ARVIND SHARMA

SA/qKARA'S

A COMMENT ON COMMENTARY ON BHAGAVADGITA

I

XVIII.1

I n t h e t e r m i n a l c h a p t e r o f t h e BhagavadgFtg A r j u n a initially raises t h e quest i o n : are sare.znyfsa a n d ty~ga d i s t i n c t f r o m e a c h o t h e r ? 1

t .

This p a p e r is a n a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n a n a n s w e r t o this q u e s t i o n f r o m S a n k a r a ' s GFtfib hgs.ya. II Safikara clearly perceives A r j u n a ' s i n q u i r y as c e n t e r i n g o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n t o b e d r a w n b e t w e e n sa.mnyfisa and tydga. As a m a t t e r o f fact h e even seems a trifle surprised at this f o r h e r e m a r k s : 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, i n t h e c o n n e c t i v e n o t e w i t h w h i c h h e i n t r o d u c e s t h e n e x t verse S a h k a r a again r e m a r k s : 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 A n d w h a t , a c c o r d i n g to Safikara, is t h e a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n ? Safikara's a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n c o m e s in t w o parts. He seems t o say ( 1 ) t h a t t h e t w o w o r d s are broadly s y n o n y m o u s b u t t h e n also adds t h a t ( 2 ) t h e t w o words, t h o u g h b r o a d l y s y n o n y m o u s , are n o t exactly synonymous. He accepts t h e general s y n o n y m i t y o f t h e t w o w o r d s w h e n h e r e m a r k s t h a t " t h e
I

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 relinquishment" [ 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. Indo-Iranian Journal 17 (1975) 183-193.All Rights Reserved Copyright 9 1975 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

184

ARVIND SHARMA

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 o f 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 o f 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 coincidence 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 o f the gloss runs: tyggasa.mnyffsagabdav~cyo h i y o '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 o f 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. 12A. Mah~deva S~stri, op. cir., p. 450.

A COMMENT ON SAI~KARA'S COMMENTARY

185

abandonment of the fruits of action and the word tydga may subsume sam.ny~sa but the word sam.nydsa does not subsume tydga. A close look at the manner in which Safikara glosses the words sam.ny~sa and ty~ga suggests the conclusion that (1) Safikara in some cases takes the two words as interchangeable when the basic meaning of the fact of abandonment is involved but that (2) he does sometimes distinguish between the two and when he does that he distinguishes between the two on the basis of what is abandoned. Sam.ny~sa is taken then to refer to the abandonment o f works as distinguished from tygga which then refers to the abandonment of the fruits of action. And furthermore, though Sankara sometimes uses the word ty6ga to refer to the abandonment of works too (as in his gloss on XVIII.11) he never seems to use the word sam.nydsa to refer to the abandonment of the fruits of action.
I .

iV What, if any, is the philosophical significance of this distinction between sa.mnyYsa and tydga for Sahkara? This distinction between sam.ny~sa and tygga seems to possess considerable significance when viewed in the light of Saflkara's overall philosophical orient tation. To see this it is helpful to identify two basic elements of Safikara's philosophical system. These are: (1) That salvation is possible only throughfa6na; (2) That f~6na is characterized by the abandonment of action. 13 Both these aspects of Safikara's philosophical position find clear articulation in his Grtdbh~s.ya. 14 It will be noticed that Safikara does not regard jadna as characterized by the abandonment of the fruits of action but of action itself. This is important. While it is true that if action is abandoned, its fruit is automatically abandoned - the peas go with the pod - the reverse is not equally true for Safikara. This then seems to be Safikara's overall position: that salvation is achieved by the "preeminent renunciation of all works ''is (mukhyah. sarvakarmasam, ny~sah). Safikara, as a matter o f fact, holds to this position so firmly that he has to make special efforts to explain, some would say explain away, those verses in the Gi-t~ which run counter to this position of his. But before one turns to an analysis of such verses it might be useful to clarify Sankara's position as some
t .

13 For (1) see Srigahkaragranthavalih., Samput. 8, op. cit., p. 457, and for (2) seelbid., p. 3; etc. 14 Safikara cites Anugrta (XLIII.26) with approval which states: j~anam sam.nyasalaksanam. It will be noticed thatjgtrna is not called ty#galaksan, arn. is A. Mahgdeva Sgstri, op. cit., p. 407.

