CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON BG 18.64 & ITS ŚĀṄKARA-BHĀṢYAM (IS BG 18.65 MERELY A MEANS OR AN OBJECTIVE IN ITSELF?)
Rādhākṛṣṇadāsa Brahmacārī
******************************************************************************************
Originally authored in English by HG RKDB ‘ĀV’ (Śrī Caitanya Saṅkīrtana Kuṭīra, VV Nagar, Anand, Gujarat, Bharat) alias Mr. Ramkrishna R. Swami. Email of the author – radhakris...@gmail.com .
******************************************************************************************
1) Śāṅkara-bhāṣyam – BG 18.64 –
“bhūyo ‘pi mayā ucyamānaṁ śṛṇu –
sarva-guhyatamam bhūyaḥ śṛṇu me paramaṁ vacaḥ /
iṣṭo ‘si me dṛḍhamiti tato vakṣyāmi te hitam //
sarva-guhyatamaṁ sarva-guhyebhyo ‘tyanta-rahasyam uktam apy asakṛd bhūyaḥ punaḥ śṛṇu me mama paramaṁ prakṛṣṭaṁ vaco vākyam. na bhayād nāpi artha-kāraṇād vā vakṣyāmi kiṁ tarhi iṣtaḥ priyo ‘si me mama dṛḍham avyabhicāreṇeti kṛtvā tataḥ tena kāreṇena vakṣyāmi kathayiṣyāmi te hitaṁ paraṁ jñāna-prāpti-sādhanam. tad hi sarva-hitānāṁ hitatamam ca.”
Rendition
“Listen to my utterance, once more –
Again listen to my supremely most confidential word. Since you are my firmly cherished, I shall narrate it for your well-being.
Though the greatest confidential of all i.e. the ultimate secret among all confidentialities has been uttered numerous times, my supreme i.e. eminent utterance i.e. assertion should be once more i.e. again heard. I will not be speaking due to fear or for the greed of any reward. Then why (i.e. what is the reason for revealing such foremost secret)? Since you are a firmly cherished one to me i.e. unflinchingly made dear to myself, for the said reason, I shall utter i.e. narrate that which is in your benefit i.e. the great means of the obtainment of knowledge. Certainly, that is the foremost benefit among all benefits.”
Gauḍīya Exposition – According to the view of Ādya-śaṅkara-bhagavat-pūjya-pādācārya stated in his Carpaṭa-pañjarikā-stotram alias Moha-mudgaraḥ, Verse 18th, ‘jñāna’ or knowledge is the sole means to obtain emancipation i.e. ‘mokṣa’.
According to his perception, ‘mokṣa’ is the objective of ‘jnāna’ and all the other ‘vaidika-sādhanas’ or Vedic paths like ‘aṣtānga-yoga’ i.e. eightfold mysticism, ‘niṣkāma-karma-yoga’ i.e. unmotivated action, and ‘bhakti-yoga’ i.e. devotional service are merely to be perceived as means to awaken the ‘jnāna’ solely required for the attainment of ‘mokṣa’. Hence, Ādī-Śaṅkarācārya considers such ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’ i.e. the monistic knowledge of the Absolute to be the only ‘naiyāyika-hetu’ (i.e. the cause factor according to Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika systems) of the ‘mokṣa’ whom he perceives as its ‘naiyāyika-phala’ (i.e. the effect factor according to the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika systems). As per the claims of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika philosophies, there cannot exist any interrupted presence of an element besides ‘hetu’ and ‘phala’ i.e. there cannot remain any third element present between the cause and effect factors. If such a third element is seen situated between the two, their mutual relationship as ‘hetu’ and ‘phala’ becomes invalid. For the said reason, ‘bhakti’ is not the direct cause of ‘sāyujya-mukti’ i.e. impersonal liberation, but an indirect cause only through succession i.e. ‘paramparā-hetu’ – according to Śrī Śaṅkara.
kurute gaṅgā-sāgara-gamanaṁ vrata-paripālanam athavā dānam /
jñāna-vihīnaḥ sarva-matena muktiṁ na bhajati janma-śatena //
Rendered as – “One may take a sacred bath at the holy confluence of Ganges with the Indian Ocean, observe fasts, or give in charity. But without ‘jñāna’, through all means, one cannot attain ‘mokṣa’ even after hundred births.”
While commenting on BG 18.64, Śrī Śaṅkara says that Lord Kṛṣna is about to impart the supremely secret knowledge which shall function merely as a means to awaken the ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñana’ or the knowledge of the undifferentiated Absolute.
We can perceive from the tone of the verse that Lord Kṛṣna considers such ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ to be reiterated once more by Him in the succeeding verse i.e. 18.65. A question arises here, as to, where has such ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ been allotted on numerous occasions earlier in the gītā-śāstra? Its answer is found in places like BG 9.34, 12.2, 12.20, 9.14, 9.22, 7.1, 6.46-47, and 10.8-11 etc. Since the content of BG 18.66 is not found mentioned earlier in gītā-śāstra even in a paraphrased form, for certain, BG 18.66 is not the ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ that Lord Kṛṣna is hinting at in BG 18.64. Moreover, it has been rejected and labelled as ‘superficial means’ or ‘bāhya-sādhana’ by Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu in CC 2.8.63-64.
