365bet娱乐

2.5.1 The Penultimacy of Religious Structures and Bhakti The discussion thus far has indicated that the elements necessary for bhakti--including soul, God, and even grace--are present in Advaita in fully functional form. It would seem, therefore, that devotion is possible within this

68 system. We can not yet conclude, however, that the critique of non-dualism by the theistic Vedantins is entirely without basis. To be sure, some of their polemics miss the point. Samkara's position may well be a subtle one requiring much sympathy to penetrate, but he was neither a Buddhist nor a devil, nor even as anti-religious as some have made out. This, I think, has been sufficiently established. Nevertheless it does remain that, while the structures necessary for bhakti are present in Advaita and devotion is therefore possible, the element of ultimacy has been removed from both the devotional experience and its object. This leaves bhakti in a precarious position, in danger of losing much of its compellingness. Consider, for example, the following passage: The Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, and etc. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Nescience; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. The Vedanta texts declare that for him who has reached the state of truth and reality the whole apparent world does not exist. 39 The Advaitins' tendency to keep the distinction between the higher and lower Brahman in abeyance while they are speaking of conventional religious notions does not mean that they have forgotten it. On the contrary, they reassert it dramatically, as Samkara does here, as soon as they begin thinking in terms of moksa, their final goal. When this happens, ordinary piety is forgotten in the quest for what

69 is perceived as a higher level of truth. Isvara may be God in all his glory from the point of view of the world, but from the point of view of liberation he is, as Isvara, dependent on the world, just as the space limited by pots and jars is, for its existence as such, dependent on those vessels. When the pot is broken, so does the particular configuration of space it contained; when the world disappears in the final disembodied state, so does God. 40 This kind of thinking does not quite place isvara in the realm of maya, but it does effectively remove him from the sphere of final truth in a way that a true devotionalist could not tolerate. 41 In If the Lord himself suffers from penultimacy in Advaita, all the more does bhakti. As we shall see, it is only through direct intuitive knowledge, according to Sankara, that one can attain the ultimate realization. the final analysis, bhakti must remain within the domain of practical spirituality, merely a preliminary discipline that has no power to take one beyond the sphere of duality. In metaphysical terms, bhakti and its dualistic distinctions are confined to the realm of the false, the realm of maya. It neither gives us access to Being, nor does it have itself any true ontological status. So on both counts Advaita makes it difficult for its adherents to take devotion as commonly understood with final seriousness. 42

70 2.5.2 Bhakti Not an Independent Path Though the Advaitins themselves vary in the importance they place on devotional religion, almost all accept that it is but a preliminary step to the acquisition of knowledge. Like selfless action, 43 bhakti purifies the mind and prepares it for the final intuition of the identity of jIva and Brahman. It must be remembered in this connection that all of the important writers on Advaita up until modern times were highly educated, intellectually gifted individuals from Brahmin families, men so inclined to the contemplative life that they were willing to take monastic vows and live the lives of ascetics. Thus it is not surprising that, once having felt the intellectual appeal of Samkara's non-dualistic metaphysic, many tended to disparage devotional religion as based on a dualism born of ignorance. The typical attitude of Advaitins toward bhakti is expressed by Amalananda in this verse from his Kalpatataru: Those slow-minded persons who are unable to directly realize the unqualified supreme Brahman are blessed by the descriptions of the qualified [Brahman]. When their minds have been brought under control by habitual contemplation on the conditioned Brahman, that very Brahman reveals itself as devoid of all limiting adjuncts.44 Though somewhat rudely stated here, this is Samkara's position also. Himself a renunciate and follower of the path of knowledge, he sought to extol this path to

