indriyanam hi caratam yanmano'nuvidhiyate
tadasya harati prajnam vayurnavamivambhasi Verse 67

hi - indeed; caratam - of the moving; indriyanam - of the senses; yat manah -
that mind which; anuvidhiyate - follows in the wake (of); tat - that; asya -
his; prajnam - knowledge; harati - robs away; vayuh - the wind; navam - a
small boat; iva - just as; ambhasi - on the waters
The mind that follows the moving senses indeed robs the person of his
knowledge, just as the wind carries away a small boat on the waters. For the
one whose mind is not resolved, and is therefore in the hands of raga-dvesas,
there is no knowledge. Even if knowledge is there, it is not adequate, as it
has already been pointed out. This is because the mind follows, goes behind,
the moving senses, all of which are engaged in their own spheres of activity.
For example, the eyes have their sphere of seeing in forms and colours and the
ears have their sphere in sounds. Thus, you find that each sense organ has its
own sphere of activity. As the sense organs experience the objects according
to their own spheres, the mind naturally has some fancies that one goes after
as they arise. In other words, you go along with the sense cravings.

The person being discussed in this verse is one whose mind joins with the
sense perceptions, with reference to which there are certain inner cravings or
fancies. A mind that joins the senses robs away one's knowledge, the knowledge
born of the discriminative inquiry of oneself. This means that whatever
self-knowledge one may have had is as good as gone! The mind, meaning the
will, of such a person, is one that says 'yes' to everything that is not to be
done and 'no' to whatever has to be done. To illustrate this point, Krsna used
the example of the wind with its capacity to take a small boat away from its
destination. Robbed of self-knowledge, the mind is busy with objects alone. It
has no time for self-knowledge. In fact, there is no time for anything because
there are so many raga-dvesas. Because situations do not happen as you want,
there is nothing but concerns, one after the other. First, the pressure of
raga-dvesas is in the form of undifferentiated concern and then the concern is
in the form of desire, regret, disappointment, sorrow, despair, anxiety, and a
constant sense of loss.

When the mind is occupied with objects, there is concern, whereas when it is
occupied with the self, the atma, there is no concern, only tranquillity. The
self will not run away. It stays put. Even if you come back after twenty
years, atma will still be sat-cit-ananda. Regardless of which book you read,
atma will not grow into asat-cit-ananda. Ëtma is always fullness,
limitlessness, ananda. If the object of your knowledge is the atma, the self,
then there is ananda for you. Krsna summed up all that he had said with
reference to one's knowledge becoming steady in the following verse:

tasmadyasya mahabaho nigrhitani sarvasah
indriyanindriyarthebhyastasya prajna pratishita Verse 68

tasmat - therefore; mahabaho - Oh! Mighty armed (Arjuna); yasya - whose;
indriyani - senses; indriya-arthebhyah - from sense objects;sarvasah -
completely; nigrhitani - are withdrawn, mastered; tasya - his; prajna -
knowledge; pratishita - is steady

Therefore, Oh! Mighty armed Arjuna, the knowledge of one whose senses are
completely withdrawn (mastered) from their respective objects is steady. The
word tasmat indicates that Krsna was summing up this section dealing with
description of the mind of a person who has some vision and is making an
effort to make his or her knowledge steady. He explained that because the
senses are turbulent, they could rob away the mind of such a person. How they
do this was also discussed. Krsna addressed Arjuna here as 'mahabaho,' meaning
'Oh!, Mighty armed Arjuna.' One may be mighty armed with reference to one's
prowess and skill, but what is needed for self-knowledge is to be mighty
armed, i.e., strong in the mind, which is more difficult. The prowess and
skills that Arjuna had gathered to earn him the name 'Mighty-armed' were great
in their own sphere in that he was able to control all external enemies, but
his ability to control this inner one was the issue here.