186

ARVIND SHARMA

r o o m for misunderstanding would appear to exist here. Such a clarification can / be sought b y asking two searching questions in re Safikara's position: (1)

Why does Safikara say that all action must be abandoned for salvation? and (2) What does Safikara mean when he says that all karma is to be abandoned? The first question is answered more readily than the second. According to Safikara salvation is not possible so long as the slightest trace o f the fruits o f action remains to be exhausted. So long as action is performed there will be the fruit o f action which will bar the way to salvation. Therefore, if to achieve salvation one must get rid of fruits o f action in its entirety, then in order to get rid o f the fruits o f action one must get rid o f action itself. For "an action done, whether interested (kdmya) or obligatory and distinterested (nitya) must produce its effect; - (it cannot o f course produce) moks.a, which, being eternal, cannot be produced by an action. ''16 Now the second question: what does Safikara mean when he says that all karma is to be abandoned? The word karma has the general meaning o f action and the more specific meaning o f ritual. Corresponding to these, the word sam.nygtsin has two meanings: a narrow one and a broad one. The narrower, more specific and technical meaning o f the word sam.nygsa relates to the caturth~grama: the fourth stage in the Hindu system o f the four ~s/amas. On entering this stage all rituals are given up. This is one sense in which Safikara uses the word sam.ny~sa the abandonment o f ritual action. In this case the abandonment involves the giving up o f an outwardly identifiable action - as when someone, who as a g!'.hastha tended the houeehold fire, as a sam.ny~sin ceases to do so. 17 But Saflkara also connects sam ny~sa with the more general meaning of the word karma, namely, action per se. According to Safikara "the Gi't~g~stra teaches that he who has acquired a knowledge o f the self should resort to renunciation only, not to works. ''18 This raises the obvious question: how can all action be abandoned for even eating, seeing, hearing, etc. are action and how can they ever be abandoned except in death? Safikara's answer is routed via verses 8 and 9 o f Chapter V. t9 And the answer is that though a ja#nin may appear to be acting outwardly he "sees only inaction in action - in all the movements o f the b o d y and the senses - ... he sees the absence o f action. ''2~ as A. Mah~deva S~stri, op. cit., p. 180. 17 A. Mah~deva Sastri, op. cit., p. 182. is Ibid., p. 48. ~9 It is as ff for Sa.fikaraArjuna's question raised in the first verse of the eighteenth chapter: "What is the tattva of Samnyasa? " is to be answered on the basis of the clue provided in the eighth and ninth verses of the fifth chapter wheirein the tattvavit is described as one who "though seeing, hearing, touching, smelling,eating, going, sleeping, breathing, speaking, letting go, seizing, opening and dosing his eyes - remembering that the senses moveamong sense-objects" and "steadfast" should think "I to nothing at all" (A. Mah~deva S~stri, op. cir., p. 164). zo A. Mah~deva S~std, op. cit., p. 164.

A COMMENT ON SANKARA'S COMMENTARY

187

In other words Safikara uses the word sa.mnydsa in two ways: both to refer to the abandonment o f identifiable forms o f outward action in some cases and to refer, not to the abandonment of identifiable forms of outward action, but to the inward abandonment of action in other cases. Thus Sankara s conception o f the abandonment of all karma applies at two levels: physical and mental, or to two spheres of action, outward and inward action. 21 Howsoever applied, however, the dictum is clear: all action must be
/ . ,

abandoned. How, then, does Safikara make his position jive with the Grta's which is constantly urging Arjuna to act?

The manner in which Safikara goes about his work can be seen by making a casestudy of the verses in the Gi'tg which are likely to create a 'problem' for his position. Some of these may be identified: 1II-4, 5, 3 0; V - 2 ; V I - 1, 2; X I I - 1 2 ; and X V I I I - 3 , 7, 9, 11 and 12. These may now be individually examined. (1) III.4. This verse dearly states that perfection cannot be attained by sam.ny~sa. How does Safikara handle this? Safikara wholeheartedly agrees; how can perfection, he remarks, be attained by "mere renunciation unaccompanied by knowledge? ''22
/

(2) II1.5 This verse asserts that none even for an instant, ever remains without performing some form of action. This statement is diametrically opposed to gafikara's position that all action must be abandoned. How does Safikara get out of this bind? Sahkara remarks that one must distinguish (according to III.3) between the ]adnayogin and the karmayogin. This verse is meant for Karmayogin and "the Karmayoga devotion to action is indeed meant for the ignorant only, not for the wise. ''2a The wise see non-action in all action.
s

21 This ~afikaxa states clearly in his introduction to Chapter V wherein he remarks that "This samnydsa, which consists of renouncing a few actions only while yet there is idea of agency, is different from ... the renunciation of all actions - which is resorted to by the man who has realised the self" (1bid., p. 158). 22 Ibid., p. 95; emphasis added. 23 Ibid., p. 96.

