Technical Appendices
1 Translation of Åaį¹ karaās Introduction to the GÄ«tÄ
NÄrÄyaį¹a is beyond the Unmanifest; From the Unmanifest the cosmic Egg comes to be. And within the Egg are the cosmic regions, And the earth of seven continents. Having thus projected the world (jagat), to stabilize it the Lord first projected MarÄ«ci and others as lords of creation, and directed them to what the Veda calls the Right Course (dharma) of Engagement-in-action. Then he brought forth others like Sanaka and Sanandana, and directed them to the Right Course of Cessation-from-action, consisting of Knowledge (jƱÄna) and Detachment (vairÄgya). Thus the Vedic Course is two-fold: Engagement-in-action, and Cessation-from-action. The stability of the world is based on this two-fold Course, which directly produces for its beings relative prosperity and Absolute Good respectively. It is practised by those of the Brahmin and other classes, in their various stages of life, who seek their good. But over a long time, with the rise of desire in the practisers, the Right Course became overcome by the Wrong Course which flourished by reducing their discrimination and knowledge. Then to restore the world order, the First Creator Viį¹£į¹u, here called NÄrÄyaį¹a, to preserve the immanence of Brahman-on-earth, cast a ray of himself through Vasudeva into DevakÄ«, and came to be the child Kį¹į¹£į¹a. For by preservation of the Brahmin spirit of truth, the whole divine Course would be preserved, from which the classes and stages of life are derived. So the Lord, of eternal omniscience, supremacy, potentiality (Åakti), power, energy, and glory directed his own divine (vaiį¹£į¹ava) trick-of-illusion (mÄyÄ), of three guį¹a-elements, which is called root-Nature (mÅ«la-prakį¹ti). And though himself unborn, unchanging, and ever pure, aware, and free, by his own mÄyÄ-illusion He is taken to be a body-wearer as it were, born as it were, giving to the world his grace as it were. With no purpose of his own to serve but solely for the sake of living beings, he taught the holy two-fold Course to Arjuna, then sunk in a sea of grief and delusion. For a Course will spread when accepted and practised by those of outstanding character. The Course thus taught by the Lord was set out by the omniscient sage VyÄsa, compiler of the Veda-s, in seven hundred verses, famous as the GÄ«tÄ. It is however difficult to realize how this GÄ«tÄ scripture is the whole essence of the Veda teaching. Though there have been some who have tried to make it clear by analysing the make-up and sense of the individual words and sentences, I have found that it has been taken in absolutely opposite ways by people at large. So I propose to make a brief commentary (vivaraį¹a) to determine the meaning accurately. Briefly, the purport of this GÄ«tÄ scripture is, the Supreme Good (niįø„Åreyasa), and the means to it ā namely absolute cessation of the world-flow (saį¹sÄra) and its cause. This comes about through following the Course of Establishment-in-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ) as following on the casting off (saį¹nyÄsa) of all action (karma). This very Course, the purport of the GÄ«tÄ, has been taught by the Lord in the words of the Anu-GÄ«tÄ verses: āThis Course (dharma) easily suffices for realization of Brahmanā (MahÄbh.AÅva.16.12) and again āneither righteous nor sinful, neither good nor badā (ibid. 19.7) āwho sits alone and silent, in one posture, thinking nothingā (ibid. 19.1) āknowledge with saį¹nyÄsaā (ibid. 4.3.25). In the present GÄ«tÄ too Arjuna is told: āHaving given up all action, resort to Me aloneā (XVIII.66). Though the Course which looks for relative good, namely Engagement-in-Action with its classes and stages of life, has also been taught as a means to attain such things as heavenly realms, still when performed as an offering to the Lord, it comes to be for purification-of-essence (sattva-Åuddhi), no longer bound to