INTRODUCTION

धीनाम् अवित्री अवतु।

The Śrīmad Bhagavadgitā (BG) is well known to the world of scholars. It is the core-part of the Mahābhārata (MB) and is the most popular Indian philosophical work. For, it provides the aspirant with a practical manual in a simple language, show ing him the way how to live a calm life in the midst of the stresses and pulls of the extreme opposites of desire and hatred, pleasure and pain, joy and grief etc. etc,

1 On bhagavadgItA

High regard

This BG has been therefore commented upon down the ages. Even Śaṅkara’s bhāsya, the earliest of the available commentaries on the BG, speaks of many commentaries of still earlier authors, available at that time, striking different notes.(1. Cf. Śaṅkara’s bhāsya, intro.)+++(5)+++ This bhāsya of Śaṅkara seems to have attracted the attention of all the Indian scholars of the subsequent ages. For. there has been no important Indian philosopher of the post-Śaṅkara period, who has not commented upon the BG, according to his own school of thought.

In modern times the BG crossed the frontiers of India. An edition of its English translation by Charles- Wilkins appeared two hundred years ago in Warren Hastings, the first Governor-General of British India, wrote a thought-provoking introduction to this edition praising the greatness of the philosophy of the BG.+++(4)+++ Since that time, modern thinkers, both Indian and non-Indian, have written on the BG or an aspect of it,

1. In this introduction Hastings made a prophetic statement. For details see Prof, R. Sathianathaier : A Political de Cultural History of India, Vol. III (Madras, 1952), p. 218. It is indeed a happy coincidence that Śrī C. Rajagopala chari the last Governor General of India had also brought out his own exposition of the BG, besides retelling the story of the MB.

Commentators

To this long chain of the BG-commentators belongs the great Māheśvara teacher Rājānaka Abhinavagupta (Ag.) (c. 950-1015 A.D.), one of the brightest stars in the sky of the Kashmir school of śaivism.

2. The title Rājánaka *knight is chiefly known from the Kashmirian sources. The Rājatarangini (VI, 261) tells us that Didda, the regent and queen-mother of Abhimanyu II (958-72 A. D.) of Kashmir, bestowed the title on her loyal general named Naravāhana. Later it has been given to various Kashmir pandits, some of whose descendants still bear it.

The matters, connected with Ag.’s date, nativity, forefathers, preceptors, place of action and the like have been well settled and his contributions to different branches of Kashmir śaivism have been discussed in detail by scholars long ago Ag. ’s works in the field of Indian aesthetics, like the Locana, a commentary on the Dhvanyāloka of Anandavardhana and the Abhinavabhārati, a commentary on the Natya Śāstra of Bharata are quite popular among the Sanskritists all over the world.

3. See e.g. K. C. Pandey : Abhinavagupta - An Historical & Philosophical Study : II Ed : Chowkhamba 1963.

His Vivrtis on the Isvara pratyabhijñā-kārikas etc., his independent works like the Tantrāloka, Paramarthasāra etc. are well-known to all the students of Kashmir śaivism. However, Ag.’s Bhagavad-gītārtha-sangraha (GS), which is now being brought out in these volumes with English translation is not so well-known, even though the work has been in print since 1912. Therefore we confine our selves to a brief study of the GS here.

Ag speaks of the numerous commentaries of earlier authors available with him. What those commentaries could have been is difficult to ascertain. Yet it is certain that he had with him the complete text of the bhāsya of Bhāskarācārya. For, Ag. refers to him by name and also his gloss with veneration in the last chapter of the GS and refutes his views not mentioning the name.*

• 1. See below.
• 2. GS, intro verse 5.
• 3. Ch. XVIII, 2. Of course Bhāskara’s commentary, as we have now, is an incomplete one breaking off at the penulti mate verse in chapter IX. However, Ag.’s present reference appears to remove the doubt whether Bhāskara had commented upon the entire text of the BG. Cf. Bhagavad gita Bhīsya by Bhāskarācārya : Ed. Subhadropadhyaya (Varanasi 1965) : Sanskrit intro page (). It is to be noted that the BG text commented upon by Bhāskara is largely Kashmirian text.
• 4. See e.g. ch. IX, 33-35: Hereinafter the references to the BG chapters and verses include the Tippani and also the Notes on those verses in pt. II.

Basing on this fact, it can be safely inferred that Ag. knew also the bhāsya of Sankarācārya who is refuted quite often by Bhāskarācārya in his BG commentary. In the GS itself we have instances that seem to corroborate this surmise. Besides, there is the Sarvatobhadra, a commentary on the BG by another Kashmirian writer by name Rājānaka Rāmakaṇṭha. This author is assigned to a date earlier than that of Ag. If this is acceptable then it is not improbable that Ag. knew Rāmakaṇṭha’s commentary also. Further Ag. refers to his preceptor’s views on certain verses of the BG. All these seem to indicate that in the Kashmir valley of Ag.’s time there were heated discussions on the purport and philosophy of the BG. It is to be borne in mind that Śaṅkara’s bhāsya roused sharp criticism first among these who followed the Kashmirian text of the BG, viz. Bhāskara.* Its reaction from the South came later in the form of the Visiṣtādvaita commentary by Ramānujācārya (c. 1100 A. D).

• 1. See e.g. pt. II, pp. 14, 15, 73, 92, 94, 117, 173, 181, 252-54 etc.
• 2. I.e. to the end of the ninth century A. D. See Śrīmad Bhagavadgita with Sarvatobhadra : Ed. T. R. Chintamani : Madras, 1941 : intro. p. xl. Madhusudan Kaul also seems to suggest more or less the same period for the author. See his edition : Bhagavadg ta with Sarvatobhadra : Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, No. LXIV (1949): intro p. 10. V
• 3. Ch. VIII, 27; ch. IX 24-27; ch. XV, 12-14.
• 4. It is also probable that Rāmakaṇṭha who follows Bhāskara knows Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya.

Abhinava’s Motivation

It is therefore nothing but natural that Ag., one of the great thinkers of his age, was attracted by the profound philosophy, the practical approach to arrive at a sort of samanvaya (correlation) among different Indian philosophical schools and by the apparent simplicity and remarkable flexibility of the language of the BG.+++(5)+++ It’s profound influence on Ag. is discernible in his earlier writings like the Paramārthasāra,’ Tantrāloka, Isvara-pratyabhijñā-vivrti etc. Therefore, besides being requested by his Brāhmaṇa relative Lotaka to elucidate the BG,’ Ag. seems to have been compelled inwardly by his own philosophical spirit to write the GS. In fact Ag. holds the BG in a very high esteem and calls it once as Adi-siddha-sūtra (aphorism of the Foremost among the Beatified).

• 1. See pt. II, pp. 117, 139, 264.
• 2. See pt. II, pp. 175, 177-78, 200-01, 264.
• 3. See pt. II, pp. 41, 93, 137, 155-56, 214, 237, 265.
• 4. See Ag.’s concluding verse 2 in the GS.
• 5. To say that the GS is unusually devoid of interest and that Ag. felt pressurised by his relative to write it is to overlook these facts and to be oblivious of the totality of the contents of the GS, Cf. J.L. Mason and M.V. Patwardhan: Santarasa and Abhinava gupta’s Philosophy of Aesthetics (Poona, 1969) pp. 24-25.
• 6. See pt. II, p. 137. It may be of interest to note that no other teacher of the Kashmir śaiva school seems to have held the *** BG in such a high esteem.
• 7. GS, intro, verse 2.

2 Text purpose and setting

II

Chief goal

Like Anandavardhana, Ag. maintains : The chief purpose of Dvaipāyana (Vyāsa) in writing the MB is to show that the highest reward of human pursuit is emancipation.+++(5)+++ This subject of emancipation is dealt with in various sections of the MB; but it is in the BG that the matter is discussed most vividly by Vyāsa.1

• 1. Ibid., verse 4. Following the widely accepted tradition, at least as old as the date of Śaṅkara, Ag. uses the plural form Gitāḥ. Further, more than once Ag. affirms that what is taught in the BG is the idea of the Sage (Muniḥ). See, eg. GS intro. and Ag’s observation under ch. II, 19; IV, 25; VI, 17-18; VIII, 5-7, 12-14; etc. Cf. also the introductions of Śaṅkara and Rāmakaṇṭha to their respective commentaries. Bhāskara’s commentary itself bears the name Bhagavad-āśayānusaranam.

Since liberation is the chief aim of the BG, it is defined in the very beginning : Liberation is nothing but getting oneself dissolved (i.e. realising oneself to be identical with) in the All-inclusive Samvid i.e. the Supreme Consciousness.2

• 2. GS, intro. verse. This definition may be compared with mōkṣō hi nāma naivānyaḥ, svarūpaprathanaṁ hi tat (Tantrāloka, I, 192.). It is also to be noted that in the very first chapter of the Tanrtaloka also Ag. defines liberation according to the Pratyabhijñā system and refutes the concepts of the same found in other schools.