Due to the above enumerated reasons, it is explicit that Śrī Śaṅkara is considering only BG 18.66 to be the ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’. But when he labels such ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ to be merely ‘jñāna-prāpti-sādhana’ i.e. the means to obtain the actual ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’, it is to be understood that Śrī Śaṇkara is establishing the ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ or the ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ depicted in BG 18.65 to be serving as an instrumental in the awakening of the ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñana’ and thus the position of ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ has been placed as a mere means to indirectly awaken the ‘brahma-sāyujya-mukti’ due to its being ‘paramparā-hetu’ of it. But, according to BRS 1.1.11, BRS 1.2.2, SB 9.4.67, SB 3.29.11-14, SB 11.3.31, and SB 5.6.18 etc., the ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ cannot ever give rise to ‘brahma-sāyujya-mukti’. Even if it is seen giving rise to ‘prema-sevottarā-mukti’ of four types, that ‘mukti’ arises only as a secondary result of ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’, while ‘pañcama-puruṣārtha-prema’ remaining as its primary result.
If Śaṅkara has taken the execution of bhakti stated by BG 18.65 to be under the category of ‘jñana-miśrā-bhakti’, it cannot be the case, because BG 18.65 is under the status of ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ and is more confidential than its concomitant succeeding verse BG 18.66 which has been labelled as ‘superficial’ or ‘bāhya’ by Lord CM in CC 2.8.63-64. In CC 2.8.64, Rāmānanda Rāya considers ‘jñāna-miśrā-bhakti’ to be superior than such ‘sva-dharma-tyāga’ advocated in BG 18.66. So, if ‘jñana-miśrā-bhakti’, which is the actual cause for the obtainment of ‘brahma-sāyuja-mukti’, is mentioned in BG 18.65 according to Śaṇkara, he is still not correct. Why? Because, in such a situation, Śaṇkara will be appearing self-contradictory, will be refuting the conclusion of SB 10.14.3, SB 1.5.12 and such a notion will make the statement of Rāya Rāmānanda in CC 2.8.65 to be wrong also. How? Let us analyse.
It will make Śaṅkara look self-contradicting because he has clearly advocated in his CPS alias MM 18 (cited above) that only jñāna is the cause for mukti without any other accompaniment. This conclusion is also corroborated by him in his commentary on Brahma-sūtras, Upaniṣads, and Gītā. If he considers jñāna mixed with bhakti i.e. jñāna-miśrā-bhakti to be the cause for such impersonal liberation, he does not go on par with his general conclusion stated elsewhere. If Śaṅkara considers BG 18.65 to be propagating ‘jñāna-miśrā-bhakti’, then it would mean that BG 18.65 which is superior to BG 18.54 is actually on the same level as BG 18.54. Rāya Rāmānanda has considered BG 18.54 to be establishing the concept of ‘jnāna-miśrā-bhakti’ in CC 2.8.64. Hence, to consider BG 18.54 to be on the same level as BG 18.65 would be nullifying the distinction proclaimed in BG 18.63-64 between the ‘guhyatara-jñāna’ and the ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’.
Furthermore, SB 10.14.3 clearly states that after the rejection of the efforts for ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’, a person obtains ‘prema-bhakti’ by the execution of ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’.
If Śrī Śaṅkara considers such ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ mentioned in BG 18.65 to be producing the ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’ required for ‘mokṣa’, it will mean that the fruit of such ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ is such a ‘jñāna’ whose pursuit is to be wholly rejected before entering the path of ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ as evident both in SB 10.14.3 and also in CC 2.8.66.
Moreover, SB 1.5.12 shall be clearly contravened if ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ proclaimed in BG 18.65 is considered to be subordinate to and the producer of ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’. The ‘jnāna’ which arises out of the performance of ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ is not the ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’ that Śrī Śaṅkara is denoting towards while commenting on BG 18.64. Why? Because such ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’ has been already rejected by SB 10.14.3 and SB 1.5.12. Hence, the ‘jnāna’ which is talked about in SB 11.2.42, SB 1.2.7 and SB 12.13.13 is totally matching with the “bhakti tu ihāmutropādhi-nairāsyena amuṣmin kalpanam etat eva ca naiṣkarmyam iti…” verse of Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad. Hence, the difference between the ‘naiṣkarmya’ of SB 1.5.12 and the ‘naiṣkarmya’ of SB 12.13.13 is also seen. And the distinction between the ‘bhakti-putra-svarūpa-jnāna-virāga’ is also seen.
Conclusively, to say that the ‘śuddha-sādhana-bhakti’ advocated as the ‘sarva-guhyatama-jñāna’ in BG 18.65 is merely giving rise to its inferior subordinate ‘nirbheda-brahma-jñāna’ is wholly inappropriate in a scriptural perspective.