results. A pure essence also acts as a means to the Highest Good by way of attaining the capacity for Establishment-in-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ), and by causing the first rise of that Knowledge. And so it will be said: āConsigning all actions to Brahmanā (V.10) and āThe yogins do actions without attachment to purify themselvesā (V.11). The GÄ«tÄ scripture has for its subject: the two-fold Course with the Highest Good (niįø„Åreyasa) as its purpose, and the transcendental truth known as VÄsudeva. It explains them in detail in terms of definite subject-matter, a purpose, and the connection between them. To realize it is to fulfil the whole purpose of man, and this is why I now undertake the task of composing a commentary (vivaraį¹a) on it.2 JƱÄna-Yoga Path for SÄį¹ khya-s (=Knowers) fromĀ Åaį¹ kara GÄ«tÄ Commentary
II.21 The Knower (jƱÄnin) has nothing to do with action. (Question) What then has he to do? (Answer) This is answered in III.3: āThe SÄį¹ khya-s should resort to jƱÄna-yoga.ā For the Knower and seeker of Liberation, who sees that the Self is actionless, there is qualification for renunciation-of-all-action alone (avikriyÄtma-darÅino viduį¹£o mumukį¹£o ca sarva-karma-saį¹nyÄse eva adhikÄra). II.55 The Knower (vidvat), having renounced, makes efforts in jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ. The above quotations illustrate the path of Knowledge-yoga (jƱÄna-yoga). It begins with the rise of Knowledge, which distinguishes the SÄį¹ khya. The path consists of (1) renunciation-of-action (saį¹nyÄsa): this renunciation is not necessarily of things, but is characterized as freedom from the notion āI doā; (2) establishment-in-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ), sustained meditations to throw off disturbances, by memory-illusions, of the naturally continuing current of Knowledge. When jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ reaches its end (avasÄna) in being-Brahman (anubhava), it is Freedom (mokį¹£a). Here follow a few passages to illustrate Åaį¹ karaās scheme. He does not spell out all the stages each time: for instance, saį¹nyÄsa may include jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ.
3 Niį¹£į¹hÄ
Åaį¹ karaās doctrine of liberation in the GÄ«tÄ is set out briefly in his introduction: the Highest good ā¦ is from the Course (dharma) of Establishment-in-Knowledge-of-Self (Ätma-jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ), preceded by completely casting off all action (sarva-karma-saį¹nyÄsa). He presents it at length at the end, in the commentary to XVIII.50, 54, and 55, in the following extracts:XVIII.50
That supreme establishment-in-Knowledge (niį¹£į¹hÄ jƱÄnasya yÄ parÄ niį¹£į¹hÄ) is its final resting-place (pary-avasÄna), its culmination (pari-samÄpti) That is the supreme culmination of Knowledge of Brahman (brahma-jƱÄnasya yÄ parÄ parisamÄpti).XVIII.54 (extract)
Such a man of jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ (establishment-in-Knowledge), My devotee (bhakta) worshipping Me the supreme Lord, has attained the fourth, the highest, devotion (bhakti), that which has Knowledge. As it was said (VII.18)Ā The fourth classĀ (the class of Knowers)Ā worship Me. So by that bhakti of Knowledge āXVIII.55 (extract)
By devotion he knows Me, how great and who I am in truth: Then having known Me in truth, he thereupon enters. (Åaį¹ kara)Ā Then having known Me in truth,Ā he thereupon entersĀ into Me. It is not meant by this that there are two separate actions ā an entering apart from Knowledge.