Means of liberation

Ag. adds: To attain this end viz. liberation, the chief means is Jñāna (wisdom).+++(5)+++ The Karman (action), if performed by a person firmly fixed in wisdom cannot bind him because they have finality in wisdom. Thus wisdom is the main means and action is its inevitable important adjunct. On that account wisdom and action cannot be bracketed as equals for attaining emancipation. This is the spirit of the BG.3

• 3. GS, intro. Cf. the Jñāna-karma-samuccaya-vāda of the school represented by Bhāskara, Rāmakaṇṭha etc., on one hand and the Kevala-jñānān = mokṣavada of the school represented by Śaṅkara etc., on the other. Cf. also the Brahmasūtra सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादि-श्रुतेर् अश्ववत् (III, iv. 26) and Śaṅkara’s bhasya thereon. See also the same teacher’s long discussion at the end of the First Book of the Taittiriyopaniṣad and under BG, ch. XVIII, 66. See also below. 1. Ch. I, 1.

The allegory

Further Ag, refers to a view, most probably approvingly, that the Pāṇdava-Kaurava-war-story of the MB is to be interpreted allegorically : It is an extension of the Vedic Devāsura-war-episode,+++(5)+++ representing the perennial tug-of-war between the good and the bad instincts, between the godly and the demoniac natures and between the knowledge and the ignorance - a war that is being fought inwardly in every individual (Ch 1.1), who like Arjuna of the BG, remains undecided as to what to do and approaches a man of wisdom, like Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa, for guidance.

• Thus Arjuna represents the doubting man in general and Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa, the enlightened master. A sufficiently old popular view is that Arjuna is Nara (the man) and Srī Kr̥ṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa (the path-shower for the man ?).

Arjuna’s doubt

Therefore a genuine doubt is the primary requirement for one to receive any purposeful instruction. And this fact is indicated, according to Ag, in the first chapter of the BG; and the very location of Arjuna’s chariot i.e. in between the rival armies indicates that the hero remains undecided and confused between wisdom and nescience ( Ag.’s intro and ch. I, 9-10, ).+++(5)+++ However Ag. cautions the seeker : The authenticity of the scriptures and of the preceptors should never to be doubted. For, such a doubt is ruinous in nature. (4, Ch. IV, 39-40,)

It may be noted that Arjuna, the mightiest warrior of his age, enters the Kuruksetra battle-field with a resolve to fight out the war to the end. But on arriving at the war-front, he gets confused; and he is unable to decide whether to fight or not and is inclined not to fight.(1. Ch. I, 35 ff II, 9-10. ) This confusion and lack of decision on the part of Arjuna are according to Ag. mainly the results of the warrior’s notion : “I want to enjoy the pleasure of kingdom; but I don’t want it by shedding the blood of my own kith and kin, much more so the most venerable grandsire Bhīṣma and the teacher Droṇa, For, I will incur great sins by such an act of killing.” This particularisation of the objects of desire and of hatred is to be avoided.(2. Ch. 1, 30-34; II, 4-6.)+++(4)+++ For this purpose Arjuna is to be given a suitable instruction that may give him Sāṅkhya (proper perspective and realisation) of the self. For, this is the corner stone of the Principle of Yoga (action without craving for fruit). (3. Ch. II, 40, 48.)

Arjuna has the instruction in detail, is relieved of his doubts and confusion and at the end resolves to fight indeed. But he has not, Ag. points out, got wisdom or Self-realisation. Hence, the necessity for the future Anugītā.*

• Ch.XVIII, 73. Perhaps this observation of Ag., a great figure in the field of Sanskrit literary criticism, goes against R.D. Karmarkar’s remark on the alleged awkwardness o the Anugīta in the MB (See pt. II, p. 329). It is to be noted that Rāmakaṇṭha knows the Anugita and he refers to it by name under ch.XIII, 13 etc. In his introduction to the bhāsya, Śaṅkara too refers to the Anugita by name and gives quotations from it. But according to both these authors (ch. XVIII, 73), the pupil Arjuna had Self-realisation, thanks to Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa’s teaching.

Commentary or Response?

As we saw above a correct understanding of the nature of the Self is the basis for undertaking proper action, in connection of which an advice is sought after by Arjuna (1. Ch. II, 7. ). Hence, Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa is obliged to explain at length, the nature of the Self; the creation of the world and its connection with the Self; the question of bondage and liberation; the methodology to attain the latter; and other related items. In different contexts of the teachings of Srī Kr̥ṣṇa on these topics, the teachers of different schools of philosophies find some cardinal principles of their respective schools. Basing on that, they write commentaries upon the entire BG text in such a manner as to suit to their respective view-points. The GS may also be considered in a way a commentary of similar nature. But at the same time it is to be noted that the GS cannot be called a commentary of the usual nature. For, it is too short and too mystic and it leaves many verses of the BG unexplained.+++(4)+++ Word-by-word explanation we find very seldom here.

• 2. The very name Gitārthasangraha perhaps suggests that Ag. is interested in giving us a gist of the BG rather than in writing a word-for-word regular commentary on it. The brevity of expression and the unwillingness to write long (See below) perhaps indicate the author’s maturity. Possibly Ag. wrote GS in his later days. We have another Gitārthasangraha that belongs to the Visistadvaita school and is generally in the form of word-by-word commentary.

Hence the GS appears to show us, in a way, how the great mystic, poet, grammarian Ag. is responding to (not actually commenting on) the BG, or just echoing the BG from his ideal life of śaivism.

3 Principles of Kashmir śaivism

Let us now try to understand briefly what principles of Kashmir śaivism Ag. finds in the BG.

Paramātman and Ātman

The Ātman, the Self, is beginningless, endless and changeless eventhough the corporeal body is born, changes, decays and dies. (Ch. II, 16-26 etc.) It is totally identical with the Paramātman, the Supreme Soul, Parama śiva, who is none but Samvid 2, the Pure Consciousness which is Jñána-kriyā-maya (i.e. of knowledge and action).3

• 2. The word Samvid is difficult to translate and so also is the word vimarśa we will be speaking of next. Hence the suggested renderings are but tentative.
• 3. I.e. Prakasa-Vimarsamaya (the act of self-illuminating and the act of self-awareness).

Considering its pervasiveness limited by the body-sense-mind-equipment, it is called Ātman, the Self, the Soul; and considering its unlimited pervasiveness, it is called Universal Soul,4 known by the terms Brahman, Paramātman, Parā Samvid, Vāsudeva, Paraśiva etc. The ignorant find difference between Ātman and the Paramātman while the men of vision view them identical.5

• Cf. the cases of the Ghaṭākāśa ‘space limited by the pot’, Maṭhākāśa ‘space limited by the building’ and Mahākāśa -. ’the unlimited space’.
• 5. Ch. IV, 34-35; XIII, 1-2.

Svātantrya śakti

The distinguishing attribute of the Supreme is His Svātantrya śakti,1 the Absolute Freedom. This is permanent and is not different from Him.2

• 1. This Svātantrya śakti is also known by the words Spanda, Ahantā etc.(Pt. II, pp. 66, 174).
• 2. The notion that this śakti is different from the Supreme is therefore a wrong notion resulting in bondage (ch. XI,18). For, the energy and the energetic are identical- śakti-śaktimator abhedah.

By means of this Svātantrya, the Supreme projects Himself or creates out of Himself the multiplicity of objects. (3. Ch. VIII, 3, 20-22; IX, 17-20; XI, 18; XIV, 3. ) In other words, the Supreme projects Himself as Thirty-six Tattvas starting from the Siva Tattva down to the Earth.+++(5)+++ The calm Supreme, the Akṣara is above these Thirty-six Tattvas. (4. This Akṣara is otherwise known as the Anuttara in the Tantras. Thus there are thirty-seven Tattvas in all. See pt. II, p. 72. )

This sort of Srṣṭi (creation) or Abhāsa (projection) of the Tattvas happens, stage by stage, in a particular specific order. Similarly the Saṁhāra (destruction) or Upasaṁhāra (absorption) takes place, also stage by stage, but exactly in the reverse order. (5. Ch. III, 13-15. See also pt. II, pp. 68 ff, 72-73 for details.) Because of this Srṣṭi and Saṁhāra, there arises the distinction between the Ahantā (subject) and the Idantā (object); and this distinction forms the basis for Dvaita-buddhi (duality-view).+++(5)+++ In fact, the Supreme Ātman (the Para Bhairava-tattva) is an All-comprehensive Reality, i.e. the entire universe is the manifestation of the Jñāna, Icchā and Kriyā śaktis of the Supreme. (6. Ch. VII, 2-5. )

Background of samvit

The senses and the sense-objects are also included in this All inclusive Samvid.(1. Ch. V, 26-27.) And this Samvid serves as a Bhitti (back-ground) of each and everything in the universe.+++(4)+++ In other words, by means of His unimpeded Svātantrya śakti, the Supreme manifests as all that are seemingly inert as well as the conscious Ātmans, that are Aṇu (tiny or finite) i.e., the Jivas.+++(5)+++ For, without the Bhitti of the Parā Samvid nothing can be created or manifested or experienced. So, the objects like the blue etc., that appear to be insentient things, have luminosity, because of their being linked to, i.e. born out of the Parā Samvid.

• 2. Ch. IX, 9, 24. In fact according to the Spanda school, the Bhokta (the enjoyer) exists always and everywhere in the form of the Bhogya (the object of enjoyment). See pt. II, p. 170.