To control the senses, to withdraw them from their respective objects, means
to be able to withdraw them at will, just as the turtle withdraws its head and
limbs into its shell whenever it senses any danger. If you want to release the
senses, release them; if you want to withdraw them, withdraw them. This means
that the senses are under your control. Only when you have the capacity to
withdraw your senses at will, can your knowledge be steady. The idea here is
that the knowledge becomes steady only when the mind is freed from the
pressure of raga and dvesa. To the extent that you master your likes and
dislikes, to that extent your knowledge stays. Because your raga-dvesas are
neutralised, you can enjoy the benefits of your knowledge. The pressure of
raga-dvesas being less, the benefits of the knowledge are more. The knowledge
is complete when the raga-dvesas have no say in your life, when they are all
neutralised, when it makes no difference to you whether a desire is fulfilled
or not. Only then is there no hindrance to self-knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE AND MASTERY OF THE MIND GO HAND-IN-HAND
There is a certain trick to all this in that, as one's knowledge grows in
clarity, mastery of the mind over the raga-dvesas also takes place. With a
karma-yoga attitude, the raga-dvesas are mastered to a certain extent and the
knowledge becomes clearer. Thus, there is a mutual kinship between the two.
The entire presentation of yoga in the Gita is with reference to raga-dvesas.
The psychology of the Gita is raga-dvesa psychology and, as a psychology, the
Gita itself is adequate and complete. When we are dealing with normal people,
raga-dvesa psychology is enough. It implies an order, dharma-adharma, which is
looked upon as Ìsvara, the Lord, the giver of the fruits of action - all of
which bring about a certain neutralisation of one's raga-dvesas. Taking care
of raga-dvesas itself brings about a certain tranquillity, a cheerfulness to
the mind. And as the cheerfulness increases, one's knowledge becomes clearer.
Conversely, as the knowledge becomes clearer, one's cheerfulness increases. In
other words, the pressure caused by raga-dvesas is less. Just as a bird
requires both wings to take off, so too, we require both wings - inquiry and a
proper attitude - to glide into this knowledge. One wing is as important as
the other.

ya nisa sarvabh£tanam tasyam jagarti samyami
yasyam jagrati bh£tani sa nisa pasyato muneh Verse 69

sarvabh£tanam - for all beings; ya - that which; nisa - night; tasyam - in
that; samyami - one who has mastery over oneself (who is wise); jagarti - is
awake; yasyam - that in which; bh£tani - beings; jagrati - are awake; sa -
that; pasyatah muneh - for the wise man who sees; nisa - night

In that which is night for all beings, the one who is wise, who has mastery
over oneself, is awake. That, in which beings are awake, is night for the wise
one who sees. Krsna had been answering Arjuna's question about how a person of
wisdom, a sthitaprajna, is defined and how such a person interacts with the
world. Upon analysis, we find Krsna's answer a very interesting one. First, he
defined a sthitaprajna as one who is happy with himself by himself and thereby
one who is free from the hold of all desires. One who is able to give up all
binding desires as they arise in one's mind, being happy with oneself, in
oneself, is awake to the nature of oneself and is, therefore, wise. The wisdom
of such a person is steady. Although Arjuna expressed the second part of his
question with the words, 'How does a wise person talk, sit, and walk?' the
spirit of his question was, 'How does such a person interact with the world?'
Taking the spirit of Arjuna's question into account, Krsna replied that one's
wisdom is steady only when one's mind is no longer a problem.

Krsna said that raga-dvesas are the cause for one's knowledge being stifled or
inhibited. For the person whose sense organs are freed from raga and dvesa,
and whose pursuits are not backed by raga-dvesas, the knowledge remains
because he or she has a cheerful mind, a mind that is not in the hands of
raga-dvesas. Krsna then summed up by saying that for the one who has withdrawn
the sense organs from the sense objects, the one who has the sense organs with
oneself, if indeed this person has self-knowledge, that knowledge will be
steady. Having said all this Krsna was not very happy with his reply to
Arjuna's question because he knew that to know whether or not another person
is wise, you yourself must be wise. How else are you going to know otherwise?
Only a person who is wise knows what it takes to be wise. Arjuna thought that
the characteristics of a wise person could be a kind of sadhana for him, a
means for becoming wise. But how could he understand these characteristics if
he himself was not wise? This is what Krsna still had to convey to Arjuna.

IGNORANCE AND KNOWLEDGE ARE LIKE NIGHT AND DAY
Krsna had talked about the person who is happy with himself or herself and,
since a mad man can also be happy with himself, he also pointed out that a
sthitaprajna must have knowledge. Recognizing, however, that his description
of a wise person was not complete, Krsna adds this very interesting verse. In
essence, what he says is that a wise person is like a wise person and the
'other-wise' cannot really understand such a person without becoming wise. He
illustrated his point by saying that what is night for all people is day for a
wise person who has the mind and senses with him or her. Such a person is
called a samyami here. The word yama means mastery or control over the mind
and senses, and samyami, one who has that mastery, along with knowledge.
Further, Krsna said, that which is day for everyone else is night for the wise
person, called muni here. Muni means the one who sees things clearly,
mananasila. For this person of clear vision, the state that everyone else
thinks of as day is night. In other words, when all beings are awake, the
sthitaprajna sleeps. And when they are asleep, the wise person is awake. Does
this mean, then, that one who is wise is some nocturnal being, like a bat, or
a thief who prowls about at night? Not at all. Just as the darkness of night
does not allow you to see objects as they are, night here represents darkness
with reference to one's knowledge not being clear. The wise person is awake to
what is night for all beings, the night of avidya, ignorance.