Ā Having known,Ā he thereupon entersĀ means Knowledge alone with no further result. So it was said:Ā Know me as the Knower of the fieldĀ (XIII.2). (Opponent) It is a contradiction to what was said previously (XVIII.50) that what is highest is Establishment (niį¹£į¹hÄ) of Knowledge, and by that he knows Me. To explain the contradiction: when the Knowledge of something simply arises in a Knower, then the Knower is said to know that thing. He does not look to some establishment, some going over again, of the knowledge. So the contradiction is, that it was said previously that it is not by knowledge but by Establishment-of-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ), by going over it again that one knows. (Answer) There is no contradiction, for the force of the word Establishment (niį¹£į¹hÄ) is, the definite coming-to-rest (avasÄnatva) in Self-being (Ätma-anubhava) of a Knowledge that has met the conditions for its own rise (utpatti) and maturing (paripÄka), (namely) absence of obstacles. That is its Establishment (niį¹£į¹hÄ). The concomitant conditions for the rise (utpatti) and maturing (paripÄka) of the Knowledge from scripture and instruction of a teacher are: purity of buddhi and so on, the (twenty) qualities beginning with humility (XIII.7ā11). When from them arises the Knowledge that the Field-Knower (kį¹£etra-jƱa) and the highest Self (paramÄtman) are one, and there is also renunciation of all actions tied up with notions of differences of agent, instruments and so on ā when there is thus definite being-the-Self (svÄtma-anubhava) ā that state is what is meant by the highest Establishment-of-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ). As against the other three types of devotion (bhakti) given in VII.16, namely of those in danger, those seeking Knowledge, or those seeking success in the world, this jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ is called the fourth kind of devotion, the highest. By that highest devotion he knows the Lord in truth. Thereupon, the idea (buddhi) of any difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field, completely ceases. So what is being said is: āhe knows Me in truth by the devotion (bhakti) which is Establishment-in-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ), and there is no contradiction. (There follow citations of texts showing that giving up all sense of āI doā must come before and along with jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ.) jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ is unremitting persistence (abhiniveį¹£a) in the idea-stream of the Self Apart. Bhakti-yoga of serving the Lord by oneās proper action has for its perfection this result: becoming capable of jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ. Thus the yoga of bhakti brings about jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ, which has mokį¹£a as its final resting-place (avasÄna). The Lord goes on to praise that yoga in verse 56. In this short summarizing passage, XVIII.55, Åaį¹ kara twice distinguishes between the rise (utpatti) of Knowledge and its mature (paripĆ£ka) state. Elsewhere he similarly distinguishes Right Vision when it has just arisen (utpanna-samyag-darÅana) from its established state (samyag-darÅana-niį¹£į¹hÄ). The notion of maturing (paripÄka) involves time, though not a fixed time. Another key word in the passage is avasÄna, which has the sense of a final goal or stage. There is an association with unharnessing horses, or a river finding its bourn in the ocean. He twice refers to the final goal (avasÄna) of Knowledge as anubhava. (A separate note on these terms follows.) As he says in his commentary to V.12, the final stages are (1) sattva-Åuddhi (purity of essence), (2) jƱÄna-prÄpti (obtaining Knowledge), (3) saį¹nyÄsa giving up āI doā (V.8, and V.13 which is often cited by Åaį¹ kara in the GÄ«tÄ commentary on giving up action), (4) jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ, and (5) mokį¹£a. He calls the whole process krama, meaning a step-by-step progress. The process of jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ is in fact jƱÄna-yoga, beginning with Knowledge: it is outlined briefly in XVIII 50ā55. Exceptions to the rule of physical renunciation are allowed to kį¹£atriya Knowers (kį¹£aį¹riyÄįø„ vidvÄį¹sÄįø„) and