Because the Supreme and the Jīva (finite Ātman) are thus identical, the latter too is always engaged in the acts of Sr̥ṣṭi and Saṁhāra.( 3. Pt. II, p. 228. *) For, his nature is such. That is to say, inspite of his tiny nature due to his Pañca-kañcukas - (Five covers), he is still Cit, which is nothing but the Supreme. (4. Ch. XIII, 1-2. )

Further, it is quite evident to everyone that the world of experience (including different gods like Indra) is manifested and is consequently of the nature of Prakāśa, which is nothing but the Supreme. Hence no Pramāṇa (proof) is needed to prove the existence of the Self-illuminating Supreme. (5. Ch. IX, 24-27; pt. II, pp. 270-01. ) But His real nature one can know through the preceptor’s teachings (Gurūpadeśa) and the scriptures (Śruti, Āgama etc.).

Dvaitabhāvanā and Advaitabhāvanā

Concentration on the lower Tattvas (categories) alone amounts to Dvaitabhāvanā (duality view) that causes one to get caught in the whirl of birth and death. Similarly the meditation on the higher Tattvas amounts to Advaitabhāvanā (non-duality view) leading an aspirant to Mokṣa (emancipation).(1. Ch. III, 14-15. ) In other words the most important means to attain emancipation is to view all things including the senses and sense objects as manifestations of the Self; (2. Ch. II, 60; XHI, 14; pt. II, p. 46. ) to meditate on the true nature of the Self, i.e. the acts of emanation and absorption are going constantly in the Self. (3. I.e. by way of one’s acts of receiving and rejecting. See ch. XI, 18; pt. II, p. 228.)

For, emancipation is nothing but the Pratyabhijñā (recognition): ‘All is nothing but the Supreme’; and ‘I am the Supreme’.

• 4. The stage in which one realises ‘All is Supreme (nanu sarvaṁ khalu Vāsudevaḥ)’ is known as Kramamudra in the Tantras. See ch. VIII, 12-13; IX, 5; pt. II, 154-55, 197. Further, all the Guṇas (Stands), i.e. the Sattva, the Rajas and the Tamas are emanations of Ahamvimarśa. Hence, a knowledge of Self with any restriction is wrong and therefore is bondage.

This recognition an aspirant gets through the Grace of the Supreme and this Grace may or may not depend on the Karma-samatā (5. Ch. VII, 12-13; pt. II, pp. 155-56. the equableness of the good and bad effects of one’s own actions) attained by the aspirant.

Upāya-s

This method of achieving emancipation through the said realisation is the method followed by the Sāttvatas (1. Ch. XI, 18. the highly evolved person) and it is known as Abhedopāya (unity-view method).

Of course there are also other methods found prescribed in different scriptures of different schools. They may be either Bhedābhedopāyas (2. Ch. X, 19-42. duality-cum unity-view methods) or Bhedopāyas (duality-view methods).3 All these are intended for those who can not comprehend the All-inclusive Self as detailed in the BG. (See. in.ch. X and XI).

• 3. Ch. III, 39-48; IV, 29-38. These three Upayas may be the same as what are known in the Tantras respectively as the śambhava, śakta and Aṇava Upāyas. See pt. II, pp. 95, 214, 228.

Yet, they too lead, step by step, a sincere aspirant to emancipation. Every method can be termed Yajña,5 a term signifying ’the act that is to be performed necessarily’ (i.e. performed with no likes and dislikes).

• 5. For a discussion on this word see below.

Hence Yajña may denote all methods such as the Vedic sacrifices, the Aṣtāṅga-yoga, austerity, breath-control, the sense-control, the wisdom, the Tāntric practices, the Svādhyāya-knowledge 6 etc.

• 6. For details see ch. III, 9, 11-12, 28, 30; IV 24-31; VI, 17-33; XII, 2-11; pt. II, pp.66 ff., 94 ff. Regarding the Svadhyāya knowledge- Yajña the following may be added here: The recitation and contemplation of the mystic syllables aham and the same on maha, necessary in this Yajña denote respectively the process of creation and absorption.+++(5)+++ For, a and h are dvādaśāntas to one another in the regular and reverse orders of the Sanskrit alphabetical system. That is to say, counted from a, the first letter, h comes after twelve four-letter-groups in the regular order of the Sanskrit alphabetical system and counted from h, the last letter, a comes after twelve such groups in the reverse order. This Yajña of Svadhyaya knowledge may be compared with what is known as Vāgyoga in the Tantras. Cf. also

स (शब्दः) चातुरात्म्य-निचयो
विज्ञेयो हि तदात्मना ।
प्रभवाप्यययोगेन+++(=??)+++
शब्द-भास्वर-लक्षणः॥
सकारान्तस् त्व् अकाराच् च
हकारादान्त एव हि ।
प्रभवे द्वादशान्तस् तु
हकारश् चतुरात्मनाम् ।
अकारस् त्व् अप्यये चैव
तुल्यतातोऽनयोः स्मृता ।।
वर्णव्यूह-समूहे ऽस्मिन्
शेयं ज्ञान-समाधिना ।
विश्राम उदयो व्याप्ति-
व्यक्तिरा वासुदेवतः ।।
The Sātvatāmr̥ta: Ed. Vrajavallabha Dvivedi: Varanasi, 1982: p. 402: ch. XIX, verses 153-55.

In fact even the act of “sense-object-contact” is Yajña, if it is performed with a sense of dedication to the Lord, with no sense of ego (1. See e.g. ch. XVIII, 61-66. ) and with no motive for the result viz. pleasure. 2

• 2. See below. For, if the attachment or desire for the result is - allowed to play its part in the performance of a particular act, then it ceases to be an act to be necessarily performed. For, it can be dropped or changed according to one’s desire. Secondly, the desire for result would necessarily let in its retinue like anger etc, and all sorts of evils to ruin away the entire act (ch HI,“42), .

Thus all these are the means of emancipation (3, Ch. IV, 32-33), even though they are prescribed by different religions. Thus any method is a good method provided it is undertaken in all sincerity and with proper knowledge and correct attitude. These an aspirant may learn through the grace of merciful men-of-realisation by serving them in all humility for the purpose. Once entered, the path itself would lead the aspirant on and on. (Ch. IV, 34-35; XII, 9.)

Knowledge and action

Thus action, intelligently undertaken with detachment and with a sense of dedication, is in fact conducive to and not opposed to knowledge and to Mokṣa.(2. Ch. III, 10, 34–35; IV, 11, 14; V, 14. ) For, both the knowledge and action can co-exist. The latter would not yield result of binding nature because the result is not sought after. (3. Ch. II, 48-49. ) So it is the ego, and the craving for the result that bind the man. (4. Ch. XVII, 23-27… 30 ) Again both knowledge and action cannot be separated, because they represent the Jñāna and Kriyā śaktis, the two aspects of the Samvid. (5. “Ch. II, 40; III, 3; pt. II, pp. 45, 66 etc. ) In fact, he who undertakes action with proper technique, performs, and at the same time destroys, all actions. (6. Ch. IV, 18-20, 24;,etc… o ) This is the technique of dedicating action, and every thing connected with it, to the Supreme; (7. Ch. X!I, 11; XVIII:64-65.) and it is what is known as Samnyāsa ‘relinquishment’ (i. e. relinquishment of desire for the fruit of action).(8 Ch. VI, 1-2; XVIII, 4-11; etc,) In fact, relinquishment is the same as undertaking action with no attachment (i. e. Karma-yoga) (Ch. VI, 1-2. ) and to be free from the Strands. (2. Ch. XVIII, 4-11. )

Application to arjuna

The implication is this: Arjuna’s resolve not to fight the war would result in his bondage. For, being egocentric only, he can make such a resolve. In that case his Kṣatriya Prakr̥ti (nature) would prevail over the egocentric Arjuna and propel him to fight and would keep him in bondage.+++(4)+++ On the other hand if the act of fighting the war, enjoined in the scriptures for the warring class (Ksatriya) is undertaken with a sense of dedication and duty and with no ego, then it won’t bind the warrior Arjuna. Even the act of killing relatives comes only by the way when one is to perform the enjoined act of fighting. This incidental injury (Himsā) is like the act of killing the goat while performing sacrifice enjoined in the scriptures, and hence it is not a sin.+++(5)+++ Rather if that act of fighting is undertaken with no craving for result, with no sense of ego and with a sense of self surrender to the Lord, it won’t bind Arjuna. On the contrary it will lead him to emancipation. (3. Ch. XII, 11; XIII, 29; XVIII, 3, 41-50, 61-62, 66,)

4 Sub-themes

What we have been above may constitute more or less the main stream of thought in the GS. How ever there are also some other important matters dealt with as substreams. They are :