What is not known to people is called the sleep of night, the sleep of
darkness, or ignorance, avidya-nidra. In this sleep of ignorance, people are
like somnambulists, sleepwalkers. This state is more than just sleep; these
people are all dreamers. They are sleeping, but awake, just like in dream.
They are awake and perform all kinds of activities, but still they are asleep
because they are not awake to certain realities. If you are totally asleep or
totally awake, you have no problem. The problem is when you are only
half-awake, this being a state where mistakes are possible. In dream, a person
is partly awake, meaning that there is some projection by the mind. The person
is not identified with the body and the physical reality, but is identified
with memories and thoughts, from which a dream world is set-up.

THE REALITY OF DUALITY
In the dream world, everything is dual, dvaita for the person. The knower is
distinct from the known; the known is distinct from the knower, and the
knowledge, of course is distinct from the knower, being something that the
knower has and for which there is distinct object, i.e., the known. This
division in dream is a reality for the dreamer. But, upon waking, all the
three - the knower, the known, and the knowledge - become one and the same.
The known objects in the dream are not separate from knowledge. The knowledge
is not separate from the knower; and the knower is not separate from the
waker. All the three that belong to the dream resolve in to the waker, when
the person who is dreaming wakes up. The waker was the knower, the known, and
the knowledge in the dream. The knower is the waker. That is why one says, 'I
dreamt.' The atma, the self of the knower that obtained in the dream, obtains
also in the waking state, as evidenced by the expression of the experience as,
'I dreamt. I was the one who was dreaming.' In the dream, however, everything
is a reality. Even the Veda recognises duality, addressing you as a doer, a
karta. Sankara discusses this in his commentary to this verse. The Veda tells
you to perform certain karmas and it also tells you what you will gain by
doing them. There are very specific differences mentioned also. It says, 'This
karma will produce this result if it is done in this manner by this person at
this time.' Thus, rituals to be performed are set out in the Veda - all of
which implies duality because it addresses a karta who is different from the
karma he does.

The Veda that says you are the non-dual Brahman addresses you, in the earlier
sections, as a person who wants certain results and who is going to get these
results later. The connection between the person and the results is
established by performing certain prescribed rituals, the result of which is
punya. This punya is what connects the person to the result. The people,
rituals, and the results are all different and therefore constitute duality.
Your perception also tells you that one object is different from another
object. Perception gives rise to different types of knowledge and based on
that knowledge you conclude that everything is different from you. The first
part of the sruti, as we have seen, also confirms this difference by
addressing you as a doer and not as param brahma. If the Veda were to address
you as param brahma, it could not ask you to perform action. Thus, it can only
address you as a doer. The sruti deals with the person who is available right
now. You are now a doer and that doer is addressed. Further more, the doer is
told that he or she will be an enjoyer later if certain karmas are performed.
If they are not done, or not done properly, the person will have problems
later. Even if a wrong action is done, the doer will still be an enjoyer, but
the 'enjoyment' will not be very pleasant! In this way, the sruti keeps the
person in view and talks about what is good and bad for the person, what
should be done and what should be avoided. Thus, it looks as though the sruti
is for the doer alone and that duality is a reality. Naturally, then, the
person looks upon himself or herself, in the waking state, as someone
different from the world, just as in the dream. This is what is meant by the
sleep of ignorance. Because of ignorance alone, the person is said to be
sleeping. Sleeping here means that one is a dreamer. The person is not totally
sleeping. He or she is awake doing various activities. There is even a valid
pramana available to the person, enabling him or her to know that certain
actions are right and others are wrong. As long as this sleep of ignorance
continues, everything is valid for the person in the waking state, just as it
is in dream. One doer is different from every other doer and one enjoyer is
different from every other enjoyer.

The physical body is the place of enjoyment, the counter of experience from
which you encounter the world; it is the point from which one operates. You
are an enjoyer and a mosquito is also an enjoyer, you being the object of its
enjoyment. Thus, you find there are many enjoyers and different kinds of
enjoyments; there are different doers and different types of doing - all of
which are valid. Therefore, pain and pleasure are valid. That I am a small
person is valid. That I am someone who is struggling to prove myself to be
somebody is valid. That the struggle never comes to an end is also valid.

