Terms and Definitions of Vedanta - 3

dRRigdRRishya viveka

Definition - Durga

There is a prakriyA, a teaching methodology, taught in Vedanta called dRRigdRRishya viveka (seer/seen discrimination).
The dRRik is the Self. The dRRishya-s are everything else. Everything is a dRRishya (object) except myself.
One can begin this practice by seeing quite clearly that everything external to my body is an object, an object of observation, known by me as an object, an object which changes.
Then what about the body? Is it an object? Am I aware of it? Can I watch it change? Yes.
What about the sense organs? Are they objects? Am I aware of them? Am I aware whether they are working or not? Yes. Do all of these objects change? Yes. Can I observe them change? Again, yes.
Move in. What about thoughts? What about moods? What about emotions? Are they objects, objects of observation? Do they change? Can I watch them change? Again, yes.
But is there something in all of this, something about 'me,' which does not change? Is there something which is always constant to every thought, mood, emotion, sensation, and object of cognition?
What is it about 'me' which does not change? What is that? That which does not change, and is 'me,' is the Self, is Atma, is Brahman. Can the mind make this differentiation, this distinction, this discrimination between that which does not change and that which does? Yes, it can.
If properly taught, dRRigdRRishya viveka, may indeed be one of the most powerful tools which the teachings of Vedanta have to offer for the direct and unmistakable recognition of the Self.

Ishvara

Definition - Shyam Subramanian

In advaita Ishvara ultimately is the One, non-dual entity. From a jIva's standpoint we can understand Him at two levels. One level is as Bhagavan, as prabhu, the Lord and Master of all beings, as the bestower of the fruits of ones actions (karmaphala).

This level of understanding is indeed common to all dualisitic faiths and philosophies and has its own degree of paramount importance in ensuring the growth of the individual and ripening his ego for the higher truth.

Another level of understanding Ishvara is as the substratum or truth about Everything and Everyone and that includes me, meaning He is the none other than the Truth about me, or I the Self am non-different from Him – he is AkShara puruSha, or parabrahman or paramAtman, or Atman or Brahman – all synonyms.

Let us use the dream analogy to try and understand this. I weave a vast world in my dream. This dream is created out of myself and takes place in myself and ultimately resolves into myself. I am the efficient cause of this dream. I am also the material cause for this dream. Every river, mountain, planet, star, animate and inanimate objects in this dream - all are Me, the substratum alone. Yet while these are in Me, I am unrelated to them. Thousands of these dream universes can arise in me and can resolve into me, millions of big bangs can come and go, yet I the Creator/ Sustainer/ Destroyer am completely untouched.

Now for an individual in the dream, I am the Lord of the Dreamworld. If I had control over the activities in the dreamworld, then I am the only recourse for anyone in the dream. I am the only One who can save them and the entire world's activities are governed by laws orchestrated by Me alone.

How do I, the uninvolved One, create as it were this dreamworld? By a power that is both intrinsic and non-separate from me – this power is mAyA. mAyA is not a "separate" thing and hence does not enjoy independent existence. You cannot distil mAyA out of me and try to see how I am without mAyA or how mAyA is without Me. On the other hand mAyA is not nonexistent as long as the dream enjoys its existence either in an expressed or potential latent form.

What gives each individual in the dream a sense of separateness from the whole, and an inability to perceive a non-distinction between himself and the world that this dream individual perceives? It is ignorance about himself. What to the individual is ignorance or avidyA is none other than the same principle responsible for the dream itself which is mAyA. The former pertains to the poor helpless individual in the dream, the latter pertains to the "Creator" of that dreamworld, Me.

Now if the entire concept of the dream, the Creation is removed, then what exists is Me alone.

This is a helpful way to understand Ishvara. Ishvara is a mAyAvi in the sense of being a wielder of mAyA – understand again though that this mAyA is not a "separate" thing that He wields like a sceptre. The world that we seemingly cognize and have to deal with is mithyA – not in the sense of an illusion, but in the sense of not having a substantive reality other than its material cause which is Ishvara. What is mithyA is our seeing it as different with such surety and with no second thought whatsoever in assuming its validity. This is the power of mAyA.

This world is not a haphazard mutant entity. It is sheer intelligence in and through. You take any phenomenon in this world and what you find is infinite layers of intelligence.

