Srimad Bhagavad Gita: English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary

820 Pages·2006·2.02 MB·English

by  Swami Gambhirananda

Srimad
Bhagavad Gita

English Translation of
Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary

Swami Gambhirananda

Source: Project Gutenberg
Chapter 21

2.10 O descendant of Bharata, to him who was
sorrowing between the two armies, Hrsikesa,
mocking as it were, said these words:

English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit
Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda

2.10 And here, the text commencing from 'But
seeing the army of the Pandavas' (1.2) and ending
with '(he) verily became silent, telling Him
(Govinda), "I shall not fight"' is to be explained as
revealing the cause of the origin of the defect in the
from of sorrow, delusion, etc. [Delusion means
want of discrimination. Etc. stands for the
secondary manifestations of sorrow and delusion,
as also ignorance which is the root cause of all
these.] which are the sources of the cycles of births
and deaths of creatures. Thus indeed, Ajuna's own
sorrow and delusion, cuased by the ideas of
affection, parting, etc., originating from the
erroneous belief, 'I belong to these; they belong to
me', with regard to kingdom [See note under verse
8.-Tr.], elders, sons, comrades, well-wishers (1.26),

1 Sri Sankaracharya begins his commentary of the Gita only from the
10th verse of 2nd Chapter.
2
kinsmen (1.37), relatives (1.34) and friends, have
been shown by him with the words, 'How can I
(fight)...in battle (against) Bhisma' (4), etc. It is
verily because his discriminating insight was
overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion that, even
though he had become engaged in battle out of his
own accord as a duty of the Ksatriyas, he desisted
from that war and chose to undertake other's
duties like living on alms etc. It is thus that in the
case of all creatures whose minds come under the
sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion, etc. there
verily follows, as a matter of course, abandoning
their own duties and resorting to prohibited ones.
Even when they engage in their own duties their
actions with speech, mind, body, etc., are certainly
motivated by hankering for rewards, and are
accompanied by egoism. [Egoism consists in
thinking that one is the agent of some work and the
enjoyer of its reward.] Such being the case, the
cycle of births and deaths -- characterized by
passing through desireable and undesirable births,
and meeting with happiness, sorrow, etc. [From
virtuous deeds follow attainment of heaven and
happiness. From unvirtuous, sinful deeds follow
births as beasts and other lowly beings, and
sorrow. From the performance of both virtuous
and sinful deeds follows birth as a human being,
3
with a mixture of happiness and sorrow.] from the
accumulation of virtue and vice, continues
unendingly. Thus, sorrow and delusion are
therefore the sources of the cycles of births and
deaths. And their cessation comes from nothing
other than the knowledge of the Self which is
preceded by the renunciation of all duties. Hence,
wishing to impart that (knowledge of the Self) for
favouring the whole world, Lord Vasudeva,
making Arjuna the medium, said, 'You grieve for
those who are not to be grieved for,' etc. As to that
some (opponents) [According to A.G. the opponent
is the Vrttikara who, in the opinion of A.
Mahadeva Sastri, is none other than Bodhayana
referred to in Sankaracarya's commentary on B.S.
1.1.11-19.-Tr.] say: Certainly, Liberation cannot be
attained merely from continuance in the
knowledge of the Self which is preceded by
renunciation of all duties and is independent of
any other factor. What then? The well-ascertained
conclusion of the whole of the Gita is that
Liberation is attained through Knowledge
associated with rites and duties like Agnihotra etc.
prescribed in the Vedas and the Smrtis. And as an
indication of this point of view they quote (the
verses): 'On the other hand, if you will not fight
this righteous (battle)' (33); 'Your right is for action
4
(rites and duties) alone' (47); 'Therefore you
undertake action (rites and duties) itself' (4.15), etc.
Even this objection should not be raised that Vedic
rites and duties lead to sin since they involve
injury etc.'. Objection: How? Opponent: The duties
of the Ksatriyas, charaterized by war, do not lead
to sin when undertaken as one's duty, even though
they are extremely cruel since they involve
violence against elders, brothers, sons and others.
And from the Lord's declaration that when they
are not performed, 'then, forsaking your own duty
and fame, you will incur sin' (33), it stands out as
(His) clearly stated foregone conclusion that one's
own duties prescribed in such texts as, '(One shall
perform Agnihotra) as long as one lives' etc., and
actions which involve crutely to animals etc. are
not sinful. Vedantin: That is wrong because of the
assertion of the distinction between firm adherence
(nistha) to Knowledge and to action, which are
based on two (different) convictions (buddhi). The
nature of the Self, the supreme Reality, determined
by the Lord in the text beginning with 'Those who
are not to be grieved for' (11) and running to the
end of the verse, 'Even considering your own duty'
(31), is called Sankhya. Sankhya-buddhi [Sankhya
is that correct (samyak) knowledge of the Vedas