• Satkāryavāda (Ch II, 17, etc. ), Abhāsavāda and the śaiva epistemology (2. Ch. II, 42; IV, 14-15; VI, 30. )
• The unitary nature of the determinate knowledge and the Will (3. Ch. II, 42; VII, 10-11; etc. )
• The non-difference of the Jñāna, Icchā and Kriyā śaktis from the Samvid (4. Ch. VII, 10-11; XVIII, 18; etc.)
• The Utpatti-pralaya vāda (Ch III, 14-15; VII, 12-13, 27; etc. )
• The question of the death and rebirth of the sincere Sādhaka (6. Ch. VIII, 5-28. )
• The authority of the Śāstra (i.e. scripture, viz. the Veda and the Smrti), and of śīla, i.e. Ācāra (the conduct of the pure) (7. Ch. II, 46, 55; XVI, 23-24; XVII, 2; etc. )+++(4)+++
• The significance and utility of the mystic words OM, TAT and SAT ( 8. Ch. XVII, 23-27. )
• The nature and the varied influences of the Sattva, the Rajas and the Tamo Guṇas (Strands) on human mind and behaviour (9. Ch. XIV, 5-18; ch. XVII, and XVIII. )
• The godly and the demoniac qualities that are diametrically opposed to one another, both in their nature and in their results (10. Ch XVI. )
• The concept of the Saguṇa and the Nirguṇa Brahman
  • Ch. XII, 3-5. etc. Cf. तत्रोभय-लिङ्ग-श्रुत्य्-अनुग्रहाद् उभय-लिङ्गम् एव etc. Śaṅkara’s observation in the Ubhayaliigādhikarana of the BS (III, ii, 11-21). In the present context Ag, has in mind the Chindogya passage स एष आत्मा अपहत पाप्मा etc. (See pt. II, p. 228). Among the early Advaita teachers there had been difference of opinion regarding the import and implication of this passage. Ag’s view in this regard may be better appreciated in the light of the observations of śaṅkara, Vācaspati Miśra and Anandagiri in the Brahmādhikaraṇa of the BS (IV, iv, 5-7), where the disagreeing views of Jaimini, Auḍulomi and Bādarāyaṇa on this matter are recorded.
• The essential attributes, character and behaviour of the sincere aspirant, the staunch devotee and the man, whose mind is firmly rooted in the Supreme and the man who has gone beyond the sphere of influences of the Strands (1. Ch. II, 57-73; IV, 19-23; V, 19-28; XII, 13-20; XIV, 22-26.)
• The technique of vanquishing the foes in the form of craving and anger (2. Ch. III, 39-48. ) and methodology of controlling the ever-volatile flickering mind (3. Ch, VỊ, 25-29, 36-49.)
• The nature of the Brahman, the Supreme and its All-inclusiveness (4. Ch. VỊ, 21-24; XI. )
• The clues for comprehending that All-inclusive nature (5. Ch. VII, 7-12; X. )
• The nature and utility of meditating on the dichotomy of the Self and the body-mind-intellect equipment
  • 6. I.e. the Kṣetra-Kṣetrajñā-Vibhāga as described in ch. XIII. The following may be added here. A section of the Taittiriya Upanisad (II and III) commences with an analysis of this Kṣetra-Kṣetrajñā-Vibhāga otherwise known as Pañcakośa-vivecana (distinguishing the Self from the Five sheaths) for the benefit of a seeker and it ends with recording his unique final experience: ‘I am food and food-eater too’ (aham annam annādaḥ)’ - an experience in which the man of realisation recognises his oneness with the object. This is nothing but the Pratyabhijñā of Kashmir śaivism ( bhōktaiva bhōgyabhāvēna sadā sarvatra saṁsthitaḥ).+++(5)+++ Thus a śaiva of Kashmir could find here an Upanisadic concurrence with his theory of Bhedopaya of Kṣetra-Kṣetrajñā-Vibhāga Yoga leading to the Abhedopāya, and to liberation.
  • However an Advaitin would say: By means of the Pañcakośa Vivecana, the seeker slowly attains Nirvikalpaka Samadhi (trance admitting no difference) and be comes one with the attributeless Supreme, devoid-of-duality (Nirguṇa Advaita Brahman). But when he re-enters into the mundane experience, he remembers. - This remembrance the Upaniṣad records while concluding- with amazement that this Advitīya Brahman, the Self is (appeared earlier as unreal many such as) the food, food-eater etc. It is just like, after realising that it is rope only and not a snake or garland or a sword, the man would still remember that this rope is (appeared earlier to be) the snake, sword and garland (bādhāyām sāmānādhikaraṇyam).+++(5)+++
• The Bhakti, Self-dedication and the constantly entering into the Lord (Samāveśayoga) (Ch. XII, 2, 11; etci pt: II, p. 237.)
• And other topics.

Though very interesting, these topics are not examined here because many of these items have been studied in the Notes in pt. II, on the respective passages.

5 Exposition

Crypticism

Now one may ask : How far has Ag. succeeded in bringing out these ideas of his in the GS ? It is not an easy question to answer. For, as we pointed out at the very outest, Ag. does not give us a word-by word commentary throughout. Many verses he has left untouched. In the GS, Ag. is inconveniently very brief in many places and very seldom he elaborates his points. Often he is very vague and at times quite consciously he writes in a cryptic manner. Yet, he feels sorry that he has disclosed too much of the ideas of the hidden tradition. He also tells us openly that the secret ideas he gives will be clean only to those who are initiated in the tradition of the śaiva School, and to others the top secret given in the GS would be like sky-pictures.+++(5)+++

Yet, a very careful study of the GS, with the help of Ag.’s other works, like Tantrāloka, Paramārtha-sāra, Isvarapratyabhijñā-vimarsinī etc. would convince an impartial, but sympathetic reader, of this fact : Ag, has fairly succeeded in reading and bringing out these ideas of his śaiva School in the BG. Attempts have been made in a humble way both in the Tippani in pt. I and in the Notes in pt. II to elucidate this point.

Comparison with śaṅkara

After thus surveying briefly the contents of the GS, one may be naturally tempted to attempt a comparative study of Ag. and Sankarācārya on the basis of their respective commentaries on the BG. For, Śaṅkara’s Gītābhāsya is the most well-known commentary of the pre-Ag. period. We have noted earlier that Ag. might have been well aware of Śankara’s bhāsya.

• 6. See e.g. ch. III, 14-15; IV, 18, 24; VII, 24-27; XVII, 23-27.
• 7. Ch. IV, 2A, 29-31. Gita-5

[[xxxiv]]

Moreover Ag, occupies as much an important place in the śaiva tradition as Śankara and Nāgārjuna do in the Vedāntic and Buddhistic traditions. We, however, refrain here from such an attempt. For, it will naturally lengthen the present study to an unmanageable extent. Further, to compare and contrast these giantlike sage-philosophers of immea surable intellect, insight and achievements and to pass judgement on that account are bound to be hard task. Moreover, a little attempt has already been made here and there in the Notes in pt.II in this direction of comparison. Again, scholars who have made systematic studies of Kashmir śaivism do recognise in general Śaṅkara’s influence on the development of this śaiva philosophy of which Ag. is the greatest master. The same may be applicable to some extent to the philosophy of the GS too.

Similarities

Above all it is good to bear in mind this: There is bound to be much in common among Śaṅkara and Ag. Because both believe in the total Advaita and advocate the same in their writings in their own respective ways. Both hold that the duality-view (Dvaitabuddhi) is only according to the ignorant person of the mundane life (Loka-dr̥ṣṭi) and the unity view (Advaita-buddhi) is of the intelligent person (Jñānin) with the scripture-eye (Śāstra-drṣti)…

• 1. L. N. Sharma: Kashmir śaivism (Varanasi, 1972), p. 70.5
• 2. Ibid; K.C, Pandey: op.cit.; S.S. Suryanarayana Sastri: Collected works (Madras, 1961), pp. 223 ff, etc.
• 3. See e.g. Śaṅkara under BS, I, I, 28-31; I, iii, 19, II, i, 3; II, iii, 21. Also see GS, ch. III, 47-48, etc..

XXXY

Differences

At the same time there cannot but be difference between the two. For, Śaṅkara’s philosophy is out and out based on the tradition of the venerable Śruti. And according to him, all other authorities, however great they might be, are to be rejected straight away, if they are found contradicting the Śruti. On the other hand Ag.’s philosophy has its foundation on the śaiva traditions of the Āgamas. According to the last mentioned authorities, the Vedic tradition is no doubt a good one; but it is inferior to the Vaiṣnava tradition, which is itself inferior to the śaiva tradition. Being a staunch Vedist Advaitin, Śaṅkara has “his own reason to adhere to the Illusion theory (Vivarttavāda) and to treat the world as Illusory (Jagan Mithyā).

On the other hand, being a śaiva Absolutist of the Āgama tradition, Ag. has his own justification to follow the Manifestation-theory (Abhāsavāda) and to view the world as manifestation of the Supreme. He cannot agree with the view that world is an Illusion. The Brahman, he says, manifests as the seemingly inert as well as the Absolute Lord (īśvara). The thing to be overcome is the ignorance which prevents us from realising the Brahman in the world as well as beyond it.& Bearing all these factors in mind let us try to understand only a few points briefly in the following sections.

• 1. This may be a reason why Ag. has chosen BG out of the Prasthānatraya to comment on. Cf. Ag.’s observation वेदान्ताद् अपि गुह्यम् etc. under ch. XVIII, 63.
• 2. Pt. II, p. 138. -3. Seeme.g. GS, intro verse 1; ch. III, 47-48; the catch-verse in ch. XIII,

[[xxxvi]]

6 jāti-attitude

The Vedānta tradition is ordinarily available only for the Dvijas (i.e. the members of the Brāhmana, Ksatriya and Vaisya castes —In fact, members of the first two castes only) and not for the Śūdras. No doubt by citing the examples of Vidura and Dharma-vyādha of the MB, Śaṅkara accepts that the Śūdras are also eligible for the Vedānta - philosophy, but taught through the Epics and the Purānas etc.. And :We know that the BG forms part of the Epic.” Yet writers like Bhāskara have gone to the extent of denying the women in general, and the communities of the merchants and the Sūdras even the philosophy of the BG and its goal, viz. Mokṣa.”