71 encourage his fellow monks and vindicate it in the face of criticism from outside. To understand Samkara's views on bhakti, one must first realize that he was writing at a time when the emotional devotion so dominant in later centuries was still in its formative stages. In spite of the Gita's emphasis on devotion bhakti was not yet widely accepted in orthodox Smarta 45 circles as an independent means to salvation. 46 Rather, it was cultivated in the non-Vedic schools which produced the agamas, tantras, and the puranas, schools such as the Bhagavata and the Panicarata which were, even in the time of Yamuna (tenth century) and later, still 47 arguing the case for their orthodoxy.' Certainly, in Samkara's major works, the discussion of bhakti as a possible center of the religious life of鈿� serious seekers is conspicuous by its absence. While the chief opponents of Madhusudana in the sixteenth century were the devotionalists, who by then had cast off the stigma of heterodoxy, Samkara's most serious rivals in the seventh century were the ultra-orthodox Vedic ritualists of the Purvamimasa. The great Mimamsakas Kumarila and Prabhakara were then at the height of their influence, having played an important role in the anti-Buddhist Hindu revival that had actually paved the way for Sankara's success. As fellow Smartas engaged like him in Vedic exegesis, but with a radically different viewpoint, they were enemies closer to

72 48 home and therefore more dangerous. A disproportionately large part of Sankara's writing is taken up in controversy with these representatives of the conservative Vedic establishment, who asserted that salvation could only come through religious works, chiefly proper observance of Vedic ritual, which necessitated remaining in the householders' asrama. They consequently denied the legitimacy of samnyasa ("renunciation") since it involved the giving up of ritual and indeed all normal social life. Sannyasa, however, was a key element of Samkara's spirituality; it was, as we shall see, the basis of the path of knowledge, of which he sought to be the champion. The two doctrines clashed, and we must understand the stridency of Sankara's emphasis on knowledge and renunciation as the means to salvation against the background of this controversy. In his Gitabhasa, for example, he identifies the key problem of that text as the resolution of the conflict between the pravrttidharma ("path of works") and the nivrttidharma ("path of renunciation"). In keeping with his purpose of glorifying samnyasa and defending it from its activist Mimamsaka critics, he tries to show that the Gita teaches the superiority of renunciation and knowledge to the path of works. Much of his commentary is taken up by efforts to demonstrate this conclusion. 49 For the reasons just stated, he is in all of his writings far less concerned with arguing for the

73 superiority of knowledge to bhakti. This makes a study such as the present one somewhat more difficult, but Samkara does say enough to allow the careful reader to arrive at a fairly accurate understanding of his views on devotional spirituality. 2.5.3 Knowledge the Means to Liberation The real, for Sankara, is that which never changes. Liberation, the highest goal of life (paramapurusartha), consists in identification with the unchanging reality, viz., Brahman. He says of moksa: Scripture declares that state to be naturally and originally an unembodied one. .. Among eternal things, some indeed may be 'eternal, although changing' (parinamanitya) . But this [moksa] is eternal in 鈥� 鈥� the true sense, i.e. eternal without undergoing any changes (kutasthanitya), omnipresent as ether, free from all modifications, absolutely self-sufficient, not composed of parts, of self-luminous nature. That bodiless entity in fact, to which merit and demerit do not apply is called release. It [moksa] is therefore the same as Brahman. 50 鈥� . Given, thus, that the ultimate state is one of stasis, it is understandable that the approach to it should involve a minimization of process and becoming. So neither the religious activism advocated by the Mimamsakas nor bhakti lead directly to release. Samkara never tires of repeating that the sole means to liberation is knowledge (jnana):51 The attainment of moksa is only from knowledge of reality.52 Knowledge of the Self alone is the means to the highest good, for, being the remover of the cognition of duality, it culminates in liberation. 53

