayoga -- is better.
 Krishna says that karma yoga is superior to karmasannyaasa. Shankara
 comments that karmasannyaasa is the mere renunciation of works without
 jnaana. However, renunciation with jnaana is as effective as karma
 yoga.  Further,

 sannyaasastu mahaabaaho duHkhamaaptumayogataH |
 Yogayukto munirbrahma nachireNaadhigachchhati || 5.6 ||

 Arjuna! Renunciation is hard to attain without karma yoga. The sage,
 with karma yoga, quickly attains Brahman.


 Anand
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Sun Sep  1 17:18:47 1996
Message-Id: <SUN.1.SEP.1996.171847.GMT.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 17:18:47 GMT
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: egodust <egodust at DIGITAL.NET>
Subject: Advent
Comments: To: advaita--group <Advaita-L at tamu.edu>

namaskaaram to all-in-One.

Today marks the Centennial Advent of Bhagavan Sri RM's arrival at
Mahadev's Red Hill of Transcendental Wisdom (Sri Arunachala), the
very hrdayam of our Sri Sivalingam! OM NAMO BHAGAVATE SRI RAMANAYA!