An infinitesimally small cell has such complexly intricate intelligence interwoven into every facet of its structure and function that if every scientist in the world were to spend every living moment trying to analyze it with every ounce of effort time and resources for the next hundred years they would still be where we are today – an infinite distance away from understanding it. That is the beauty or marvel of infinity – or Divinity – it is always "ten fingers yonder"

Now, one has to account for this order. This is the basis for the famous watchmaker analogy. A Design implies a Designer. If you asked me how did a watch get built and I tell you pieces of glass and metal just got built by itself and started ticking along with meticulous precision, you will (hopefully) wish me luck with my future therapy sessions. And yet when it comes to the most amazing design spectacle ever, some people still have a hard time coming to terms with accepting an efficient cause.

Having said that, to assign this status to a "person" only, be it Krishna or Shiva or Vishnu, and to give a separate status to everything other than this personality is also immature.

The example Vedanta uses is that of a spider (UrNanAbhi): a spider creates the web on its own and is both the efficient and material cause for the web.

Why is this important? Once we expand our understanding to this, then everything in Creation becomes sacrosanct. A flower is now not "just" a flower – it is sAkShAt Ishvara [Ishvara, manifest, ‘before our eyes’] – hence it is in our tradition that a flower as prasAda [a propitiatory offering] is first applied to the eyes before the lady will put it in the hair, signifying that this flower is as sacred to me as my own eyes.

Acknowledging Ishvara in the manner in each and every facet of Creation one appreciates that nothing – neither here nor yonder – is separate from Him.

OM IshA vAsyamida{\m+} sarvaM is the opening to the Isha upaniShad, meaning ‘all this’ (idam sarvaM), (is) ‘covered over or enveloped’ (vAsya), by the Lord (IshA).

And in this acknowledgement is sown the seeds of surrender – because if nothing is separate from Him, then I am certainly not separate from Him. In fact the only thing that separates me from Him is my own notion of separateness, which is none other than that 600 pound gorilla, my Ego or I-sense. This is what I need to transcend by acquiring the right knowledge about myself – and, in this, Ishvara and his Order which again is Ishvara alone will come to my rescue. "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower." (Psalms 18.2)

In His own words (Bhagavad Gita XVIII 65) –

manmanA bhava madbhakto madyAjI mAm namaskuru |
mAmevaiShyasi satyaM te pratijAne priyo'si me ||

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

Q: I think I am confused. Or at least want to make sure I am not.

Please clarify for me the distinction, if there is any at all no matter how nuanced, between the use of the name "Ishvara" and the name "Brahman." I thought after reading the initial definition that Ishvara encompasses both the transcendent, unmanifested, eternal Pure Consciousness of Brahman, and the more immanent, manifest aspects of Brahman. But a recent post seems to be indicate that Ishvara is used in reference only to the more manifest aspects by appending "Ishvara" to the term saguNa brahman, and not also to the term nirguNa brahman.

A (Prof. V. Krishnamurthy): Brahman is nirguNa, attributeless; is not the predicate of anything, cannot be pointed at, is neither this nor that – and thus it goes on.

So there is no way of `worshipping' it. No, we cannot even talk about that except by giving it a name, though not a form. Therefore Upanishads give it a name `tat', just for purposes of referring to it and to say that `tat' has no attributes.

But our intellect wants to do something with the Almighty Supreme. A worship, a prayer, a meditation, an offering or whatever. All these involve a duality of the worshipper and the worshipped. The moment we think of Brahman as an object of worship or prayer or meditation, immediately, the concept of brahman is jeopardized. Thus the intellect has created brahman with attributes – a saguNa brahman.

The very fact that our intellect has come in the picture implies that mAyA has done its job. It is mAyA's effect that there is an intellect and we begin to think of objects through our intellect. Thus Brahman, with the upAdhi (impact, coating, influence, superposition, covering, conditioning, ... - - choose your word) of mAyA, is called saguNa brahman. That saguNa brahman is the Ishvara. Now Ishvara has all the superlative qualities that any religion associates with Almighty God. But mAyA did not create Ishvara. It is Ishvara that created the mAyA. mayA is in His control. It is like a snake having poison but is never affected by its poison. Ishvara is not affected by His mAyA.