74 1 The Upanisad "Having known Him one goes beyond death; there is no other path for going" [S.U. 3.8] indicates that a path other than knowledge is not known. Another text [S.U. 6.20] says that moksa for one who does not possess knowledge is as impossible as rolling up space like a leather hide. And the Puranas and the Smrtis declare, "Moksa is attained through knowledge. 2.5.4 Saving Knowledge Mediated Through The Vedic Revelation This knowledge is not, of course, discursive. It is rather a direct intuition (saksatkara) that transforms one's perception of reality. Though it is an insight that goes beyond the verbal, it is mediated verbally. It is often forgotten that the "mysticism" of Advaita, if it can be socalled, is anchored in Vedic orthodoxy. Purvamimansa proclaimed uncompromisingly that knowledge of what cannot be directly perceived by the senses--in the Mimansakas' case, correct ritual behavior (dharma) --must come from the infallible word of the Veda. Advaita, as 55 conservatively orthodox as its sister system, is committed to the same doctrine. Knowledge of Brahman, the supersensory object of interest to Vedanta, does not come haphazardly through just any mystical practice, but through one channel only: the words of sruti, specifically, the "great sayings" (mahavakyas) of the Upanisads which are heard (sruta) by the qualified pupil from the mouth of the competent teacher. The mahavakyas, of which the most important is tat tvam asi, "That thou art" [Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7], are

75 the final catalysts of knowledge. At Brahmasutras 1.1.4, Samkara discusses the seeker's dependence upon scripture at length. He writes: "The fact of everything having its Self in Brahman cannot be grasped without the aid of the scriptural * "56 passage 'tat tvam asi. Later on, at 3.2.21, he elaborates: The only thing needed is that the knowledge of Brahman should be conveyed by the Vedic passages sublating the apparent plurality superimposed upon Brahman by Nescience, such as As soon as Brahman is indicated in this way, knowledge arising of itself discards Nescience, and this whole world of names 鈥� 鈥� 'Thou art it.' and forms, which had been hiding Brahman from us, melts away like the imagery of a dream. Samkara's disciple Suresvara develops this doctrine of immediate verbal mediation of enlightenment in his writings. He emphasizes, however, that the disciple must be prepared by previous practice before the sruti can be effective in this way. 58 2.5.5 Eligibility for Knowledge This last idea brings us to the concept of adhikara ("eligibility"). While it plays a significant role in Hindu religious thought in general, 59 the notion is especially important in Advaita Vedanta. Not all are entitled to enter the path of knowledge. In addition to important social qualifications, which will be considered below, a long process of moral and spiritual preparation, either in this life or in previous lives, is presupposed. At the beginning of the Brahmasutra-samkara-bhasya, Samkara outlines the "four-fold means"

76 (sadhanacatustya) that an individual must have to qualify for the study of Vedanta. The strict requirements include: (1) the capacity to discriminate between the eternal and the non-eternal; (2) indifference to the rewards of action in this world or the next; (3) the "six-fold endowment," which includes equanimity, self-control, withdrawal from sensual pursuits, concentration, patience, and faith; and (4) the intense desire for liberation.60 An even more detailed outline of prerequisites for the study of Advaita is presented at Upadesasahasr鈥� 2.1.2. There Sankara indicates that his teaching is truly intended only for the mendicant (parivrajaka) who is a paramahamsa ("supreme swan"), a title reserved, at least in the later tradition, for the highest and most respected order of samnyasins.61 Those possessed of such qualifications, the highest aspirants (uttamadhikarins), are utterly detached from the world and so able to contemplate their identity with the impersonal Brahman. Single-minded in their quest, they seek to remain aloof from everything in the realm of process and becoming, including both religious works and religious emotionalism. Only such individuals are qualified for the path of knowledge, which forms the direct means to immortality. Other individuals, not possessed of such virtues, are eligible only for the paths of selfless action and devotion. According to Samkara, Arjuna was a seeker of this

77 second sort. Bhagavad Gita 2.47 reads, "Your adhikara is for action alone, "62 and Sankara's gloss has Krsna saying directly to Arjuna: "You are qualified for works alone, not for the path of knowledge."63 Later on in the commentary we learn that, "because the Blessed Lord is exceedingly desirous of Arjuna's well-being, he recommends to him only the yoga of action which is based on the cognition of distinction and unconnected with right knowledge."64 Arjuna is thus taken as an example of the madhyama adhikarin, the "middling aspirant" who does not yet have the spiritual maturity necessary to tread the lofty way of renunciation and knowledge.65 2.5.6 Karma and bhakti as Preparatory to Knowledge Through the paths of karma and bhakti, individuals not qualified for the path of knowledge gradually attain greater purity. Thus: The religion of [ritual] activity enjoined on the castes and stages of life (when performed with desire for its results] is the means of attaining the world of the gods. This, when performed with the idea that it is an offering to God, without regard for its rewards, produces purity of mind. attains, by means of the discipline of knowledge, which is the same as the knowledge. 66 And one whose mind is purified acquisition of fitness for the the means to the highest good means to the arising of It is important to realize that, in Sankara's mind, the paths of action and devotion are allied disciplines applicable to the same level of spiritual striving. So