188

ARVIND SHARMA

(3) Ill.30. This verse uses the continuative sam.nyasya with karm~n.i as object, which clearly means that action is performed and then cast on K~.na.24 In Safikara's system, samnygsa is the renunciation of action in the sense of its utter nonperformance, not in the sense of renunciation after performance - for once action is performed results must ensue. How then does Safikara square this verse with his position? Safikara introduces the verse with the note that it tells us how the ignorant (a/ha), desirous o f liberation and fit for karmayoga, should act. 2s Thus by casting off the verse on the ignorant Safikara protects his position vis ~ vis the jhdnin. (4) V.2. This verse clearly states that Karmayoga is to be preferred to Karmasam. ny~sa which runs counter to Safikara's position. Safikara remarks that Karmayoga is being extolled here and what is really meant is that "Karmayoga is better than mere - i.e. unaccompanied with knowledge - Karmasa .nmy~sa. ''z6

(5) vI.1.
In this verse one who performs his bounden duty without depending on the fruits of action is called a sam.nydsin. And what is worse (from Safikara's standpoint) one who is 'without fire' and 'without action' seems to have been denied that description! Thus (1) not only is one who performs actions called a sam.ny~sin (an abandoner of actions) but (2) one who abandons action is not called a sam.ny~sin or abandoner of action. Let Sahkara get out of this one ! Sarikara's response to the first point is to distinguish between two kinds of sam. ny~sa - primary (mukhya) and secondary (gau.na). 27 In these verses, according to Safikara, it is not primary samny~sa which constitutes the subject of discourse but secondary samnyYtsa. Primary samnydsa consists of giving up all actions; secondary samny~sa consists of only giving up the desire for the fruit of action. According to garikara the abandonment of the desire for the fruits of action is called samnygsa here out of courtesy; out o f a desire to praise Karmayoga for which alone Arjuna is eligible. On the second point Safikara remarks that what is meant is that "It is not 24 In his comment on 11.21 Safikara uses the argument that elsewhere (V.13) the word uy~sa ~dth sam prefix means 'to renounce' and not 'to deposit'. Grammar wouldn't allow such an option here. 25 Ibid., p. 110 ~ Ibid., p. 160; emphasis added. 27 Ibid., p. 183; also see Srrd~hkaragranth~valih., Sampu.ta 8, op. cit., p. 157.

A COMMENT ON SANKARA'S COMMENTARY

189

he alone who is without fire and without action that is both a Samny~sin and a yogin but also one devoted to action ''28 in the same vein of praise.
(6) XII.12. This verse glories tydga as superior to dhy~na, which in turn is described as superior to jhdna. In Sankara's system the pride of place is accorded to fauna, a place it has lost in this verse. How does Saftkara explain this reversal? Sankara points out that the preceding verses offer various options in descending order from the worship of the Impersonal to the Personal and that it is only as a last resort that ty~ga (which in this verse is clearly identified with sarvakarmaphalaty~ga) is glorified for the sake of Arjuna for whom Karmayoga has been recommended. 29 This over, the GFtd in the next few verses starts eulogising the ]h~nin. (7) XVlII.3. Sahkara is committed to the position that all works are to be abandoned. In this verse, however, two views are recorded: namely that while according to some all action is to be abandoned as evil, according to others "sacrifice, gift and austerity ''3~ should not be given up. Certain kinds of action thus may not be renounced: How is this to be taken vis-h-vis Safikara's position that all action is to be abandoned? According to Safikara it is not ]~Snins but "the Karma-Yogins that form the subject of discussion here; and it is with reference to them that these divergent views are held, but not with reference to ]aSnani.s.thas (wisdomdevotees), the sam.nySsins who have risen (above all wordly concerns)." As for the ]h~nins they "who see the Supreme Reality have only to follow the path of knowledge, accompanied with the renunciation of all works; and they have nothing else to do, and do not therefore form the subject of the alternative views set forth here. ''31 (8) XVIII.7. This verse categorically states that the renunciation of prescribed action (niyata karma) is not proper, and thus takes a position antipodal to galikara's tlmt all action should be abandoned. For Saflkara this verse illustrates, not the case of the jgdnin but the 'case of

28 1bid., p. 181. 29 SeelbM., pp. 309-11. so Ibid., p. 443. 31 Ibid., p. 445.