others. They are listed in the section called Exceptions. JƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ is described in the GÄ«tÄ itself in several places. Åaį¹ kara gives as main ones: II.55ā72 V.17ā26 XII.13ā20 XIV.22ā25 XVIII.51ā54 It is also described shortly in many places. It is concerned not with reinforcing Knowledge, which needs no reinforcement, but with removing obstructions. Such normally arise from prÄrabdha karma. The instruction to jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ would correspond to an instruction to keep a flowing stream clear, as distinct from creating, or reinforcing, the stream. It is removing any branches that might fall into it, but not pushing the water along, or pouring more in. Normally, some disturbances from prÄrabdha are to be expected, but there might be none. In some places Åaį¹ kara gives the brief statement: ājƱÄna is the means to mokį¹£a.ā For instance there should be no prÄrabdha left at the hour of death: it will have come to an end. Knowledge attained at that time has its fruit instantly: it will have no need to āmatureā. So the final hour (as the GÄ«tÄ and Åaį¹ kara mention) is specifically favourable.4 Three Terms
ParipÄka (Maturing, Ripening)
ParipÄka, having the sense of completion by maturing or ripening, is a feature of Åaį¹ karaās GÄ«tÄ presentation. The meaning is that similar, intense saį¹skÄra-s repeatedly laid down, finally come to dominate the causal or unmanifest basis of the mind. The word āmaturingā implies some passage of time, though it may be very short. For instance, he says that the SÄnkhya-buddhi or knowledge-mind comes about when the karma-yoga-buddhi or action-yoga-mind attains maturity: II.49 Have recourse to the karma-yoga buddhi, or to the SÄnkhya buddhi which is born when that is mature (tat-paripÄka-jÄyÄm). The SÄnkhya-buddhi is only the rise of Knowledge. The Knowledge itself has to mature: VII.19 The Knower who has attained mature Knowledge (prÄpta-paripÄka-jƱÄnam). Both detachment and meditation have also a process of maturing: XVIII.37 The happiness born of the maturing of Knowledge, detachment, meditation and samÄdhiā¦ is of sattva (jƱÄna-vairÄgya-dhyÄna-samÄdhi-paripÄka-jam sukham ā¦ sÄttvikam). Another account of the rise of Knowledge is given in XIII. 11, in the commentary to the twentieth and final quality of those leading to Knowledge, namely tattva-jƱÄna-artha-darÅanam, or Seeing-the-goal-of-Knowledge-of-truth, which goal is mokį¹£a. XIII.11 Knowledge of truth (tattva-jƱÄna) results from maturity of creative meditation (bhÄvanÄ-paripÄka-nimitta) on Humility (amÄnitva) and the others (Ädi) of the group up to the penultimate one, Constancy in Self-Knowledge (adhyÄtma-jƱÄna-nityatvam). Elsewhere the process is referred to by different terms. In the comment on āstrength of yogaā (yoga-bala) under VIII.10, Åaį¹ kara says: the strength of yoga is the fixity of mind arising from accumulation of samskÄra-s produced by samÄdhi (samÄdhi-ja-saį¹skÄra-pracaya-janita-citta-sthairya-lakį¹£aį¹a). (It is noteworthy that BhÄskara, perhaps a near contemporary, who in places of his own GÄ«tÄ commentary reproduces Åaį¹ kara, gives this same phrase but without the word samÄdhi. It is an example of how he avoided the terms of Yoga which Åaį¹ kara used so plentifully.)AvasÄna (Destination, Resting-Place)
Åaį¹ kara often uses it to mean the truth into which the illusory appearance is finally resolved. VIII.3 is a reply to questions by Arjuna, one of which is āwhat is adhyÄtma?ā The term has been used in III.30, where Arjuna is told to perform actions āwith mind on the selfā (adhyÄtma-cetasÄ). At that time he does not know of the Self-as-Brahman, and Åaį¹ kara there interprets it as the individual self, to be thought of as a servant. Here the Lord explains the term adhyÄtma as sva-bhÄva, individual selfhood, to be further mentioned in XVII.2. But Åaį¹ kara adds: That self which, overseeing a body, sets out as its inner self, and truly comes to rest (avasÄna) as the highest Brahman, is the svabhÄva selfhood which is to be called adhy-Ätman Selfhood. (ÄtmÄnam deham adhirkį¹tya pratyag-ÄtmatayÄ pravį¹ttam paramÄrtha-BrahmÄvasÄnam vastu svabhÄva adhyÄtmam ucyate). In IX.10 he says: āI am in painā, āI will do thisā, āI will know thatā ā is all based on knowledge (avagati-niį¹£į¹hÄ), (and) comes down to knowledge (avagaty-avasÄna).Anubhava