78 devotion, which often takes the form of action dedicated to God, is likewise only a means of purification: The state of being qualified for the discipline of knowledge is a perfection attained as the fruit of the yoga of devotion which consists of worshipping the Blessed Lord through performance of one's allotted duties. The discipline of knowledge, caused by the yoga of devotion to the Blessed Lord, leads to the fruit of moksa. 67 In chapter 13 of the Gita, verses 7-11, various virtues, including "unwavering devotion," are listed and identified with knowledge. Samkara explains that, "bhakti 鈥� 鈥� 鈥� to Me, the Lord, 鈥� 鈥� is knowledge. 鈥� 鈥� [i.e.] is called Those knowledge because of being conducive to knowledge."68 who perform their duties selflessly as an offering to God, and those who focus their minds and hearts on God with devotion, are engaged, not in the direct ascent to liberation, but in an exercise which, however essential, remains preliminary to the quest for knowledge. 2.5.7 Bhakti and Upasana In this and other respects, bhakti for the Advaitin is similar to Upanisadic upasana. 69 In comparison with the sparsity of discourse on bhakti in the early literature of Advaita, there is a relative abundance of explicit discussion of upasana. This is because, as we have seen, the latter discipline figures importantly in the Upanisadswhich are the central scriptures of the Sankara tradition--

79 while the former does not. From the Advaitins' analysis of upasana it can be determined that it occupies the same structural position in their interpretation of the more orthodox, but archaic, Upanisadic spirituality that bhakti occupies in their understanding of later Hindu practice. Sankara's definition of upasana, already referred to in our discussion of the Upanisads, is worth repeating here: "Upasana is a continuous current of identical thoughts, unbroken by any disparate cognitions, directed toward an object accepted from scripture."70 It is not difficult to see how upasana, in this view, might have much in common with the Gita's "devotion with no other object" (ananyabhakti). Sankara describes the latter as "undivided concentration with the unwavering conviction There is nothing higher than Vasudeva, therefore he is our sole goal.'"71 Elsewhere he says: "Bhakti `with no other object' is that which is never divided toward objects other than the Blessed Lord."72 At Brahmasutras 4.1.1, Samkara illustrates the intensity of mental concentration required of those engaged in upasana. The analogies he uses are reminiscent of the way in which a devotional teacher might describe the bhakta's preoccupation with thought of God: Thus we say in ordinary life that a person 'is devoted' to a teacher or a king if he follows him with a mind steadily set on him; and of a wife whose husband has gone on a journey we say that she thinks of him only if she steadily remembers him with longing. 73

80 bhakti. So there are obviously certain parallels between upasana and Although their objects are perhaps different, the difference is not as great as it may seem at first. In Sankara's understanding, at least, the objects of upasana, such as the holy syllable Om, and the object of bhakti, Isvara, are alike special manifestations or symbols (it is fair to say) of the highest Brahman. The attitude of the practitioner of upasana toward the object of his meditation is not the emotional bhakti of the later tradition, or even the more reserved, intellectual devotion of the Bhagavad Gita But again, we have seen that upasana involves a reverential approach to the ultimate that is at least comparable to the combination of love and mental concentration found in bhakti. Finally, Samkara makes it clear that upasana, like bhakti, is not the direct path to moksa, but rather a means to mental purification (sattvasuddhi). 74 Sankara specifies his understanding of the There difference between upasana and knowledge at Brahmasutras 1.1.4. he points out that, while upasana is dependent upon the meditating subject for its existence and is prey to the vagaries of human volition, true knowledge is determined by the independently existing object and is therefore not dependent on the mind of its agent. 75 This idea is summarized succinctly by Vidyaranya Svamin, the great fourteenth century Advaitin, in his PancadasI. "Knowledge,"