However, in Kashmir tradition we observe a change in this policy after the days of Bhāskara. For, Rāmakaṇṭha tells us in many words that the teachings of the BG are meant for all those who are endowed with the qualities and virtues listed in the verses abhayaṁ sattva-saṁśuddhiḥ etc. and he does not refer to any caste restriction.

• 1. See Śaṅkara’s observation while concluding his gloss on the BS, I, iii, 38.
• 2. Maybe this is another reason for Ag.’s selecting the BG among the Prasthānatraya to comment on.
• 3. See Bhāskara’s intro (Ed. op. cit., p. 14) and his gloss on ch, IX, 33 34. 4. Ch. XVI, 1-3.
• 4. See Rāmakaṇṭha’s o’servation thereon. Sec also his Sarvatobhadra, intro (Ed.op.cit., p. 12).

[[xxxvii]]

This change might have been due to the growing popularity of the śaivāgama tradition which is open to all irrespective of castes.1

Ag.is a staunch follower of this Śaiva tradition. He accepts that even the animals are eligible for emancipation and cites the example of Gajendra mokṣa of the Purāṇas.2 According to him the words strī, Vaisya and Sudra found in the verse māṁ hi pārtha etc. (ch.IX, 33) are not to be taken in the sense of female and the respective castes; rather they denote respectively ’the ignorant’, ’those who are engaged in different vocations, like agriculture etc. and those who do not have any claim for performing Vedic rituals. Further, Ag. treats the compound word pāpa-yonayaḥ (those who are of sinful birth) of the same verse as an independent Noun indicating animals, birds and reptiles. And he mocks at all the other commentators like Bhāskara3 who treat that expression as an Adjective qualifying the Nouns, strī, Vaiśya and Śūdra, which according to them signify female and the respective castes. Ag. refutes their views as being ridden of petty caste prejudices.4

• 1. Cf. brāhmaṇāḥ kkṣatriyā vaiśyāḥ śūdrāś cānyē ’thavā priyē. सर्वे ते समधर्माणः शिवधर्मे नियोजिताः ॥ - Svacchandatantra (KSS), II, p 239.
• 2. See Ag.’s observation : gajendramōkṣaṇādīni etc. in GS, ch. IX, 33-35. Cf. also yasya kasyacij jantōr iti nātra jāty-apēkṣā kācit IPV, II, p. 276. do la
• 3. It is to be noted that Bhāskara is not alone in this respect. Śaṅkara, Rāmakaṇṭha etc., also do the same.
• 4. See kēcid ācakṣatē etc. in the GS, ch. IX, 33-35.

[[Xxxviii]]

Thus the BG, its philosophy, its wisdom and its goal, emancipation are thrown open to one and all. Consequently the BG has become a universal classic in the tradition of Kashmir.

The above change of attitude does not mean that the Kashmirian scholars had revolutionised the social structure and had totally done away with castes, For, under the famous verse vidyā-vinaya-sampannē etc. (ch. V. 18), Ag, clearly says that the wise look equally upon a Brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-cooker (i.e., a Canḍāla, Harijan). But he quickly adds that this does not mean that the wise act equally with them all, i.e. make use of them in identical way. He goes further to point out that the same distinction between viewing them equally and acting equally with them is applicable even in the purely Tāntric tradition of the Vijñānabhairava. Indeed one cannot act equally with (i.e. use indentically) a cow, an elephant and a dog even though one may look upon them equally as living beings with Samvid glowing in. (Ag. believes that the caste-distinction is based on the inherent nature of the respective castes. See the intro and gloss of ch, XVIII 41-60.)

Thus in the Kashmir tradition the caste system seems to have continued in the social level eventhough it had lost its ground in the spiritual plane. The Kashmir revolution seems to have been only to this extent. Rāmakaṇṭha makes the point clear under the said verse of the BG. He says:

The wise would observe the Supreme Brahman that is equal in a Brāhmaṇa, a Gandāla, a cow, an elephant and a dog. [[xxxix]] This does not mean that the wise would make use of them equally and do away the social structure created by the Supreme Lord.1

• 1. See Rāmakaṇṭha under ch.V,18. For Sivopādhyāya’s similar idea see pt. II, p. 116. Ag. too accepts that the Four caste system is the creation of the Supreme. See ch. IV, 11-13; XVIII, 41-46 ff.

7 yajña

This change of attitude towards the caste system in the spiritual plane perhaps explains the deference between the BG commentators in general on one hand and Ag. of the Kashmir śaiva School on the other regarding the interpretation of the term yajña occurring often in the BG. The word occurs for the first time in yajñārthāt karmaṇaḥ : (ch. III, 9). Most of the commentators seem to feel it difficult to take the word in its well-known common parlance i.e. Vedic sacrifice. To Śaṅkara this word signifies Viṣnu. To Bhāskara too it does the same. But to Rāmakaṇṭha it conveys the meaning ‘Worship of the Supreme’. But none of them appears to maintain the same respective stands of theirs uniformly in all the instances where the word occurs (mostly in ch. III and IV). in BG.

On the other hand, Ag. takes, as we saw earlier, Yajña in the sense of an act to be necessarily performed. I.e. an act not influenced by one’s likes and dislikes. See above.

How can yajñā signify ‘an act with no attachment’? The GS does not help us in answering this pertinent question. But (F. 1. 2. Contd. from p. xxxix) one may take a risk and suggest: The word is derived from the root yaj which is recognised by the Dhātupātha in the senses devapūjā (worshiping gods) saṅgatikaraṇa (producing knowledge, wisdom. The lexicons recognise saṅgati in the sense of ‘knowledge’) and dāna (offering) (yaja dēvapūjā-saṅgati-karaṇa-dānēṣu). The widely popular sense ‘sacrifice’ is based on the root-meaning dāna and dēvapūjā - ijyantē dhīyantē havīṁṣi atrēti, ijyantē pūjyantē dēvatā atrēti vā yajñaḥ. Rāmakaṇṭha’s interpretation of the word is based on the root meaning devapūjā. But Ag. seems to interpret the word in its root-meaning saṅgati-karaṇa. If performed with a sense of total Self-dedication and with no craving for result, the actions are sure to generate or kindle knowledge and wisdom. Śaṅkara’s interpretation of yajña in the sense of Viṣṇu is based on the authority of the Vedic metaphor - yajñō vai viṣṇuḥ. Maybe in this case also the etymology intended is : इज्यते दीयते हविरस्म एवेति संप्रदानार्थे, इज्यते पूज्यते अयमेवेति कर्मण्यर्थे वा यज्ञो विष्णुः परमात्मा । यज 917 (PA, III, iii, 90) ityādinā bhāvē ’kartari ca kārakē yajādibhyō naṅ-विधानात् । येऽप्यन्यदेवताभक्ताः ++ मामेव यजन्त्यविधिपूर्वकम् इति शास्त्रात् । ‘यज्ञः स्यादात्मनि मखे नारायणहुताशयोः’ इत्यनेकार्थसंग्रहकोशात् । ‘यज्ञ इज्यो mahējyaś ca’ iti śrīviṣṇunāmnāṁ sahasramadhyē yajñapadapāṭhācca.

(Contd. in p. xl)श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता गीतार्थसंग्रहोपेता

To Ag. the word does not mean in the BG ‘the Vedic sacrifice’ that can be performed only by a few selected dvijas; but it denotes always the sublime act, that is not generated by likes and dis-likes, and that can be performed by all, irrespective of castes. Hence he seems to feel comfortable to maintain a uniformity. (1. See pt. II. pp 66-67 etc.)

8 Catholicity

Another point of interest is Ag.’s catholicity, his generous attitude towards other religions, and towards the sacrifices and methods of worship to different gods prescribed in different religions. This point is clear from Ag.’s lengthy gloss on yē’pyanyadēvatābhaktāḥ etc. (ch. IX, 24). Here in this verse worships and sacrifices to different gods are referred to. Commentators in general would naturally view the worships prescribed in their respective systems as good ones and dub those found in other systems as wrong methods undertaken out of ignorance or prescribed by wrong injunctions. But Ag.is of a firm opinion that all sorts of worship of all gods may, in a way, be worship of the Supreme. The difference between these two opinions lies in the way in which the word avidhi in the verse is interpreted by the commentators.

Śankara takes avidhi in the sense of ajñāna - I. e. ‘ignorance’. Almost all the other commentators of Śaṅkara’s school seem to follow the Bhāsyakāra. However, nowhere it appears to have been made clear how avidhi could be made to yield the meaning ajñāna ‘ignorance’.