190

ARVIND SHARMA

the ignorant man'. Moreover, he adds, because "this sort o f abandonment is due to ignorance" it is called tYmasic. 32 (9) XVIII.9. This verse refers to the best kind of tySga - the Sattvic type which is described as consisting of the performance of prescribed works with the abandonment of attachment and also the fruit. Hence once more the actual performance of action is recommended as against Safikara's position that all action should be abandoned. How does Safikara resolve the situation? Saflkara first poses the problem quite pointedly. If samnydsa is being discussed, and if sa.mnySsa implies the abandonment o f works and if the previous verses (XVIII.7, 8) have also referred to the abandonment o f works, how does the question of abandonment of the fruits o f action crop up here? And then Safikara answers his own question by remarking that since the purpose o f this verse is to praise abandonment, and since the giving up o f fruits is also abandonment "the abandonment of the desire for the fruits o f action is praised as being Sattvic abandonment. ''33 (10) XVIII.11. This verse, like III.5 earlier, points out that the renunciation of all works is an impossibility. Sankara's response is similar; it is to say "the meaning is: it is not possible for an ignorant man to abandon actions completely. ''34 (11) XVIII.12. This verse seems to use the words tydga and sam.ny~sa interchangeably. How does Safikara react to this? It was pointed out earlier that in some contexts Safikara does use the two words interchangeably. This is one of the places where he does so. He glosses atydgin~m as aparamffrthasamny~sin~m, and sam. nySsinSm as paramSrthasamny5sinSrn. But the catch lies in the expression param5rtha. Safikara, who had earlier distinguished between primary and secondary samnydsa, now distinguishes between real sam.nydsa and not so real samnydsa. And here again this distinction is made not with the word tySga but with samny~sa. And the Ka'rmayogins are called the practitioners of not-so-real sam.nydsa and only the /~Snanis.t..has are called real samnySsins.

32 Ibid., p. 448. tamas is associated with ignorance through XIV.8. 33 Ibid., p. 450. There is also the hint that this is done for Arjuna's benefit who is explicity addressed in the verse. Arjuna is fit only for Karmayoga, which involves the renunciation of the fruit of action rather than action and so "Accordingly, by despising the two sorts of abandonment of works, as Rajasic and Tamasic," the abandonment of the fruit of works is praised. 34 Ibid., p. 452; emphasis added.

A COMMENT ON SAI~KARA'S COMMENTARY

191

Why this subtlety? Because according to Safikara, unless the action itself is given up, fruit of action will ensue. Giving up the fruit of action is not enough for salvation; action itself must be given up. as Thus, ~aandagiri explains Safikara's distinction between real and not-so-real samny~sa by pointing out that "those who perform works without desire for their fruits will necessarily reap, after death, the fruits of their respective actions. ''36 And Safikara himself, in his gloss on XVIII.2, clearly states that 'even' ordinary occasional duties - nitya and naimitn'ka karma - "produce their own fruits" and those who are "not samnydsins will have to reap the fruit of ordinary works.''37 It is clear, therefore, that Safikara consistently sticks to his basic position throughout his exegetical exercise - namely, that salvation is to be achieved by j ~ n a , which involves the complete renunciation of all works. In his hermeneutical effort to maintain his position through the Grt~ as exemplified by the cases cited above, it is quite clear that the distinction between sam. ny~sa and tydga is quite important for Safikara. This is so because of the primacy of the concept ofsam, ny~sa as a concomitant of]adna, through which salvation comes in his system. The key to salvation in Safikara's view is not ty~ga but sam.ny~sa, 3s because salvation is tied with the complete renunciation of all works and this meaning shines through more brightly through the term samny~sa than through the word tydga. The 'problem' for Safikara, if we may use the word, is created by the fact that Arjuna, being an a-jhdnin, is fit only for Karmayoga and so action has to be performed by him. To get him to perform action, Krsna has to glorify action and thus the GFta at several points seems to swing away from the severity of sam.nyasa into tolerance of ty~ga. Yet there is the realization too that 'action performed with bhakti, without concern for immediate reward leads to purity of mind' and the "man whose mind is pure is competent to tread the path of knowledge, and to him comes knowledge, and thus (indirectly) the Religion of Works forms also a means of Supreme Bliss. ''39 VI One final question remains to be asked: in his exegetical exercise how faithful has Safikara been to the text of the GFtd? 33 Ibid., p. 45 3. 3~ Ibid. 37 Ibid., p. 443. 3e Unless the word tyaga is used as an exact synonym ofsam, ny~sa and is stripped of its other meanings such as the renunciation of the fruit of works. 39 Ibid., p. 6.