81 he writes, "is determined by its object, while upasana is determined by its agent. #76 The implication is that only knowledge can take us beyond subjectivity, beyond the realm of maya, to true Being. 77 Let us note what follows for upasana, and for bhakti as well. Both these disciplines are insufficient in themselves, and the aim of those practicing them should be to attain sufficient purity of mind to experience the immediate intuitive knowledge of Brahman that alone is the direct means to moksa. The final realization will perhaps occur in this life, i.e., such persons may make the transition from upasana or bhakti to jnana. More likely, however, they will have to either wait for another birth 78 or attain the requisite saving knowledge through the process known as kramamukti ("gradual liberation"). The latter consists in the attainment after death of brahmaloka, the highest celestial realm from which there is no rebirth. Inhabitants of this heavenly world attain knowledge of the unconditioned Brahman, and hence moksa, when the whole universe, including brahmaloka, is dissolved at the end of the present cosmic cycle (kalpa).79

82 2.5.8 The Seeker of Knowledge Rejects Devotion Sankara sees the life of the seeker of knowledge as 80 one of constant "dwelling in Brahman" (brahmasamstha), and he describes the discipline of knowledge as "an intense effort to acquire a continuous current of the awareness of the inner Self."81 The work required on this path is considerable and requires sincere dedication of one's total life energy; it is no small undertaking. This fact explains the need for renunciation and freedom from mundane concerns. It also throws light on Samkara's idealization of the samnyasin and the special praise he reserves for the naisthikabrahmacarin ("complete celibate") who, like the great Advaitin himself, has renounced directly from the student stage and has never been entirely caught up in the illusions of the world: It goes without saying that one who renounces from studenthood and remains in the spiritual life as long as he lives will attain liberation in Brahman. 82 Here, the yoga of knowledge--knowledge itself being yoga--is the path prescribed for the Samkhyas, those possessed of knowledge which discriminates between the Self and its objects, who have renounced the world from the stage of studenthood, who have ascertained the real through the wisdom of the Upanisads, who belong to the Paramahamsas or highest order of wandering mendicants, whose life is focussed on Brahman only. 83 Here we again encounter the high standards that Sankara sets for aspirants to the path of knowledge.

83 An important part of the Advaitic discipline 84 is the effort to remove "contrary ideas" (viparftabhavana), i.e., dualistic ways of thinking and perception that contradict scriptural teaching as to the Self's oneness and total inactivity. To succeed in the task of uprooting separative consciousness and immersing himself in the idea of oneness, the contemplative who has entered the path of knowledge must abstain from activities and modes of thought and feeling which reinforce dualism. Hence the urgency of Sankara's polemic against those who denied the value of renunciation and asserted that liberation can only come through engagement in the ritualistic observances of the life of the orthodox householder, or through a kind of compromise combination of such works with meditation and knowledge. In the Gitabhasya, he speaks of "the impossibility of existing in a single person of both knowledge, which depends on ideas of non-agency and unity, and works, which depend upon ideas of agency and multiplicity."85 The practitioner of jnanayoga is taught to regard "the whole world and all knowledge born of difference as mere ignorance, like night."86 Since "that which is perceived as being without foundation cannot become a motive for action, "87 the man of true discrimination refrains from works. Again and again, Samkara stresses that the renunciate must avoid such activities and attitudes as involve him in dualistic modes of awareness:

84 The yoga of action, which is the opposite of renunciation, is based on the idea of agency derived from false knowledge and maintains one in the idea that the Self is active by nature. So the impossibility of the yoga of action for the knower of the Self is taught, since right knowledge contradicts false knowledge and its effects.88 "I do nothing at all,' thus the disciplined knower of reality should think" [Bhagavad Gita 5.8]. This verse teaches the one who knows the reality of the Self to refrain, through constant mental discipline, from the idea "I am acting" in actions such as seeing or hearing, even when these are undertaken for the mere maintenance of the body. Therefore, it is not possible to imagine even in a dream that the knower of the Self could perform the yoga of action, which is contradictory to right knowledge and based on false knowledge. 89 All action without exception has its seed in ignorance and desire. Consequently, it is taught that action pertains to the ignorant and discipline of knowledge to those who know. The verse "I give that yoga of discriminative understanding by which they approach Me" [10.10] means that the ignorant followers of the path of works do not so approach.90 Now, if the person engaged in the discipline of knowledge is enjoined to avoid the path of action because it involves him in dualistic thinking, should he not also rise above the dualism inherent in worship and devotion? Though Samkara does not deal with this question in explicit terms, 91 it is certain that this is his opinion. In chapter 12 of the Gita, verses 1-12, Krsna clearly asserts that the devotees of the personal God are the "best practitioners of yoga "92 and that their path is superior to the path of meditation on the "Imperishable," i.e., the impersonal Absolute, because the latter way is much more difficult. Samkara nevertheless choses not to take this teaching at its

85 face value, treating it rather as mere hortatory praise designed to inspire Arjuna, who is not fit for the path of knowledge, to persist in the paths of action and devotion. Referring to 7.18, he writes, "It has been said that 'The one who knows is regarded as my very Self.' Of those who are thus identical with the Blessed Lord (bhagavatsvarupa), there is no need to say that they are either the best or not the best practitioners of yoga. "93 Then follows a crucial passage: Here, having assumed a distinction between the Lord and the Self, the yoga which consists of concentrating the mind on the Lord in his universal form and performing works for the sake of the Lord is declared. The verse "If you are not able to do even this" [12.11] indicates that karmayoga is the result of ignorance. So the Blessed Lord teaches that it should not be performed by those who meditate on the Imperishable and who see no distinction [between the Lord and the Self]. Likewise, He teaches that meditation on the Imperishable should not be performed by the karmayogins. Having declared, in the verse "They attain Me" [12.4], that those who meditate on the Imperishable are independent in the attainment of liberation, [the Lord] has shown that the others [the bhaktas] are dependent on another, dependent on the Lord, in the verse "I am their deliverer" [12.7]. If the latter were considered to be the very Self of the Lord [like the former] because of the cognition of nondistinction, they would in fact be the Imperishable, so the mention of deliverance in regard to them would be inappropriate. Because the Blessed Lord is exceedingly desirous of Arjuna's well-being, He recommends to him only the yoga of action which is based on the cognition of distinction and unconnected with right knowledge. No one, having definitively known himself to be the Lord, would wish to become subordinate to anyone, because this would be a contradiction [of that knowledge].94 It is not surprising that this interesting paragraph is invariably overlooked by those who wish to portray Samkara -

86 as a teacher and practitioner of bhakti. Its implications, however, are important and are worth drawing out at some length. First, this passage confirms beyond question something that has already been suggested, namely, that Samkara makes no clear distinction between the paths of action and devotion. Rather, he lumps them both together as one yoga, referred to in the singular, which consists of concentrating the mind on God and offering one's actions to him, and which stands over against the discipline of knowledge as an entirely separate path. Despite the fact that this chapter deals explicitly with devotion to Krsna, and indeed is entitled "Bhaktiyoga" in its colophon, Samkara has no problem in referring to the discipline in question as karmayoga. In his mind, then, there are two paths, actiondevotion and knowledge, for which different types of persons are eligible. Second, the paragraph clearly states the presuppositions of these two disciplines. Action-devotion 鈥� It is is based on the assumption that the Lord and the Self are distinct (atmesvarabhedam asritya, bhedadrstimantam) the effect of ignorance (ajnanakarya) and is unconnected with right knowledge (samyagdarsanananvitam). Further, it involves dependence upon an outside power (paratantryam), the Lord, for salvation or deliverance. The path of