A (Shyam Subramanian): While it is true that saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman are two separate terms, they do not refer to two entities.

They are just two levels of understanding pertaining to the same vastu [existent thing].

What is satyam about Ishvara is satyam about you - the jIva. And that satyam is the vastu brahman.

There are’nt two omniscient eternal limitless entities. There cannot be.

What prevents us from understanding or appreciating the infinite as our own nature [svarUpa] is our Ego which is the handiwork of avidyA [ignorance].

As long as the Ego or I-sense is functional, it has to relate to the infinite as a finite, to the Creator as the created, to the bestower of fruits as the recipient or as the doer.

Once the ahaMkAra [sense of ‘I’ as body-mind etc.] is sublated, the I-sense has been understood to be an illusion, the sense of separateness from the very same vastu vanishes. What remains is just Is-ness, the timeless eternal truth.

Division is ever in terms of an understanding on my part - the vastu is ever One and non-dual

jIva

First Definition - Dennis Waite

The Sanskrit term that is used for our present condition is jIva, the “embodied Self.” It literally just means “living” or “alive” but is often equated with the idea of an individual soul as encountered in Christianity. The word jIvAtman, the “personal or individual soul” is also sometimes used (as opposed to paramAtman, the supreme spirit). In the book advaita bodha dIpaka (dIpa is a lamp, providing bodha, knowledge, through its illumination), this is explained as follows:
In the body appears a phantom, the “false-I,” to claim the body for itself and it is called jIva. This jIva always outward bent, taking the world to be real and himself to be the doer and experiencer of pleasures and pains, desirous of this and that, undiscriminating, not once remembering his true nature, nor inquiring “Who am I?, What is this world?,” but wandering in the saMsAra [ the continual cycle of death and rebirth, transmigration etc. to which we are supposedly subject in the phenomenal world until we become enlightened and escape] without knowing himself. Such forgetfulness of the Self is Ignorance. (Ref. 1)
Who we really are is the non-dual Self, the Atman, but because of this covering of ignorance, we believe ourselves to be limited to a separate soul, contained in a body and mind. The jIva could thus be thought of as the Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct) of avidyA (ignorance). An upAdhi is something that appears to restrict or limit but does not really.
A metaphor that is used to explain this is that of a jar being an upAdhi for the space apparently contained within it. If we have a one-litre jar, then it can clearly only hold one litre of liquid and we might regard the space within it as being similarly limited. But space is really everywhere, totally unaffected by the presence of the jar. If we move the jar a foot to the right, the space that was previously occupied by the jar is now seemingly free but nothing has really changed from the point of view of the space. If you now place a plant pot where the jar has previously been, the space will now seem to be conditioned by the pot.
The jIva is really the Atman but, because of the limiting form of body and mind, it appears to be a separate entity, just as the space appears to be limited by the jar. If the jar should break, the space that previously “occupied” it is found to be quite unaffected. Similarly, on the death of the body, the Atman remains untouched. This way of explaining the nature of the jIva is called avachChedavAda (vAda is a thesis or doctrine; avachCheda literally means “cut off.” It could be called the theory of limitation.) This is the theory held by one of the two traditional schools of Advaita, the bhAmatI school [bhAmatI means “lustrous” and is the word that was applied to the philosopher vAchaspatimishra’s brilliant exposition of Shankara’s commentary on the brahmasUtra-s. The school is also called the vAchaspati school.]
Another metaphor for explaining the jIva was also used by Shankara. This says that avidyA or ignorance acts like a mirror. Who we really are is the Atman but this is only normally seen in the mirror. The essence of the reflection is, of course, the Atman, our true Self. It is not the actual Self but effectively an illusion, just as the image of our body in the mirror is not the actual body. This theory is called pratibimbavAda and is associated with the vivaraNa school of Advaita . pratibimba means a “reflection.” In logic, bimba is the object itself, with the pratibimba being the counterpart with which it is compared. [vivaraNa means “explanation” or “commentary.” This is from the vivaraNa on PadmapAda’s pa~nchapAdikA, produced by prakAshAtmayati in the 13 th century AD. PadmapAda was one of the four principal disciples of Shankara and his book, the pa~nchapAdikA was a commentary on Shankara’s commentary on the first part of the brahma sUtra. It can be understood how, with commentaries upon commentaries stretching through the ages, divergences of interpretation and understanding have developed.]
Advaita Bodha Deepika [Lamp of Non-dual Knowledge], Sri Karapatra Swami translated into English by Sri Ramanananda Saraswathi, Sri Ramanasramam, 2002. Electronically available from http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/.
*** The above is extracted from the forthcoming book, ‘Back to the Truth’ now available from Amazon.com.

