Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s1: Tussle between Action, Knowledge and Devotion

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s1

Language
English

Tussle between Action, Knowledge and Devotion

c8.s1.1

ONE of the recurring themes for debate is the conflict between *karma* (action) and *jñāna* (knowledge). The Indian mind has been occupied with the two opposite ways of *pravṛtti* (empiricism) and *nivṛtti* (renunciation). *Mahābhārata* repeatedly discusses such conflicting views and their resolution (see Chap. 2).

c8.s1.2

Even within the fold of Advaitins, Śaṅkara is countered by the theorists who hold the Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda (theory of synthesis between knowledge and action). Śaṅkara at least concedes to it as a possibility in his *bhāṣya* on *Kaṭhopaniṣad* (1.17). But then he firmly refutes the synthesis between action and knowledge as his final verdict in his *bhāṣya* on *Taittirīya Upaniṣad* (I.11.4). On the very first aphorism of *Brahmasūtra*, Śaṅkarācārya in his *bhāṣya* raises the question of the non-essentiality of *dharma-jijñāsā* (inquiry in *dharma*) and asserts that it is not a prerequisite for pursuing inquiry into the Ultimate Reality or *Brahman*. *Brahma-jijñāsā* can be acquired even before the acquisition of *dharma*; and that nothing remains to be done after the acquisition of the true knowledge of *Brahman* is the beauty of the Advaita system.¹

c8.s1.3

The two divergent views — Kevalajñānavāda and Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda — are linked to the diverse visions of human life. The Kevalajñānavāda upheld by Śaṅkarācārya would lead to the lifestyle of *aikāśramya* (absolute asceticism). Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda on the other hand would support *caturāśramya* or *āśramasamuccaya* (theory of a synthesis of all the four *āśramas*).

c8.s1.4

Śaṅkara had to dispute with the authors of Dharmaśāstras like Manu who gave the highest status to *gṛhasthāśrama*. Bhāruci, who supported the Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda, flourished two or three centuries before Śaṅkara. G.C. Pande sees an internalization of the conflict between the Brāhmanical and Śramanic traditions in the opposite views of Bhāruci and Śaṅkarācārya.² On the other hand, *Gītā* presents a resolution of conflict between *karma*, *jñāna* and *bhakti* before these philosophers.

c8.s1.5

Śaṅkara again stands against Manu, as the latter allows an honourable space for *kāma* (desire). Desire leads to motivation, and this motivation subsequently will lead to the inclination for performing religious duties. Bhāruci agrees with Manu in giving the highest status to *gṛhasthāśrama*. He permits the option between *aikāśramya* and *caturāśramya* or *āśramasamuccaya*.

c8.s1.6

The Jñānakarmasamuccayavāda also presupposes the combination for intellectual and practical methods like *upāsanā* and meditation for liberation. Śaṅkara does not find them absolutely desirable.

c8.s1.7

On the relationship between *karma* and *jñāna* Maṇḍana also holds a position strikingly different from Śaṅkara and Sureśvara.³ Maṇḍana cites at least seven theories in this connection. Of these, he favours a peculiar variety of *jñānakarmasamuccaya*; whereas Śaṅkara and Sureśvara do not regard performance of ritual as compatible with the knowledge of *Brahman*.

Linked texts (6)