In this context one may, if permitted, suggest the following: Vidhi ‘injunction is usually defined as Ajnatārtha-jñāpaka ’that which gives us the correct knowledge of what is otherwise unknown’ (sce pt. II, p. 201). Thus Vidhi is the means to gain Jñāna or correct knowledge. Often the ends are referrable by the terms ordinarily denoting the means. Thus Jñāna (knowledge) can be an extended meaning of vidhi and avidhi may signify thus ajñāna ‘ignorance’. One may also venture to suggest a sort of etymology that perhaps suites the context and makes the meaning in question a Vacyārtha (word meaing): viśiṣṭā विशेषेण वा धीयन्ते अस्मिन्निति विधिः ज्ञानम्, आत्मज्ञानम्, अथवा amānitvam ityārabhya tattvajñānārthadarśanam ity-antēna (ch. XIII, 7-11) परिगणय्य एतज्-ज्ञानम् इति प्रोक्तम् इति शृंगग्राहिकया निविष्टं ज्ञानम् amānitvādikam । [डु धाñ धारणपोषणयोरिति धातोर् जुहोत्यादेः ‘उपसर्ग घोः kiḥ’ (PA, III, iii, 92) ity upasargē upapadē ghusaṁjñkēbhyō bhāvē akartari कारके च किप्रत्ययविधानात् । ] Rāmakaṇṭha too perhaps has more or less similar word meaning in his mind while interpreting the expression (See next note). Probably Śaṅkarācārya intends this also: By performing sacrifices for different gods, people in fact worship the Supreme only; but they are ignorant of this fact because of their pride, hypocricy (mānitva-dambhitvādi) etc.

xlii श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता गीतार्थसंग्रहोपेता Rāmakaṇṭha too takes practically the same stand.

1. Cf. vidhiḥ — svātmani advaya-cin-mātra-lakṣaṇamat-svarūpānubhavaḥ — tad-anyaḥ avidhiḥ etc.

Bhāskara interprets avidhipūrvakam in the sense ’not according to the injunctions (i.e. proper injunctions) made for the path of liberation.

2. Cf. avidhipūrvakaṁ muktimārga-vidhi-rahitam ityarthaḥ

However, Ag, first takes the word in the sense of ‘varied injunctions.’ (3. I e. those injunctions that are found in other religions and other philosophies. For details of this as well as the second interpretation of the word by Ag., see the ṭippaṇi and Anubandha (pt.I) and the Notes (pt II) on this verse.)

He affirms that the Lord worshipped by any and every method does cause the aspirant to come out of the Saṁsāra. (Ch. XIII, 24-25) His confirmed view is: No name or deity is to be insisted upon Holding fast to any form and name of a deity with no desire for result surely yields emancipation to the aspirant. 5 Ch. VII, 24.

[[xliii]]

With all vehemence he criticises those commentators who interpret avidhi in the sense ‘wrong or defective injunctions’ and he describes them as acquiring sin by insulting other religions and philosophies. This vouches for Ag.’s rare catholicity. Indeed the philosopher Ag. not only tolerates, but also accepts and blessess whole-heartedly all paths.

1. This reminds us of Gaudapada’s words:

स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु
द्वैतिनो निश्चिता दृढम् ।
परस्परं विरुद्ध्यन्ते
तैर् अयं न विरुध्यते ॥
—Māndūkyopani ṣatkārikā, III, 17.

He believes strongly that if undertaken by the ignorant, the actions, however great they may be, are sure to bind; but if undertaken by the wise, the actions, however unimportant they may look, are means of liberation. He has on his side the authority सेयं क्रियात्मिका शक्तिः etc of the Spandakārika.

2. Cf. also aqt a 56: etc. under ch. XVII, 23-27,

9 jñāna, karma, jaḍatā

jñāna and karma

In this Section we may study two other important points found in the GS. They are based on some notable variations in the readings of the BG text which Ag seems to have had with him. The first point is in connection with the relationship between the Sāṅkhya (Jñāna) and Karman or Karmayoga, as means of Mokṣa.

According to the Jñāna-Karma samuccayavāda of Bhāskara, both the Saṅkhya and the Karman have co-equality and they jointly help the aspirant in attaining emancipation.

On the other hand according to the Sarvakarma-saṁnyāsa - pūrvaka-jñāna-prāpya-mokṣavāda of Śaṅkara, Sāṅkhya alone is the means of Mokṣa; by their very nature both the Saṅkhya and the Karman are mutually opposed to one another, even though the Karman performed with detachment, may help one to gain wisdom or Sāńkhya. (1. See above. )

As we saw earlier Ag, explicitly says that he cannot subscribe to the former school. At the same time he would not agree with the other theory of mutual incompatibility of the jñāna and the Karman. For him both are of mutually inclusive nature. For, Karman, in its broadest sense signifies, not the Vedic and Smārta ritualistic practices alone, but Kriyā “action’, in general; and the Jñāna and Kriyā are two aspects of the Samvid. (Ch. III, 3; V, 14 )

In fact, the teaching for the Sāṅkhya, i.e. proper knowledge, and the teaching for the efficient performance of action, i. e. Karma. yoga are basically not different. Ag. formulates this idea on the basis of ch. II, 40. Ag’s text of the first helf of the BG verse seems to read: एषा तेऽभिहिता सांख्ये बद्धिर्योगे यथा शृण as against एषा तेऽभिहिता सांख्ये बुद्धिर्योग tv शृण which is the reading of the vulgate and of the Kashmirian text commented upon by Bhāskara and Rāmakaṇṭha. With all power at his disposal Śaṅkara stresses on the word tu ‘but’, ‘on the other hand’ and often quotes this passage to substantiate his theory. But Bhāskara seems to ignore this tu, while Rāma kaṇṭha has to labour a little to explain away the word.

• 3. See pt. II, pp. 44-45. If one has to believe that Ag’s text too must have read as in the vulgate only, even then it might have been possible for Ag. to read, of course not very easily, in the verse his theory of mutual inclusiveness of the Jñāna and the Karman, See the Anubandha (pt.I).

This theory of mutual inclusiveness of the Saṅkhya and the Karman, Ag, seems to read also in [[xlv]] ch.111,3. Here the first half of Ag.’s text seems to read: – lōkē’smin dvividhā niṣṭhā puraikōktā mayānagha as against lōkē’smin dvividhā niṣṭhā purā prōktā mayānagha, the reading of the vulgate and of the Kashmir text followed by Bhāskara and Rāmakaṇṭha.

Of course there are charges of alleged manipulation of the BG text levelled by Jayatīrtha against Bhāskara with regard to the latter’s reading in ch. VI,7. +++(5)+++ And basing on these charges Belvalkar has gone to the extent of suspecting whether most of the Kashmirian variants in the BG text are due to - some partisans’ over-zeal.

• 1. See the Bhagavadgitz, Critical Ed. (S. K Belvalkar, Poona, 1945), intro, pp. xix and xxi.

However, the above variants followed by Ag. seem to go extremely well with the BG sāṅkhyayōgau pr̥thag bālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ etc. (2. Ch. V, 4. )

Further, Belvalkar himself draws our attention to the fact that the old Javanese translation cum para phrase (datable c. 1000 A.D.) of the BG is not aware of the difference between the Saṅkhya and the Yoga view-points, as we find in the vulgate. (3. Op.cit., intro, p. xxiii and Critical Notes p. 96. )

saṁvit in non-sentience

The second interesting point of similar nature in the GS is: Ag.’s observations on ch. VII, 4-5 seem to suggest that the first hemistich of verse 5 of Ag.’s text perhaps read something like अपरेयम् इतो ऽनन्यां प्रकृतिṁ viddhi mē parām as against apareyam itas tvanyāṁ prakr̥tiṁ viddhi mē parām [[xlvi]] of the vulgate and of the Kashmirian text followed by Bhāskara and Rāmakaṇṭha. No doubt here in ch. VII, 4-5, Ag. tries to read the cardinal principle of the Kashmir śaiva school viz., the Parā Samvid manifests as both the sentient and the non-sentient, starting from Brahmā (the Personal God) down to the insignificant grass; because sentiency is recognisable in men etc., they are called ajaḍa or the sentient; and because it is concealed (not recognisable) in pot etc., they are known as jaḍa or the non-sentient.

• 1. See pt. II, pp 151-152. Cf
     सोऽयमात्मानमावृत्य स्थितो जडपदं गतः ।
     आवृतानावृतात्मा तु देवादिस्थावरान्तगः ।
     जडाजडस्याप्येतस्य द्रैरूप्यस्यास्ति citratā
     -TA, I, 133-35.

Ag. elucidates this theory further later on. (2. Ch. IX, 4-9.) The origin of this theory is traceable in the Upaniṣads.”

• 3. sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma — (Chāndogya, III, xiv, 1 etc.) vijñānaṁ cāvijñānaṁ ca . satyaṁ cānr̥taṁ ca satyam abhavat (Taittiriya, 11,6). But the Advaitin would take these sentences as instances of bādhāyāṁ sāmānādhikaraṇyam, i.e. sentences giving identity of the two (or more) in contradiction. See above.

The theory is referred to by the Vyakaraṇa Vārttikakāra Kātyāyana,’ and is exemplified by the Mahābhāṣyakāra Patañjali.

• Cf. sarvasy vā cētanāvattvād, the last Vārttika under gat: dhātōḥ karmaṇaḥ samānakartr̥kād icchāyāṁ vā (PA III, i, 7).
• Cf. evaṁ hy āha - kaṁsakāḥ sarpanti, śirīṣō ’yaṁ svapiti etc. -the Maha. bhāsya under the above Varttika.

[[xlvii]]

Śaṅkara twice refers to and defends this theory while refuting the Sāṅkhya dualism.

• 1. Cf. (A) योऽपि कश्चिद् आचक्षीत श्रुत्या जगतश् चेतनप्रकृतिकतां, तद्बलेनैव समस्तं जगत् चेतनम् अवगमिष्यामि etc. Sankara under न विलक्षणत्वाद् अस्य तथात्वं च शब्दात् (BS II, i, 4).
• (B) योऽपि चेतन-कारण-श्रवण-बलेनैव समस्तस्य जगतश् चेतनताम् उत्प्रेक्षते etc. Cf. Ag.’s observations under ch. VII, 4-7.

