ARVIND SHARMA a COMMENT on SA/Qkara's COMMENTARY ON

ARVIND SHARMA

A COMMENT ON SA/qKARA'S COMMENTARY ON BHAGAVADGITA XVIII.1

In the terminal chapter of the BhagavadgFtg Arjuna initially raises the question: are sare.znyfsa and ty~ga distinct from each other? 1 t . This paper is an attempt to obtain an answer to this question from Sankara's GFtfib hgs.ya.

Safikara clearly perceives Arjuna's inquiry as centering on the nature of the distinction to be drawn between sa.mnyfisa and tydga. As a matter of fact he even seems a trifle surprised at this for he remarks: Verily, the whole of the doctrine taught in the preceding discourses is to be found in this discourse. Arjuna, however, asks to know only the distinction between samnydsa and ty~ga. 2 Moreover, in the connective note with which he introduces the next verse Sahkara again remarks:

The words samny~sa and ty~ga have been used here and there in the preceding discourses, 3 their connotations, however, not being clearly distinguished. WherefOre, with a view to determining them, the Lord addresses Arjuna... 4

III

And what, according to Safikara, is the answer to the question? I Safikara's answer to the question comes in two parts. He seems to say (1) that the two words are broadly synonymous but then also adds that (2) the two words, though broadly synonymous, are not exactly synonymous. He accepts the general synonymity of the two words when he remarks that "the

I Bhagavadg~ta XVIII.1. 2 A.Mah~deva Sastri, The Bhagavad-Gita with the Commentary ofSri Sankarachffrya (English Translation), Madras: V. Ramaswamy Sastrulu & Sons, 1961, p. 441. This may be compared with S~dhara Sw~mi's remark that "the essence of the whole GIt~t is taught clearly in the eighteenth chapter by distinguishing between renunciation and relinquish- ment" [ Swami Vireshwarananda, Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita (Text, Translation of the Text and of the gloss of Sridhara Swami), Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Matha, 1948, p. 472; eml~hasis added.] 3 Sridhara Swami in his gloss identifies some of these references. For sam.nyl2sa he cites V.13, IX.28 and for ty~ga IVo20 and XII.11 (op. cit., pp. 472-3). 4 A. Mahadeva ~stri, op. cir., p. 441.

meaning of the words sa.mnydsa and ty~ga is in any way one and the same so far as the general idea is concerned, namely, abandonment"; s but at the same time he also implies that the two words are not exactly synonymous when he goes on to add that the two words "are not quite so distinct in meaning as the words 'jar' and 'cloth'. ''6 The implication is that there is some distinction though it is not as radical as that between a pitcher of water (ghat.a) and a piece of cloth (pa.ta). Anandagiri paraphrases Safikara as saying that "the two words convey the same general idea with some distinction. ''7 Accordingly, though the words may not be as distinct as 'jar' and 'cloth', there does exist the kind of difference one finds between a pot and a jar. 8 Thus according to Safikara, though there is a general overlap in meaning between the two words sam.ny~sa and ty~ga, there is not a complete coinciden- ce of meaning. If now the manner in which Safikara glosses these terms in his Commentary on the GTtg are scrutinized one discovers that, consistently with the above position, while in some contexts Safikara accepts the two words as synonymous, 9 in other contexts the distinction between the two terms takes on significance for him. 1~ One place, for instance, wherein he clearly accepts the synonymity of the two terms is in his gloss on XVIII.4, wherein he comments on the occurrence of the word tygga alone thus: "the Lord has used this single word here, implying that the meaning of ty~ga and sam.nygsa is one and the same". The key section of the gloss runs: tyggasa.mnyffsagabdav~cyo hiyo 'rtha.h sa eka eveti, x 1 On the other hand,, sometimes Safikara draws a distinction between the two terms and in a manner which is quite revealing of his general philosophical position. For instance, in his gloss on XVIII.9 he remarks that "the abandonment of works and the abandonment of the desire for the fruits do agree in so far as they alike imply abandonment. ''~2 The term used for abandonment of works is sam. ny~sa, and for the abandonment of the desire for the fruits is tygga and the word used for abandonment in general is ty~ga. Thus for Safikara though sometimes the words may be used interchangeably, at other times as in this case sa.mnygsa and ty~ga have different meanings; the difference then consists in sam.nygsa being related to abandonment of action and tydga to the

s A. Mah~deva S~stri, op cit., p. 442.1x 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 "They convey the same general idea with slight distinction like ghatakala~a" (Sri Swami Sivananda, Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Rishikesh: Yoga-Vedanta Forest University, 1949, p. 769). 9 E.g. see glosses on V.13; VI.4; XVIIL7; etc. lo E.g. see glosses on XVIII.3, etc. al Srrgahkaragranthavalih, Sampu.ta 8, Srivag.Ivilgsamudr~yantr~laya.h, Srirangam, p.408. 12 A. Mah~deva S~stri, op. cir., p. 450.