In the GÄ«tÄ commentary this means roughly being (bhava) in-accordance-with (anu) what truly is. The sense comes out clearly in III.41 and IX.1, where the GÄ«tÄ has the pair jƱÄna-vijƱÄna. (This is translated by Edgerton as theoretical and practical knowledge.) In this pairing, jƱÄna is taken by Åaį¹ kara not in the usual way as Right Vision (samyag-darÅana), but as theoretical ideas (avabodha) of the Self and so on as taught by scripture and the teacher. VijƱÄna in contrast is practical realization of the ideas ā anubhava. Similarly in IX.1 vijƱÄna as anubhava is distinguished from jƱÄna. But he also treats the pair together as samyagdarÅana, āthe direct means to mokį¹£aā.The Three Terms: ParipÄka, AvasÄna, Anubhava
The three terms ā paripÄka, avasÄna, anubhava ā came together (each twice) in XVIII.55. They also appear under XVIII.36 and 37. The GÄ«tÄ and Åaį¹ kara both treat the teaching-point here as most important: Kį¹į¹£į¹a introduces it with Hear!, which Åaį¹ kara glosses as: Be Concentrated (samÄdhÄnam kuru). XVIII.36 Hear from me about the three-fold happiness. What with practice one delights in, where pain comes to an end, XVIII.37 Which at the beginning seems like poison but with maturity is like honey. That is said to be the happiness of light (sattva), Arising from the peace of a mind-resting-on-Self (Ätmabuddhi). āwith practiceā means by application and facility; ādelightā means happiness-realization (sukha-anubhava). He does not use anubhava for the momentary experience of false happiness of excitement or the deluded happiness of sloth. Åaį¹ kara explains that at the beginning, when jƱÄna, vairÄgya, dhyÄna and samÄdhi are first tackled head-on, they are nothing but effort; in this preliminary stage, they seem against natural well-being ā poison as it were. But when the jƱÄna, vairÄgya, dhyÄna and samÄdhi are mature (paripÄka) the happiness is comparable to honey of immortality.5 Karma-Yoga
The terms yoga and karma-yoga are occasionally used interchangeably by Åaį¹ kara, especially contrasted with the jƱÄna-yoga of SÄį¹ khya. He defines Yoga in II.39. Yoga, the means to that (Knowledge), is (1) first, distancing oneself (reading prahÄna with Änandagiri and not prahanana ākillingā) from the pairs- of-opposites (dvandva); (2) undertaking actions as karma-yoga, namely as worship (ÄrÄdhana) of God; (3) samÄdhi-yoga. In IV.38, āpurified by yogaā is glossed as purified by karma-yoga and samÄdhi-yoga. The accompanying word mumukį¹£u presumably would cover dvandva-prahÄna. In XII.12 and elsewhere, karma-yoga is used as yoga, to include other elements besides action: Yoga is said to be samÄdhi ā concentration on the Lord (Ä«Åvare cetah-samÄdhÄna), and a performance for the Lordās sake of actions, and so on. It rests on seeing difference between Self (Ätman) and the Lord (Ätmeį¹£vara bheda Äsritya) It is not compatible with Right Vision (samyag-darÅana-ananvita)…. It relies on an ÄŖÅvara apart. So JƱÄna-yoga, which knows the Lord to be the Self, is not practicable for a karma-yogin…. Conversely, the jƱÄna-yogin, who sees no difference between them, would have no incentive to rely on a supposedly purely external Lord. Nevertheless, though (as Åaį¹ kara points out) the Lord directs Arjuna (in IV. 15) to karma-yoga, this is after his first teaching of JƱÄna, in Chapter II, has had no effect. JƱÄna yoga has been taught to Arjuna, but he could not then follow it. In X.19 the Lord specifically consents to Arjunaās request, by declaring: āI will tell you of my glories.