Question 6
QUESTIONER: YOU SAY THAT SHANKARA'S COMMENTARY ON THE GEETA IS INCOMPLETE. THERE ARE DOZENS OF COMMENTARIES ON THE GEETA. CAN YOU SAY IF ANY ONE OF THEM IS COMPLETE? DO YOU THINK LOKMANYA TILAK'S INTERPRETATION IS COMPLETE? AT LEAST IT DOES NOT TAKE AN ESCAPIST VIEW OF LIFE; IT IS ACTIVIST AND MORALISTIC. OR ARE YOU TRYING TO SYNTHESIZE TILAK'S ACTIVISM WITH SHANKARA'S SUPRA-MORALISM?
Not one commentary on Krishna is complete. It is not possible, unless someone like Krishna himself comments on him.
Every interpretation of Krishna is incomplete and partial. There are many sides to a single thing, and Krishna is a man of infinite dimensions. So every commentator chooses from them according to what appeals to him. Shankara establishes that sannyas and inaction form the cornerstones of the GEETA. From the same GEETA, Tilak chooses karmayoga, the discipline of action, and he brings all his arguments to prove that action IS GEETA'S central message. Now Shankara and Tilak are polar opposites.
A thousand years have passed since Shankara commented on the GEETA, and in the course of time his escapist philosophy has enfeebled India to her very roots, weakened her in many ways. By its nature, escapism is enervating. Shankara's teachings sapped this country's vitality and dynamism. A thousand years' experiences were enough to turn the pendulum in the opposite direction. It became urgent that someone comment on the GEETA saying that it stands for dynamism and action. So Tilak comes forward with a statement which is at the other extreme of Shankara While Shankara had chosen inaction and renunciation, Tilak chose activism and action.
So Tilak's commentary is as incomplete as Shankara's.
There are any number of commentaries on the GEETA. They are not in dozens, but in hundreds, and the number increases every day. However, not one of them has done justice to Krishna's philosophy. And the reason is that not one commentator has shown the courage to be super-rational. Each of them has tried to be rational and logical.
In fact, a commentator cannot be other than rational. If he transcends the rational he will not write a commentary on the GEETA, he will instead create the GEETA itself. When one attains to the super-rational state a GEETA is born through him. Then commentary becomes unnecessary. A commentary means that you don't understand something in the GEETA and I explain it to you by way of interpreting it. It is an attempt at interpreting something. And when you explain something you have to keep within the bounds of logic and reason.
The moment something transcends reason it turns into a GEETA, not a commentary on it.
|
Next: Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 7
Energy Enhancement Enlightened Texts Krishna Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy
Chapter 14
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 1
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 1, YOU SAY THAT ON KRISHNA'S PATH SELF-REMEMBERING IS ENOUGH; IT DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR ANY OTHER SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE. BUT SINCE YOU ALSO SPEAK ABOUT DISCIPLINING THE SEVEN BODIES, CAN YOU GIVE US A BRIEF SKETCH OF KRISHNA'S DISCIPLINE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SEVEN BODIES? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 2
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 2, WE ARE GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR SUPERB EXPOSITION OF ACTION, INACTION AND NON-ACTION. YOU HAD EXPLAINED TO THE FOREIGN DISCIPLES OF MAHESH YOGI WHEN THEY MET YOU IN KASHMIR LAST YEAR ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INACTION IN ACHIEVING SELF-KNOWLEDGE, AND WE HAVE NOW NO CONFUSION ABOUT IT. BUT SOME CONFUSION SURELY ARISES FROM KRISHNA'S EXPOSITION OF INACTION IN THE GEETA. HE EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF INACTION, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE CONFUSING, BECAUSE IT HAS MORE THAN ONE MEANING. HE SAYS THAT A YOGI IS ONE WHO, HAVING ACTED DOES NOT THINK HE HAS ACTED, AND A SANNYASIN IS ONE WHO DOES NOT ACT AND YET ACTION HAPPENS. THERE IS YET ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS QUESTION WHICH SEEMS IMPORTANT. SHANKARACHARYA SAYS IN HIS COMMENTARIES ON THE GEETA, THAT A WISE MAN DOES NOT NEED TO ACT, BECAUSE ACTION BELONGS TO THE DOER. AND YOU SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO ACT, BECAUSE ACTION HAPPENS ON ITS OWN. BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ARJUNA'S INDIVIDUALITY IF HE CONSENTS TO BE JUST AN INSTRUMENT IN THE HANDS OF EXISTENCE? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 3