87 knowledge, on the other hand, is founded upon the idea of the identity of the Lord and the Self, i.e., true knowledge, and its followers are therefore not dependent upon the Lord for liberation, as if He were some external being other than their very Self. 95 Third, it becomes readily apparent in this passage that the mutually contradictory nature of the presuppositions of these two paths is the reason why persons are restricted to one or the other. The paths, however, are obviously not of equal value. Sankara again makes it clear that he regards Arjuna as a middling aspirant, eligible only for the lower, purificatory path of action-devotion, but not for the direct path of knowledge. Arjuna and others like him may fancy taking to the latter, higher way, but they are not sufficiently prepared. On the other hand, the pure soul who is eligible for knowledge, whose being is gripped by the truth "I am Brahman, "96 will find the idea of descending to the level of action or devotion--and thus becoming involved in duality, ignorance, and dependence--to be abhorrent. 97 Like it or not, and with apologies to lovers of the Bhaja Govindam, this is what Sankara is saying, almost in so many words: Devotion, conceived dualistically with the distinction of God and soul, is a product of spiritual ignorance suitable only for the lesser aspirants.

88 In this connection, it is worthwhile noting that in 98 most of his writing Sankara neglects to observe the tradition of invoking the blessings of a diety at the beginning or end, or both, of a philosophical work. As a possible reason for this, Hacker points out a statement in Sankara's commentary on the Kena Upanisad: "He who, having been lead to Brahman, is consecrated to sovereignty does not wish to bow to anybody. #99 An idea such as this is in perfect accord with the sentiments expressed in the passage of the Samkara-gita-bhasya just quoted. 2.5.9 The Gita Interpreted for the Jnanin The difficulty for Samkara in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is of course the fact that the text frequently extols bhakti and taking refuge in the personal God as if they constituted an independent path to liberation. for example, the following: Consider, Whoever serves Me with unwavering discipline of devotion, he, having gone beyond the material qualities, is fit for becoming Brahman. 14.26100 By devotion he knows Me truly, how great I am and who. Then, having known Me truly, he enters into Me forthwith. 18.55101 Sankara, now more obviously than ever writing to recommend the path of knowledge and renunciation, handles these verses

89 by referring the reader back to 7.16-18, where it is taught that there are four types of devotees: the afflicted (who seeks relief), the seeker of material well-being, the seeker of knowledge, and the possessor of knowledge (jnanin). The supreme bhakti which is the subject of the verses quoted above belongs only to the last of these, the jnanin, but this highest level of devotion is actually "the same as knowledge" 102 or "of the nature of discriminative knowledge. "103 Sankara writes: The supreme culmination of knowledge is a steady knowledge of the oneness of the individual conscious self and the Supreme Self in the form of a firm conviction based on personal experience. It is generated by the teachings of the scriptures and the preceptor, in conjunction with the various factors that aid in the arising and maturation of knowledge such as purity of mind, humility, etc., and is accompanied by the renunciation of all works based on notions of difference, notions such as agency and the other elements of action. This same culmination of knowledge is what is declared [at 7.17] to be the fourth, highest kind of devotion in comparison with other types such as that of the afflicted person. By that supreme devotion, he knows the Blessed Lord truly, immediately after which the idea of difference between the individual conscious self and the Lord ceases completely. Therefore, the declaration "He knows Me by devotion," when devotion is defined as the culmination of knowledge, involves no contradiction. 104 In this way, Samkara handles certain verses of the Gita which are embarrassing for his position by simply identifying the bhakti so highly extolled in them with jnana. The Gita's supreme devotion, then, is nothing but the supreme knowledge that is attained by the renunciate Advaitin. 105

90 This dubious exegesis is extended to samkara's discussion of devotional surrender to Krsna. Gita 18.66 is hailed by devotionalists as the "final verse" (caramasloka). It is said to contain the scripture's highest teaching, total surrender to God: "Resort to Me alone as your sole But Sankara's comments again reduce the refuge."106 spirituality of bhakti to a cognitive discipline: "Resort to Me alone," the Self of all, abiding alike in all beings, the imperishable Lord, free from conception, birth, old age, and death, with the idea that I alone am the "sole refuge." The meaning is, "Know that there is #107 nothing other than Me.