10 Materials used

The materials used for the present edition of the text are the following two manuscripts and two earlier editions of the work.

(A) Manuscripts S-Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute MS No. 163/1883-84. This has not been catalogued so far. So let us examine this a bit elaborately.

• Size: 33 c, m. by 16 c. m.
• Extent: Complete; 26 unnumbered leaves with no marginal lines; 13 lines to a page, 55 letters to a line, excluding the additions on sides and in between the lines. Fol. 24a-b & Fol. 25a bear 15-16 lines, 26b 11 lines
• Description:- Country paper: Sārada characters: writing generally uniform: wrong writings scored off and portions originally omitted are added on sides or above the lines with the indicator, Kakapāda in pro per places. At time marginal notes are added.
• Age: The MS bears no date. But it has an old look.

Begins: Fol. 1b.

line 1: सिद्धम् (1. Expressed by a symbol.) स्वस्ति । गणेशाय नमः। य एष विततस्फुरद्विविध etc. Line 11 : विघ्नमात्रफलैर् वाग्जिालैः ॥ धृतराष्ट्र उवाच । धर्मक्षेत्रे - - - - - किमकुर्वत संजय । अत्र केचित

Folio 2a :

lines 11-13 : तदत्र संग्रहः - विद्या विद्योभयाघात — भवेन्मुनिः ।। इति श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तविरचिते गीतार्थसंग्रहे प्रथमोऽध्यायः। संजयः तं तथेति । आदौ लोकव्यवहार —-मित्याह । अनार्य । अर्जुनः । कथं भीष्ममित्यादि।

Folio 5b: lines 1-3: अथार्थसंग्रहः । अहो न चेतसश्चित्रा—- परित्यजेत् ॥ इति श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तपादविरचिते गीतार्थसंग्रहे द्वितीयोध्यायः । ज्यायसी । व्यामि।

On Line 4: —- श्रीभगवान् । लोकेस्मिन् -…

Folio 8a: lines 9-11: शत्रुं जहीति शिवम् । धनानि दारान -.. विभ्रमाः । इति संग्रहः । इति श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तविरचिते गीतासंग्रहे तृतीयो ध्यायः । श्रीभगवान् । इमं । एवं । स ए। - - - -

Ends folio 26a : lines 1-2 : … सूचयन् भाविनोनु गीतार्थस्यावकाशं ददाति ॥ संजयः ॥ इत्यहं यत्रयोगीत्यन्तम् । संजयवचनेन —
Lines 3-5: – - - विभूतय इति । शिवम् ॥ संगृह(ह्य)ते भङ्क्त्वाज्ञान —- श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तविरचिते गीतार्थसंग्रहेष्टादशोध्यायः।

Lines 9-11: परिपूर्णोयं गीतार्थसंग्रहः कृतिस्त्रिनयनचरणचिन्तन -लब्ध-प्रसिद्धेश् श्रीमदभिनवगुप्तस्येति शिवम् ।

• अभिनवरूपा शक्तिस्तद्गुप्तो यो महेश्वरो देवः ।
  तदुभयामलरूपम् अभिनवगुप्तं शिवं वन्दे।

From the above this is clear: The MS has simple colophons; calls the work Gītārthasangraha and [[xlix]] at times Gītāsangraha; omits uvāca in major number of cases; does not contain any of the BG verses in full excepting the first one; quotes only a few initial syllables of the verses; and omits even that in the case of many other verses. These remarks hold good to a great extent for the next MS also i.e. B.

Ag.’s remark: पाठविप्रतिपत्तिनिवारणायैव विलिख्यते (Ch. XVII, 2.) seems however to suggest that he actually wrote down the entire text of the BG so that his readers might not have any misconception about the readings of the BG text he was depending on. (2. Cf. pt. II, p. 299. ) Once Ag. speaks of some interpolated verses of repetitive nature. (3. Ch. XIV, 16-20. See also pt. II, p. 264. ) Had we got Ag.’s text, we could know what those interepolated verses are. But unfortunately we have lost this important help in ascertaining the BG text Ag. could have had. This Sārada manuscript is marked in the present edition as S, denoting the Sārada characters in which the text of the MS is written.

B - Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute: MS No. 422/1875-76 (New No.28): Same as the Sl. No. 658 of the Descriptive Catalogue of MSS in the Govt. Manuscripts Library, Bhandarkar O. R. Institute, Poona.

Size: 35 cm. by 15 cm.
Extent : 41 leaves, numbered; no marginal line; 12 lines to a page; 40 letters to a line. Devanāgarii characters; writing bold and uniform; here and there marginal corrections and additions.

Date : Saṁvat 1951 (1895 AD), Bhādrapada, Su. 10, followed by Su. 11, Friday.

• 1. It seems not easy to reconcile this date with the MS No. IS 422/1875-76. The details of the date given in the MS seem to point to Friday, the 30th August 1895 A.D. The Samvat meant here was Vikrama year, Karttikādi expired. However, shu. 10 ended about three hours before the sun rise on that day as per Swamikannu Pillai’s An Indian Ephemeris-A.D. 1800 to A.D. 1999.

Begins: folio lb : line 1: ओं श्रीगुरवे नमः ॥ श्रीगणपतये नमः ॥ श्रीरस्तु । ओं । य एष वितत etc.
Ends : folio 4lb: इति प्रत्यक्षशिवाचार्याभिनवगुप्तविरचिते भगवद्-गीतार्थसंग्रहे अष्टादशोध्यायः ॥
श्रीमत्कात्यायनोभूद् वररुचि…तदुभयामल-रूपं - - वन्दे इति ।
भद्रं वो भवतु सद्भक्तानां संवत् १९५१ भाद्रपद मासे शुक्लपक्षे शुक्रवासरान्वितायां दशम्यां परता (त) एकादश्यां चित्रितम् इति शिवम् ।।

This manuscript is referred to as B, denoting its place of deposit viz. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

(B) Published Text

N - Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā with the Gītābhāsya of Śaṅkara and the commentaries of Anandagiri, Nīlakaṇṭha, Śrīdhara, Madhusudana Sarasvati and Dhanapati and the GS: Ed. Pansikar Vasudeva Sarma: published by the Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, 1912. The editor says that this edition of the GS is based on two MSS : (a) A defective MS of Kashmir origin and (b) a MS preserved in the Deccan College, Poona.

• 2. This has been republished by NSP in 1936 and by Munshiram Manoharlal Co., Delhi in 1978.

The textual variants of this edition are marked in the present edition as N denoting the publisher Nirnayasagar Press.

• 4. I am unable to ascertain whether these two MSS are th the same as S and B.

K - Śrīmad Bhagavadgītā with the commentary by Mahāmāheśvara Abhinavagupta: Ed. with notes by Rājānaka Pandit Lakshman Raina Brahmachari, Śrīnagar, Kashmir, 1933. The editor informs us that he had made use of some three Sārada MSS of Kashmir origin and gives us some details about them. This edition had gone out of print long ago and was hard to find anywhere. Hence at the instance of Prof. K. Satchidananda Murthy, the then Vice-Chancellor, S. V. University, I requested Dr. Karan Singh, former Maharaja of Kashmir and the then M. P., for help. Dr. Karan Singh was good enough to arrange to get me a photostat copy of the edition preserved in his library in Jammu. The variants in the text main and the variants noted in the footnotes of this edition are referred to in the present edition as K (denoting Kashmir origin of the edition) and K(n) respectively.

11 Meta-edition

XI Regarding the present edition, the following may be observed:-)

(A) The Bhagavadgītā, Text We saw above that both the MSS at our disposal do not help us in deciding the BG text which Ag. might have had. Further the GS is very brief and leaves many verses untouched. Therefore the BG text of Pandit Lakshman Raina’s edition is generally followed in the present edition, because it is entirely based on the Kashmir MSS. Again, it is not altogether improbable that Pandit’s MSS contained the BG text too. At times the texts commented upon by Rāmakaṇṭha, as found in T.R. Chintamani’s edition are also taken into account, provided they do not appear to go against the spirit a the GS.

• 5. Op. cit. These textual variants, whenever adopted, are specified as such in the Tippaṇi (pt. I) and in the Notes (pt. II).

This is done with a view to have as far as possible the Kashmir variants of Ag.’s time.

• 6. There has been good amount of discussion on the utility, authenticity etc. of the Kashmir variants of the BG text. See e.g. (i) F. Otto Schrader of the Kiel University (Germany): The Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavad gita (Stutt gart, 1930, pp. 1-52). (ii) Śrīmad Bhagavadgita : Ed. S. N. Tadpatrikar (of BORI, Poona, 1934): intro pp. 1-10. (iii) S. K. Belvalkar : The So-called Kashmir Recension of the Bhagavadgita : The New Indian Antiquary, Vol. II No 4 (July 1939), pp. 211-251. (iv) The Bhavadgitā: Critical Ed. (op. cit) pp. xvi-xxiii.

Further GS seems to suggest, as we saw above, that in certain places the BG text of Ag. might have differed from the text usually found in the Kashmir MSS. Those differences are indicated with a question mark in the present edition. They are also discussed in the Tippaṇī and in the Notes. An Anukrámaṇikā is added at the end (pt. I) so that one may have a comprehensive idea about the differences between the text followed here and that of the vulgate.