Second Definition - Ananda Wood

A 'jIva' is a living person
who expresses consciousness
in acts of body, sense and mind.

Each act is known by consciousness,
whose knowing light illuminates
all acts where it is found expressed.

In every personality,
that consciousness is real self:
the knowing centre of all life
in which it's found to be expressed.

That knowing self remains the same,
through a variety of acts
found to express its changelessness
in differing and changing ways.

It's the expressions that get changed,
while that which gets to be expressed
stays always utterly unchanged
and utterly indifferent.

Where the expressions are confused
with that from which they are expressed,
a living person there appears
mistakenly identified --

as a false ego which is thought
to be at once both changeless self
and changing personality.

This seeming ego (wrongly thought
to be a person in the world)
is a confusion which gets cleared
by turning back to knowing self,
from where all changing acts are known.

j~nAnam / (a)parokSha

Definition - S. N. Sastri

The word 'j~nAnam', which means 'knowledge' is used in two different senses in Vedantic works. In taittirIya upaniShad 2.1.1 brahman is defined as 'satyam j~nAnam anantam'. Here the word 'j~nAnam' means consciousness which is the very nature of brahman and is therefore eternal, having no beginning or end. The word 'j~nAnam' is also used in the sense of 'a particular cognition', in which case it is an action which has a beginning and an end. Taking this second meaning of the word 'j~nAnam' an objection could be raised that if j~nAnam is the nature of brahman it would also be transient. Such an objection has been considered in the bhAShya on this Upanishadic statement and it has been pointed out that, while the nature of brahman is eternal consciousness, particular cognitions arise because of this consciousness illumining the mental modification (vRRitti) in the form of the object. Shri Shankara refers to these particular cognitions as 'semblances of consciousness' and says that they can also be referred to as j~nAnam'.
In bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShad, 3.4.2, the word 'dRRiShTi' which means 'sight' is used as a synonym of 'j~nAnam'. Shri Shankara points out in his bhAShya that this sight is of two kinds. He says:--
This sight is of two kinds, empirical and real. The empirical sight is a function of the mind as connected with the eye; it is an act, and as such it has a beginning and end. But the vision of the Self is like the heat and light of fire; being the very nature of the witnessing Consciousness it has neither beginning nor end. This eternal consciousness is the very nature of the jIva also, as stated in brahma sutra 2.3.18, since the jIva is none other than brahman.
he particular cognitions, which are transient, are brought about by the pramANa-s [means of knowledge] such as pratyakSha [perception]. The eternal Consciousness is realized as the jIva's own nature through the mahAvAkya-s such as 'Tat tvam asi'. This realization is known as 'aparokSha anubhUti' [immediate knowledge gained through the pramANa-s]. It is called aparokSha because it is not parokSha or mediate. Though it is also direct knowledge, it is not called 'pratyakSha' in order to distinguish it from all worldly knowledge attained through pratyakSha pramANa. To point out that it does not fall under the categories generally understood by the terms pratyakSha and parokSha it is called aparokSha.

j~nAna yoga

Definition - Professor V. Krishnamurthy

The word `yoga' can be derived in two ways:
yujyate iti yogaH - `union'
yujyate anena iti yogaH - 'that by which the union is effected'.

Anandagiri points out that, in the expressions karma-yoga, bhakti-yoga and j~nAna-yoga, the word `yoga' is used in the sense of `that by which the union is effected'. He says, "yujyate anena brahmaNA" -that by means of which the jIvAtmA is united with brahman. It is well known that the word `united' is not to be taken literally because there are not two entities to be united. It only means the realization of the identity of jIvAtmA and paramAtmA.

Thus karma-yoga means `karma as the means of realization' and similarly bhakti-yoga and j~nAna-yoga also. So, when j~nAna is the means of realization, it is j~nAna-yoga.