192

ARVIND SHARMA

The question can be answered in two parts: how faithful has he been to the letter of the GFt~ and how faithful has he been to its spirit? The first question is perhaps more easily answered than the second. A semantic differential analysis of the two words sa.mnydsa and tyfiga with their grammatical variants in the Bhagavadgftg reveals that in the text of the GFt~, although the two words are often used interchangeably, there is a clear association of the word sam.ny~sa with karma, action, and of ty~ga with karmaphala or fruit of action. As a matter of fact, although the word samny~sa is used in the GFtg for giving up the desire for the fruit of action, or attachment to the fruit of action (VI.2, 4), or dependence on the fruit of action (VI.1), it is not used for giving up the fruit of action itself.
I .

Thus Sankara seems to be on the same semantic wave-length as the GFt~'s. He is justified in not regarding the two words as on all fours, although he recognises the tremendous overlap in the meaning of the two words. Moreover, he is also justified in working primarily with the word sam.ny~sa rather than ty~ga, consistently with his overall position on Jfi~nayoga as the Yoga par excellence. But in regarding the Jfi~nayoga as the Yoga par excellence he seems to have somewhat gone beyond the Grtd.4~ In fairness to Safikara it must be pointed out that he recognises the fact that the Grt~ is meant for Arjuna and espouses karmayoga 41 in that sense, but in his interpretation of the response of the Grtfi to some of the questions raised by Arjuna (for instance, of verses 2 through 12 of the 18th chapter), Safikara seems to use Jfigna rather than Karmayoga as the guiding light.42 One wonders whether a more direct interpretation of these 4o It is true that at some places the Gtt~ seems to go all out for Jfigna Yoga, as for instance in IV: 36-42. It is also true that the connection which Safikara makes between Jfifma yoga and Samny~sa can be seem as coming right out of the Grta directly (see XVIII.49). It can also be seen as emerging indirectly through the equation of Jfi~na with Sgrhkhya and then of Sftri~khyawith Yoga (V.5) and of Yoga with Samny~sa (VI.2). Nevertheless, it would perhaps be truer to say that the Gtta espouses a kind of philosophical kathenotheism so far as the Yogas are concerned. It successivelyaccords primacy to one and/or the other. This is true for the entire work and is most obvious in the latter half of the eighteenth chapter wherein the emphasis shifts from karma (XVIII: 41-47) to ]fiana (XVIII: 49-5 3) to bhakti (XVIII: 61-69). 41 A. Mah~deva S~stri, op. cit., pp. 5-6. 42 This procedure has elicited a strong adverse comment from W. D. P. Hill (The Bhagavadgita, Oxford University Press, 1928, p. 257, fn. 4), who remarks that !'Safikara most perversely twists the doctrine of 2-12 to agree with his preconceived philosophy." A less extreme position would be to regard Safikara as perhaps unconsciously, rather than perversely, colouring the text with his interpretation. What K. Satchidananda Murty (Revelation and Reason in Advaita Vedanta, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959, pp. 331-2) has to say on Safikara vis-a-visthe Veda may then be applied to his interpretation of the Gttm Dr. Murty writes: "The allegation of some European authors that Safikara has no consistent principles of interpretation is unfounded; what was wrong with him was his notion of what was important in the Scripture. Since he started with the presumption that the Veda is meant for teaching Advaita, and that only passages inculcating this are important he found Advaita in the Veda."

A COMMENT ON SA~qKARA'S COMMENTARY

193

lines would not be more in keeping with the spirit of the GFt&at least at that point. Jfi~nayoga is one of the yogas mentioned in the Gft& to interpret the Grt~ as if it is the Yoga of the Gftg rather than a Yoga within the Grta would not seem to reflect its true spirit. On comparing Safikara's Commentary, then, with the text of the Bhagavadgftg on issues related to samnyrsa and tydga a metaphorical conclusion may not be out of place. Although Sahkara seems to be on the same semantic wave-length as the Bhagavadgft~ is, the message being thus broadcast seems to be intended for a wider audience of spiritual aspirants than just the seekers on the path of knowledge.

Harvard, Cambridge, Mass.