ā For constant meditation (nitya dhyeya) says Åaį¹ kara, and adds: āListen!ā The first of these glories is: āI am the Self (aham ÄtmÄ) in every living being,ā which is a statement of jƱÄna. Then, for one who cannot meditate on the Lord as Self (tad-asakta), the glories of the Lord immanent in MÄyÄ are given. Later in X.37 it is even more direct: āI am DhanaƱjayaā (Arjuna), but Arjuna fails to take it in (though for a moment he thinks he has). So in fact instruction in jƱÄna is given, but while Arjunaās basic feeling is that of karma-yoga, he cannot be rightly said to be on the jƱÄna-yoga path.6 Saį¹nyÄsa
To enter the order of saį¹nyÄsa was to leave home and property and wander forth, sustained by semi-automatic actions of body-mind like begging and lying down to sleep and so on. Åaį¹ kara cites three times in his GÄ«tÄ commentary the Bį¹had. Up. III.5.1: āHaving known (viditvÄ) that Self, they wander forth as mendicants.ā Åaį¹ kara, like the GÄ«tÄ itself, is against physical renunciations while there is inner longing for objects: in his lead-in to GÄ«tÄ III.6 he says: āFor one who does not know the Self, it is not-right (asat) that he should not undertake his required duty.ā For the Self-knower (SÄį¹ khya, jnÄnin, tattva-vid, samyag-darÅin, etc.) on the other hand, voluntarily initiated actions will tend to drop away, with the desires that cause them. Saį¹nyÄsa will tend to follow naturally upon Knowledge. Nevertheless Åaį¹ kara very frequently enjoins it as a necessary accessory to Knowledge: it then leads to Establishment-in-Knowledge (jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ) and finally Liberation (mokį¹£a). In the GÄ«tÄ commentary he makes the essence of saį¹nyÄsa to be: giving up the notion (pratyaya) of āI do.ā In places he describes saį¹nyÄsa as being in fact jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ. For instance, under XVIII.12 he calls the highest saį¹nyÄsin, the paramahaį¹sa parivrÄjaka, kevala-jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ and kevala-samyag-darÅana-niį¹£į¹ha. He often uses the term saį¹nyÄsa to include both. The samį¹yÄsa order was usually spoken of in relation to Brahmins, but in XVIII.45 and 46 he states that all classes can qualify themselves for jƱÄna-niį¹£į¹hÄ by carrying out their proper duty with devotion. In the GÄ«tÄ commentary, Åaį¹ kara refers to five kinds of saį¹nyÄsa:- saį¹nyÄsa as outer show. In this the property and home are renounced, but no attempt is made at inner renunciation. In India, sometimes a well-off man expecting to die would, just before the end, give away everything in order to get merit in the future. (But sometimes he embarrassingly recovered.) See also the opening of the Kaį¹ha Upaniį¹£ad. Others took to the anonymous wandering life to escape family, creditors, or police. All this is condemned by the GÄ«tÄ (e.g. III.6).
- Partial saį¹nyÄsa, where only some actions and things are renounced. This renouncer still feels āI doā, and is still affected by the results of his actions. He simply reduces them. Åaį¹ kara refers to this without approval (intro, to V), and remarks that it is ādifficultā, as needing great self-control.
- Honorary saį¹nyÄsa, where things and actions are not given up, but only attachment to them and their fruits. The agent still feels āI do.ā This is a main element of karma yoga.
- saį¹nyÄsa by Mind, which is renunciation by a Truth-knower (tattva-vid, samyag-darÅin, etc.). The GÄ«tÄ directs him to constant meditation with concentrated mind (samÄhita citta) on āI do nothingā, though undertakings continue to be carried out by the body and mind. Onlookers suppose they are performed by an individual as before.
- SupremeĀ (paramÄrtha) renunciation. Its essential quality is the meditation āI do nothingā, but this is now reflected outwardly in physical withdrawal into the order of paramahaį¹sa-parivrÄjaka, wandering mendicants.