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 3, IT IS SAID THAT SHANKARA'S MAYIC WORLD, ILLUSORY WORLD, REALLY MEANS A CHANGING WORLD, NOT A FALSE ONE. WHAT DO YOU SAY? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 4
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 4, IS IT A KIND OF COMPROMISE ON THE PART OF SHANKARA WHEN HE SAYS THAT MAYA IS INEXPRESSIBLE? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 5
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 5, NOW YOU SAY THAT HESITATION IS GOOD. EARLIER YOU SAID THAT INDECISIVENESS IS DESTRUCTIVE AND THAT ONE MUST KNOW CLEARLY WHERE HE STANDS at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 6
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 6, YOU SAY THAT SHANKARA'S COMMENTARY ON THE GEETA IS INCOMPLETE. THERE ARE DOZENS OF COMMENTARIES ON THE GEETA. CAN YOU SAY IF ANY ONE OF THEM IS COMPLETE? DO YOU THINK LOKMANYA TILAK'S INTERPRETATION IS COMPLETE? AT LEAST IT DOES NOT TAKE AN ESCAPIST VIEW OF LIFE; IT IS ACTIVIST AND MORALISTIC. OR ARE YOU TRYING TO SYNTHESIZE TILAK'S ACTIVISM WITH SHANKARA'S SUPRA-MORALISM? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 7
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 7, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE SAYING RIGHT NOW? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 8
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 8, AND WHAT IS THE OTHER THING? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 9
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 9, A PART OF MY QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED. DO YOU THINK THE GEETA WILL BE COMPLETE IF SHANKARA'S SUPRA-MORALISM AND TILAK'S ACTIVISM ARE MADE INTO ONE PIECE? BECAUSE THE SUPRA-RATIONALITY THAT YOU SPEAK ABOUT IS ECHOED BY SHANKARA, NOT TILAK; THE LATTER IS OUT AND OUT A MORALIST. ON THE OTHER HAND TILAK, NOT SHANKARA ECHOES YOUR POSITIVISM, YOUR DYNAMISM. SHANKARA IS FOR RENUNCIATION at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 10
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 10, DO YOU BECOME KRISHNA HIMSELF WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT HIM? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 11
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 11, SHREE ARVIND HAS WRITTEN A COMMENTARY ON THE GEETA IN WHICH HE TALKS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREATION AND ITS PERCEPTION. FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW IT IS REALITY THAT IS IMPORTANT, AND FROM ANOTHER ITS PERCEPTION IS IMPORTANT. IN HIS CONCEPT OF THE SUPRAMENTAL HE BELIEVES THAT DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS IS GOING TO DESCEND ON THIS EARTH, BUT THIS CONCEPT OF HIS SEEMS TO BE DUALISTIC. WHAT DO YOU SAY? AND DO YOU THINK THAT RAMAN MAHARSHI'S CONCEPT OF AJATVAD, OF UNBORN REALITY, IS CLOSER TO YOU AND TO CHAITANYA'S CONCEPT OF ACHINTYA BHEDABHEDVAD, OR UNTHINKABLE DUALISTIC NON-DUALISM? AND CAN YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE EPISODE OF ARVIND SEEING KRISHNA'S VISIONS? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 12
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 12, YOU COMPARE RAMAN WITH BUDDHA WHO HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT PAST. WHY NOT COMPARE HIM WITH KRISHNAMURTI WHO IS SO CLOSE BY? at energyenhancement.org
- Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 13
Krishna, Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy Chapter 14: Action, Inaction and Non-Action, Question 13, PLEASE TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT RAMAN'S AJATVAD OR THE PRINCIPLE OF NO-BIRTH at energyenhancement.org
|