It is true that the phrase 'j~nAna-yoga' does not occur in the 10 major Upanishads. In the Gita text the only two times it occurs are III-3 and XVI - 1. On the first occasion the AchArya writes in the bhAShya: j~nAnam eva yogaH - j~nAna itself is the yoga. At the second appearance it is only intended to mean j~nAna and yoga.

When j~nAna is taken as the means of realization in the word `j~nAna- yoga', the natural question that arises is: `What may be defined as j~nAna?' . Krishna himself describes j~nAnaM in the 13th chapter in five shloka-s and says, at the end: `etat j~nAnam iti proktaM' (XIII -11) - `This is said to be j~nAnaM'.

Actually it is a no-compromise listing of a number of profound qualities: absence of pride; absence of deceit; non-violence; patience; uprightness; service of the teacher; purity; steadfastness and self-control; indifference to the objects of sense; self-effacement; perception of the evil of birth, death, old age, sickness and pain; non-attachment; absence of clinging to son, wife, home and the like; a constant equanimity to all happenings, desirable or undesirable; unswerving devotion to the Lord with whole-hearted discipline; resort to solitude; dislike for people/crowds; constancy in the knowledge of the Inner Self; and, finally, insight into the end of the Knowledge of Truth. This list is really formidable and does not give us any hint as to how to keep it as a `MEANS of realization', except to keep it as the ideal goal.

A hint at a direct answer comes from Krishna in XIII-24 where He says: By meditation, some perceive the Self in the self by the self; others by the path of knowledge and still others by the path of works.

So here we know what contrasts with Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga, as a path to realization.

"AtmanI AtmanA AtmAnaM pashyatI" - `Perceive the Self by oneself in oneself'. This one does by j~nAna-yoga, (or, what is the same in this context, sAMkhya-yoga) as shloka XIII -24 says. This is the "yukta AsIta mat-paraH" that Krishna already uses in II-61 and again repeats in VI-14.

Although the end seems clear, what makes it a yoga – a means of realization – is not clear at this point. Though Krishna elaborates many times upon how one controls the senses, i.e. how one persists in one's yoga-sAdhanA, the sAdhanA aspect of j~nAna-yoga is spelt out only in bRRihadAraNyaka upaniShat 2.4.5 which says: "AtmA vA are shrotavyo mantavyo nididhyAsitavyaH". So j~nAna- yoga is the triad of shravaNam, mananam, nididhyAsanam. The end of it all is realization – revelation of the eternal truth, which is already there but which we have not realized because of our Ignorance. This self-revelation of the Self is not therefore an effect, (of yoga). What has been effected by the yoga is the removal of ignorance. And so the word j~nAna-yoga should not to be considered as the name for a path, though such calling is sanctified by usage, for want of a better way of communication. shravaNam - hearing the sayings and teachings of Seers; mananaM - reflecting on what has been heard; and nididhyAsanaM - contemplating on the conclusions thus arrived at; these are the three actions which together constitute what is usually called j~nAna-yoga. When the revelation comes, one perceives (that is what they say!) the Self by oneself in oneself - and the important point to note is that, thereafter, there is no slip-down!

Comment by Sunder Hattangadi:

There are three verses in the Gita where the 'perception' occurs only through the 'j~nAna (or divya) chakShu":

na tu maaM shakyase draShTumanenaiva svachakShuShaa . divyaM dadaami te chakShuH pashya me yogamaishvaram.h .. 11\-8..
But You are not able to behold Me with these Your own eyes; I give You the divine-eye; behold My lordly YOGA.

kShetrakShetraj~nayorevamantaraM j~naanachakShuShaa . bhuutaprakR^itimokShaM cha ye viduryaanti te param.h .. 13\-35..
They who, with their eye-of-wisdom come to know the distinction between the "Field" and the "Knower-of-the-Field, " and of the liberation from the "PRAKRITI of the being, " go to the Supreme.

utkraamantaM sthitaM vaapi bhu~njaanaM vaa guNaanvitam.h . vimuuDhaa naanupashyanti pashyanti j~naanachakShuShaH .. 15\-10..
Him, who departs, stays and enjoys, who is united with GUNAS, the deluded do not see; but they do behold Him, who possess the "eye-of- Knowledge. "

Comment by Madathil Nair:

This post is based on my memory of Swami Dayananda Saraswati's teachings.