• 3. I. e, the text as found in the Critical ed. of the BG (op. cit)

(B) The Gitārthasangraha, Text The GS text as found in K is generally followed in the present edition. For, it comes directly from the MSS of Kashmir, the home of Ag. The variants found in S and B are also adopted whereever they appear preferable. The other variants are noted in the footnotes. The obviously very imperfect and insignificant variations are not entered. Again where ever all our sources seem to have defective text, the least defective one (of course it is subjective) is adopted. In these cases, attempts have been made in the Tippans and Notes to trace the fairly probable original. In an instance, a quotation of the GS as found in Anandavardhana’s BG commentary named Jñānakarmasamuccaya has been of immense help in this task. (2. Ch. VII, 12-14.)

• 7. Árimad Bhagavadg ti with the Jnanakarmasamuccaya of Anandavardhana: Ed. S K Belvalkar: Poona, 1941. This commen tator, according to the colophon of the commentary, belongs to Kali year 4781 (1680 A.D.), while the other Anandavardhana, the author of the Dhvanyaloka belongs to c. 850.

The bhāsyas of Śaṅkara and Bhāskara have also been helpful in some cases. (3 See e.g. ch. V, 22. )

The GS texts of our Critical Appartus contain in most cases no Pratīkadhārana indicating the beginnings of the verses of the BG, such as धर्मक्षेत्रेइति etc., under the verses like धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे etc. Such Pratīkadhāraṇas are however introduced in the present edition, only for the sake of convenience.

I crave the indulgence of the scholars for this addition.

At the end of every chapter a Sanskrit Tippaṇi is added. It is intended mainly to discuss the points of grammar, syntax, the textual difficulties and the like.

(C) Translation The second part of the present edition contains an English translation of the BG and the GS. Probably it is the first English translation of the work. The GS has a remarkable brevity, an occasional vagueness, and a mystic quality. There are weighty technical expressions of Kashmir śaivism. Further Ag. seems to take it for granted that his Loṭaka (for whose sake, Ag, says, he wrote the GS) and other readers of his must have already well acquainted with many of the basic principles in the vast literature of the Pratyabhijñā system as well as in the standard works of other Śāstras, like Vyakaraṇa, Mimāṁsā, Yoga, Advaita and so on. All these in deed make the work of translating the GS a hard task.

Before I commenced translating the GS, I learnt that Prof, Raniero Gnoli of the Rome University had already published his Italian Translation of the GS.

• 8. IL CANTO DEL BEATO (Bhagavadgita), A Cura Di :Raniero Gnoli : Torino, 1976. It is in the series known as Elassici Delle Religioni in which the Italian Translation of other works of Ag. are also published, I am told.

I wrote to Prof. Gnoli requesting him for a copy of his translation. Unfortunately for me he had no copy to spare. Then I wrote to Dr. T. Venkatacharya, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Toronto Canada, for help. Prof. Venkatacharya was good enough to act immediately. He somehow acquired a copy of this beautifully got-up costly book and presented the same to me soon. But, my total ignorance of the Italian came in the way. Luckily a Belgian scholar, by name Mr. Hemaraj was here at Tirupati during 1979 in connection with his study of Indian religions and he knew Italian. He was kind enough to help me by giving me an idea of the Italian translation of certain passages here and there. Yet, I am sorry that I could not get the full benefit of Prof. Gnoli’s translation.

• 9. I feel, even now, that had I known the Italian language, the translation of mine would have been not only easier but also more informative.

However attempts were made, as far as one can, to understand the GS properly and to translate it suitably. Help did come from Ag. himself, i.e. from his own works like the Tantrāloka, Pratyabhijñā-vimarṣiṇī, Paramarthasāra etc. A study of other works like Sivadr̥ṣṭi, Pratyabhijñā-hr̥daya etc. was also helpful. I was happy indeed.

While translating the BG verses not commented upon by Ag., the gloss of the Kashmirian Rāmakaṇṭha is generally followed. The idea is this: Ag. tells us that he is interested in giving the hidden meaning only. (2. GS, intro, ch. XVIII, 2; etc. ) So he must have, it is presumed, accepted the general meaning of the BG as given by the Kashmirian scholars of his days. One more point: It has been said above that certain passages of the GS, found defective in the Critical Apparatus are retained in the body of the text and that probable correct readings are suggested in the Tippañī thereon. But the English translations of the passages, concerned follow only the readings suggested in the Tippaṇi.

At the end of each chapter of the Translation explanatory notes are added. Here those points that are found in need of elucidation are discussed generally with the help of cognate works. Occasionally humble attempts are also made to compare the approaches of Ag., Bhāskara, Śaṅkara and Rāma kaṇṭha with regard to certain verses of the BG. Further, six anukramaṇikās and one anubandha are added to Part I and four indeces to Part II.

Inspite of all these, I feel diffident. I am conscious of the depth of the GS on one hand and of my limitations on the other. Ag. is one of the greatest thinkers, mystics and scholar-writers of ancient India and he has written the GS in such a manner as to make it a painting-on-sky. (nabhaścitramiva) for those who are not initiated in the secret oral traditions of the Kashmir śaivism. At the same time my knowledge is limitted and I have not been initiated in the said tradition. Hence I am not sure whether I have entered the core of the GS and understood the heart of Ag, and whether I have chosen appro priate English words in the translation. However I have made sincere effort to do the job well. In my effort there are bound to be ommissions, commissions etc. For after fe eta gaifafralaar: (ch. XVIII, 48). I request the scholars (dosajñās) to forgive me for these lapses. I conclude

ऊनाधिकमविज्ञातं पौर्वापर्यविजितम् ।। यच्चावधानरहितं बुद्धेर् विस्खलितं च यत् ॥
हे विद्वांसः सर्वमिदं रहस्याविदुषो मम । क्षमध्वं कृपया यस्मात् भवन्तः करुणापराः ॥

Note :-After the introduction was printed off I learnt that Dr. Aravinda Sarma of the Sydney University had brought out in 1983 his translation of the GS with an introduction. But this translation is not available to me.

Acknowledgements

In 1977 Prof. K. Satchidananda Murti, lathe former learned Vice-Chanceller of Śrī Venkateswaran University was gracious enough to assign the work of editing and translating the GS. He rightly cautioned me not to take the work lightly. I took this as an advice given by a well-wishing teacher to his pet research student. Further he made use of his good offices to get me a copy of K which happens to be the basis of the present edition. Above all he, now the Hon. Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, Andhra University has been so kind as to adorn this edition with his scholarly Forword. For all his favour I am very much thankful to him.

Prof. Santappa and Prof. M.V. Rama Sarma, Prof. G.N. Reddy the next three Vice-Chancellors of the University sanctioned funds for publishing the English Translation as well as the Sanskrit text of the GS. The present scholar Vice-Chancellor Prof. G.N. Reddy garu kindly enabled the publication to see the light of the day. I am immensely grateful to all these Vice-Chancellors who are scholars of repute.

Dr. Karan Singh, the former M.P. and the Philosopher - Maharaja of Kashmir was good enough to arrange to get me a photostat copy of K, Prof. R.N. Dandekar, Hon. Secretary of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, sent me with ho hesitation the manuscripts S and B for my study.

Dr. T. Venkatacharya, Sanskrit Professor, Toronto University, Canada, helped me quite unreservedly by acquiring and presenting me a copy of the costly book of Prof. R. Gnoli’s Italian Translation of the GS. Mr. Hemaraj, a Belgian scholar kindly took the pain of explaining to me some of the passages from the Italian Translation. I am deeply indebted to all these scholars for their help.

The members of Research Staff of the Oriental Research Institute, S.V. University, particularly my lamented friend Śrī Śrīnivasavaradan and Śrī Ananta narayana, Research Assistants in Sanskrit, assisted me in collating the readings of the Critical Apparatus and in preparing the press copy of the text. They all have also corrected proof pages and helped me in preparing the indices. Besides, the members of the Clerical Staff of the Institute have also put their efforts in more than one way in bringing out the volumes, I thank all these colleagues of mine for their coroperation.

As early as 1979 the press copies of the parts I and II were sent to the S.V. University Press for printing. There had been many difficulties in bringing out the volumes. In 1983, the Govt. of India, Dept. of Culture(Ministry of Education and Culture) was good enough to give the Oriental Research Institute S. V. University, financial assistance under its, scheme of preservation and publication of manutscripts. We are grateful to the authorities of the Department concerned for this good gesture and to the authorities of the S.V. University for enabling us to get this grant. Then allowing the S.V. University Press to continue the work of printing Part II, the press copy of Part I was withdrawn from that press and the work of printing the same was entrusted to the Elango Achukoodam, Madras, by the end of 1983. This Achukoodam has done its job, nicely. For this, I offer my sincere thanks to Śrī Maniyavan, Proprietor of this press.

My prayer is: सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्ति, मा कश्चिद् दुःखभाग् भवेत्।
S. Śaṅkaranarayanan
Oriental Research Institute Śrī Venkateswara University, Tirupati. 3rd May, 1985.

CORRECTIONS

28 liv Page Line Read XXV Strands xxix we have seen xxxi All-inclusiveness 4 Pa xlvii 25 a-b—–26 a 1 at times must have already been well Ivi indices Ivii to assign to me the work 15

Foreword