which reveals (khyayate) the reality of the Self, the
5
supreme Goal. The Reality under discussion,
which is related to this sankhya by way of having
been revealed by it, is Sankhya.] (Conviction about
the Reality) is the conviction with regard to That
(supreme Reality) arising from the ascertainment
of the meaning of the context [Ascertainment...of
the context, i.e., of the meaning of the verses
starting from, 'Never is this One born, and never
does It die,' etc. (20).] -- that the Self is not an agent
because of the absence in It of the six kinds of
changes, viz birth etc. [Birth, continuance, growth,
transformation, decay and death.] Sankhyas are
those men of Knowledge to whom that (conviction)
becomes natural. Prior to the rise of this Conviction
(Sankhya-buddhi), the ascertained [Ast. and A.G.
omit this word 'ascertainment, nirupana'-Tr.] of the
performance of the disciplines leading to
Liberation -- which is based on a discrimination
between virtue and vice, [And adoration of God].
and which presupposes the Self's difference from
the body etc. and Its agentship and enjoyership -- is
called Yoga. The conviction with regard to that
(Yoga) is Yoga-buddhi. The performers of rites and
duties, for whom this (conviction) is appropriate,
are called yogis. Accordingly, the two distinct
Convictions have been pointed out by the Lord in
the verse, 'This wisdom (buddhi) has been
6
imparted to you from the standpoint of Self-
realization (Sankhya). But listen to this (wisdom)
from the standpoint of (Karma-) yoga' (39). And of
these two, the Lord will separately speak, with
reference to the Sankhyas, of the firm adherence to
the Yoga of Knowledge. [Here Yoga and
Knowledge are identical. Yoga is that through
which one gets connected, identified. with
Brahman.] which is based on Sankya-buddhi, in,
'Two kinds of adherences were spoken of by Me in
the form of the Vedas, in the days of yore.' [This
portion is ascending to G1.Pr. and A.A.; Ast. omits
this and quotes exactly the first line of 3.3. By
saying, 'in the form of the Vedas', the Lord
indicates that the Vedas, which are really the
knowledge inherent in God and issue out of Him,
are identical with Himself.-Tr.] similarly, in,
'through the Yoga of Action for the yogis' (3.3), He
will separately speak of the firm adherence to the
Yoga [Here also Karma and Yoga are identical, and
lead to Liberation by bringing about purity of heart
which is followed by steadfastness in Knowledge.]
of Karma which is based on Yoga-buddhi
(Conviction about Yoga). Thus, the two kinds of
steadfastness -- that based on the conviction about
the nature of the Self, and that based on the
conviction about rites and duties -- have been
7
distinctly spoken of by the Lord Himself, who saw
that the coexistence of Knowledge and rites and
duties is not possible in the same person, they
being based on the convictions of non-agentship
and agentship, unity and diversity (respectively).
As is this teaching about the distinction (of the two
adherences), just so has it been revealed in the
Satapatha Brahmana: 'Desiring this world (the Self)
alone monks and Brahmanas renounce their
homes' (cf. Br. 4.4.22). After thus enjoining
renunciation of all rites and duties, it is said in
continuation, 'What shall we acheive through
childeren, we who have attained this Self, this
world (result).' [The earlier quotation implies an
injuction (vidhi) for renunciation, and the second is
an arthavada, or an emphasis on that injunction.
Arthavada: A sentence which usually recommends
a vidhi, or precept, by stating the good arising
from its proper observance, and the evils arising
from its omission; and also by adducing historical
instances in its support.-V.S.A] Again, there itself it
is said that, before accepting a wife a man is in his
natural state [The state of ignorance owing to non-
realization of Reality. Such a person is a
Brahmacarin, who goes to a teacher for studying
the Vedas]. And (then) after his enquiries into rites
and duties, [The Brahmacarin first studies the
8
Vedas and then enquires into their meaning.
Leaving his teacher's house after completing his
course, he becomes a house holder.] 'he' for the
attainment of the three worlds [This world, the
world of manes and heaven.-Tr.] 'desired' (see Br.
1.4.17) as their means a son and the two kinds of
wealth consists of rites and duties that lead to the
world of manes, and the divine wealth of
acquisition of vidya (meditation) which leads to
heaven. In this way it is shown that rites and duties
enjoined by the Vedas etc. are meant only for one
who is unenlightened and is possessed of desire.
And in the text, 'After renouncing they take to
mendicancy' (see Br. 4.4.22), the injunction to
renounce is only for one who desires the world
that is the Self, and who is devoid of hankering (for
anything else). Now, if the intention of the Lord
were the combination of Knowledge with Vedic
rites and duties, then this utterance (of the Lord)
(3.3) about the distinction would have been
illogical. Nor would Arjuna's question, 'If it be
your opinion that wisdom (Knowledge) is superior
to action (rites and duties)...,' etc. (3.1) be proper. If
the Lord had not spoken earlier of the impossibility
of the pursuit of Knowledge and rites and duties
by the same person (at the same time), then how
could Arjuna falsely impute to the Lord -- by
9