BG 3.3. declares that there are only two paths. j~nAna yoga (saMnyAsa) and karma yoga. There is no separate path called bhakti. Bhakti is inherent and an essential part of both j~nAna yoga and karma yoga. Bhakti is as inseparable from the two like sweetness in honey.

Swamiji gives two definitions for yoga.
(a) yoga karmasu kausalam - Dexterity in action is yoga, i.e. performing actions keeping in view the total harmony of the entire creation is yoga
(b) samatwaM yoga ucyate - equanimity and equipoise is yoga.

This has a bearing on 2.47 and 2.48 of BG (karmayeva adhikAraste… and yogasta kuru karmANi…).

j~nAna yoga and karma yoga overlap as actions are involved in saMnyAsa and vedAntic knowledge is required for the performance of actions in a non-binding manner with prasAda buddhi in karma yoga. One wouldn't fail to notice the intermingling of the two paths in Chapter 2 of BG.

j~nAna yoga presupposes a firm advaitic conviction. One who embarks on this path has literally burnt all his boats and there is no more any going back for him to his pUrvAshrama [former way of life].

If the above meanings of yoga are imported into Br. Up. 2.4.5, then j~nAna yoga means a life of saMnyAsa, aimed at attaining Self-Knowledge (akhaNDAkAra vRRitti), embarked upon with an unshakable conviction of the truth of advaita, dedicated to listening (reading included), reflecting, contemplating and meditating on Brahman and performing actions required therefore in a non-binding manner with prasAda buddhi, equanimity and equipoise.

karma

Definition - Sunder Hattangadi

Perhaps no word captures the mystery of human existence as suggestively as the word Karma. It is a word that evokes such a host of associated ideas – ethical-moral, psychological, metaphysical, and mystical - that one can easily lose one's bearings in trying to understand it. Krishna himself declares in Gita (4:17) – gahanA karmaNo gatiH – "hard to understand is the true nature of action" [`viShamA durj~neyA…yAthAtmyaM tattvam']. It may be compared to exploring the Himalayan ranges to reach the peak of Kailasa, Shiva's abode.

Simply defined, it means action. The stem word, karman, is derived etymologically from the root verb (dhAtu) kRRi, to do, which also generates a multitude of other cognate words that are inextricably related to Karma – e.g. kartA (doer), kartavya/kArya (duty), kAraNa (cause), karaNa (instrument), and so on.

The Bhagavad-Gita, which Shankara has called `samasta-vedArtha-sAra- sa~Ngraha' or the `epitome of the essentials of the whole Vedic teaching' (or Spiritual Knowledge), is the incomparable vade mecum in explaining all the implications of the word Karma. It is a triune synthesis of dharma-shAstra, (karma-)yoga-shAstra, and mokSha- shAstra. Any reader has a wide choice of verses to select in understanding this unique word. The present article is only one such selection, by no means exhaustive, and is only to serve as a pointer to other treasures.

The classical definition of karma is given in Gita 8:3:

bhUtabhAvodbhavakaro visargaH karmasaj~nitaH – "The offering which causes the origin of physical beings is called action (Karma)". Shankara Bhashya on this is: "The sacrificial act which consists in offering cooked rice, cakes and the like to the Gods (Devatas) and which causes the origin of all creatures, is known by the term Karma; for it forms the seed as it were of all beings; it is in virtue of this act that all beings, animate and inanimate, come into existence, after passing through rain and other regions of life."

[Jaimini's Karma Mimamsa codifies in aphorisms (3,454 in 16 chapters) the Karma Kanda (`dharma-jij~nAsA') of the Veda-s, just as Badarayana's Brahma Sutra-s (555 in 4 chapters) formulate the Upanishadic `brahma-jij~nAsA' (j~nAna kanda).

This leads us back to Gita 3:14-15:

"From food creatures come forth; the production of food is from rain; rain comes forth from sacrifice; sacrifice is born of action; know thou that action comes from Brahman; and Brahman comes from the Imperishable. Therefore the all-pervading Brahman ever rests in sacrifice."