7 Exceptions to Formal Saį¹yÄsa
In GÄ«tÄ III.20 and IV.15 it is said that Janaka and other ancient worthies sought perfection through action alone. Åaį¹ kara, with his emphasis on Liberation (perfection) through Knowledge alone, has to meet objections based on these texts. Commenting on GÄ«tÄ II.11, where the teachings begin, he says: Those of them who were Knowers of truth (tattva-vid) had sought their perfection by Knowledge alone and had now reached the stage of formal saį¹nyÄsa: but as Kį¹£atriya kings they would have been already involved in actions. So realizing āit is guį¹a-s acting on guį¹a-sā, they continued in action for the sake of the other people (loka-saį¹ graha), to fulfil their past karmic involvement (prÄrabdhatvÄt), though they were seeking perfection of Liberation through their Knowledge alone. Those of them who were not yet Knowers sought perfection through action for self-purification and (then) rise of Knowledge. Åaį¹ kara explains away the phrase āby action aloneā in III.20 by glossing it as ānot giving up actionā. He also cites the āthus knowingā of IV.15. His account under III.20 is nearly the same, except that here (as in other places) he makes it clear that this is no mere theoretical knowledge: he calls them now samyag-darÅana-prÄpta and a-prÄpta. Samyag-darÅana (Right Vision) is his strongest term for Knowledge-as-experience. He describes these kį¹£atriya Knowers (vidvÄį¹sÄh) as engaged in going to Liberation (mokį¹£am gantum pravį¹ittÄh) without abandoning action, thus fulfilling their past karmic involvement (prÄrabdha-karmatvÄt). The explanations under IV.14 and 15 are similar: the Self-knowers (Ätma-jƱÄ) or truth-knowers (tattva-vid) are seekers of Liberation (mumukį¹£u) but may continue in activity for the sake of the world. Additional reasons why Knowers may continue in active involvement with the world are given here and there. Under III.21ā25, Kį¹į¹£į¹a recommends vigorous action as an example to people at large. Related to this may be āto avoid the displeasure of the learnedā (Åiį¹£į¹ha-vigarhaį¹ÄparijihÄ«rį¹£Ä) under IV.20. This is probably a reference to Manu, who allows pursuit of Knowledge at any stage of life, but forbids pursuit of Liberation till the ādebtsā to ancestors, etc. have been discharged through a householderās life. There are blanket phrases like kutas nimitta and kutaÅcit nimitta ā(from) some causeā in the commentary to IV.22: ā… finding that for some reason it is impossible to abandon action …ā Again, in VI.31 and XIII.23 there is the phrase about the Knower: āhowever he may behaveā (sarvathÄ vartamÄno āpi); and in V.7 āthough doing, he is not taintedā (kurvann api na lipyate). In these and other cases Åaį¹ kara cites prÄrabdha-karma, and/or lokasaį¹ graha. There are borderline cases. The instruction to fight āas an instrumentā is implemented at the end of the GÄ«tÄ in the consciousness, according to Åaį¹ kara, āThere is nothing for me to doā (na mama kartavyam asti). It is noteworthy that in his commentary, when enjoining renunciation of actions on a Knower, Åaį¹ kara frequently quotes V.13. In line-for-line translation it would be: Renouncing all actions by the mind, he sits happily in control, The embodied in the citadel of nine gates, neither at all acting nor causing to act. He cites this (sometimes the second line) in his commentary to II.21, III.1, V.19, VI.l, XVIII.10, 48 (twice), and 66. He explains that an appearance of action remains as a result of unspent karma. He could easily have quoted from the GÄ«tÄ texts on outer renunciation as a reflection of inner renunciation, for instance XII.19: āsilent, content with anything, homeless….ā But he chose this V.13 text, on renunciation by distinguishing mentally between action and non-action, and not necessarily entailing as corollary a physical renunciation. This is an indication of Åaį¹ karaās recognition that the GÄ«tÄ is mainly a text for those who begin yoga when already heavily implicated in obligations in the world. They are not to be loaded with impracticable injunctions to renounce all physically.