Shankara bhAShya:

"…yaj~na or sacrifice spoken of refers to what is called `apUrva'; and this is the result of the activities of the sacrificer and his priests (ritviks) engaged in a sacrifice. These activities are enjoined in the Veda (Brahman) , and the Veda comes from the Imperishable, the paramAtman, the Highest Self. Because the Veda has arisen from the Highest Self, the akShara, the Imperishable, as the breath comes out of a man, therefore, the Veda, though all- comprehending as revealing all things, ever rests in sacrifice, i.e. it treats mainly of sacrifices and the mode of their performance."

The bhAShya on 3:16 states: "...till one attains the qualifications for Devotion to the knowledge of the Self, one who knows not the Self and is therefore qualified (for action only) should resort to Devotion to action as a means of attaining Devotion to knowledge."

In Gita 4:25-32, Krishna defines the manifold yaj~na-s which are born of action (bhAShya: "in deed, speech and thought", the not-Self, for the Self is actionless. If you realize that these are not my actions, I am actionless, I am unconcerned, you will be released by this right knowledge, from evil, from the bond of saMsAra").

In Gita, 5:8-9, are described other actions ("seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping, breathing, speaking, letting go, seizing, opening and closing the eyes",) which are expressed by a truth-knower as "I do nothing at all, the senses move among the sense-objects."

Actions, or the flux of events or changes in phenomena, happen in prakRRiti (Gita 7:4) or in kShetra (13:5-6) when applied to an individual.

3:27 – "Actions are wrought in all cases by the energies of Nature (prakRRiti). One whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks `I am the doer'. "

The word `karma' yields over 300 words when associated with other prefixes and words to form compound words. The frequency of the word is relatively small in the Vedas & Upanishads, though the major portions of the Vedas (saMhitA-s, brAhmaNa-s) are known as Karma-Kanda, i.e. dealing with rituals of worship. They, and the `dharma-shAstra'-s (scriptures on conduct), deal with the do's and don't-s for the effective functioning of individuals, families, and society. The word has been repeated over a hundred times in the Gita.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1:6:1, states: "This Universe is formed of three entities: name, form, and action." Taittiriya Upanishad, 1:11:2-4, gives the guidelines – "…should you have any doubt with regard to duties or customs, you should behave in those matters just as the brAhmaNa-s do, who may happen to be there and who are able deliberators, who are adept in those duties and customs, who are not directed by others, who are not cruel, and who are desirous of merit…"

The definitions of Karma are modified by the prefixes, or adjectives, or compound words that are added to it, for example: Karmas may be described as sAttvika, rAjasika or tAmasika; nitya, naimittika; saMchita, kriyamANa (AgAmin), and prArabdha; kAmya, niShkAma; nyAyya, viparIta; shAstra-vidhanokta or avidhipUrvaka; akarma, vikarma, naiShkarmya; svabhAvaja/sahaja.

The whole pursuit of Reality, the abode of Immortality (13:13) and Imperishable Bliss (5:21), is the effort to transcend the bondage or limitations caused by action. Every ego-centric action leaves an impression (vAsanA) on the mind (or chitta – the memory store-house) serving as a seed to germinate into further action, and results in consequences (karma-phala), that have to be experienced (enjoyed or suffered) in the present or subsequent life. These tendencies (vAsanA- s) can be countered by proper discipline of unselfish actions which leave impressions (saMskAra-s). This wiping out of vAsanA-s (vAsanA- kShaya) itself is known as liberation (mukti or mokSha).

The goal of action is to attain `actionlessness', (naiShkarmya - Gita 3:4, 18:49). Immortality, freedom from delusion and sorrow and sin, peace, bliss, freedom from desire and anger, are the fruits of this pursuit, as attested in the following verses.

Gita 18:5: "yaj~na-dAna-tapaH-karma pAvanAni manIShiNAm – purifiers of the wise."

5:11: "yogins perform action, without attachment for the purification of self."

4:24 – "Brahman verily shall be reached by one who always sees Brahma in action."

4:33 – "All action is comprehended in wisdom".

4:37 – " Wisdom-fire reduces all actions to ashes."

How does Vedanta view Karma? Gita 18:13 – (also 2:46, 4:33) bhAShya – "all action ceases when the knowledge of the Self arises, so that Vedanta, which imparts Self- knowledge, is the `end of action'; (sA~Nkhye kRRitAnte)".

Om Tat Sat

                                                        

(Continued...) 

_{(My humble salutations to  above mentioned Philosophers and  Advaita org   for the collection)}