THE REALITY OF ONENESS
Everything seems to be valid to those who see themselves as distinct. But,
amidst all this validity, one thing alone is not known - the
paramartha-tattva.The word tattva means reality and paramartha-tattva is the
ultimate reality, that which is the essential reality of everything. The
differences that seem so real in dream and waking have no independent reality
apart from this essential reality. What is essentially there, is only one
thing and that is what I am - tad aham asmi. The knower is myself, the known
is myself, the knowledge is myself, the doer is myself, the doing is myself,
and the done is myself. The world is myself and the knower of the world is
also myself. That all three - knower, known, and knowledge - are myself is an
entirely different vision altogether. In reality there is no difference
whatsoever.

For a wise person, the paramartha-tattva is one thing alone and it is oneself.
This paramartha-tattva is not recognised by those who are not wise. For them,
everything is real. This means that there is more than one reality for such
people, which is why the world is always too much for them. To think that
everyone is different from you means that everyone is as real as you are.
Words, too, will have their own realities so that everything is as real as
everything else. Naturally, then, you find a world, which is dual. In other
words, you experience samsara. While others are in this great sleep of
ignorance, the wise person is awake to the paramartha-tattva. He or she is
awake to the reality of the 'I.' the knowledge of which nullifies the division
between the knower and the known since, in reality, there is no division.
Therefore, 'I am all of this - aham idam sarvam.' Previously, I was only one
among the many. Now the vision is that, immanently, I am everything, and
transcendentally, I am free from everything. To this fact, the wise person,
the samyami, is awake.

COMPARISON IS NOT POSSIBLE
Those who are not wise are awake only to divisions. These divisions are very
real for such people, whereas for the wise person, for the person of inquiry
whose vision is very clear, any division is night. The samsara that people
complain about, he or she does not see at all. One person may say, 'I am sad,'
but the wise person does not see any sadness. Others complain that the world
is too much for them, but the wise person does not find it to be so. It is not
that the world is too much. You are too much. You are everything. Therefore,
'I am limitless - aham p£rnah' is the vision for the wise person, whereas
other people say, 'I am limited - aham p£rnah.' This is their vision, which
for the wise person is like night, because this is not their understanding at
all. What is day to every one is night for the wise and what is night for
every one else is like day for the wise. Thus wise are wise and the other-wise
are other-wise. The other-wise do not know the wise and the wise do not see
like the other-wise because night and day do not meet. They cannot co-exist,
one being the opposite of the other. When the day breaks, night is gone. When
night comes, day is gone. The day always ensures that night has gone before it
comes. This is the role of the dawn. Lord Sun tells the dawn, Aruna, messenger
of the sun, to go and make sure that the way is clear. Dawn then comes and
clears the way. Thus, before the sun comes, night has already gone. In this
way, the sun and the night do not meet. Here is my story about why the sun
rises every morning. Narada, who is often found in mythological stories, was
able to go to the gods without any particular passport or visa. Or, one could
say that he had a cosmic passport, as it were, since he could go from one
world, loka, to another. In this particular story, Narada went from the earth
to the sun. The sun asked Narada what the people thought of him on earth. 'Oh!
Lord sun,' Narada responded, 'in India they do salutations to you in the early
morning. Do you not see that when you come up?' 'Nowadays very few do it,' the
sun replied, 'in the past, they did, but not now. But what is it that they say
about me?' Narada told him that everyone praises the sun, that when the sun
comes out, everyone is happy. 'You are always praised everywhere, Oh! sun,
except, of course, in the Sahara Desert and Saudi Arabia!'

'What did you see that you liked on the earth?' the sun then asked Narada. In
response, Narada told him that there was one person whom he thought the sun
should see someone that he had never seen before. 'Everyone praises you as
omniscient, but I would have to say that you are not omniscient because there
is someone I think you have never seen' 'What!' the sun exclaimed. 'I am not
omniscient! I am the sun. I see everything. Who is it that you think I have
not seen?'

'There is one lady called Miss Darkness,' Narada told him. 'Where is this Miss
Darkness?' the sun then asked. 'You can see her on the earth,' Narada replied.
'Where will I find her right now?' asked the sun. 'She is in India. If you go
there, you will see her,' Narada told him. Eager to see Miss Darkness, the sun
rose in the eastern sky. But Miss Darkness had gone to the west, to the
Antipodes, the opposite side of the globe. The sun then became angry. He
really wanted to meet this woman and so he set out after her again. But when
he went to the Antipodes, Miss Darkness had already gone to the other side and
when he went to that side, she was again on the opposite side. In this way,
the sun continued to move around trying to find Miss Darkness and is still
doing so, even today. When he comes to the east, Miss Darkness goes to the
west. When he goes to the west, she comes to the east. They never meet each
other, just as day and night never meet each other, because they are
opposites. You cannot even compare the two; thus, it can only be said that the
sun is like the sun and darkness is like darkness.

THE VISION OF THE WISE AND THE OTHER-WISE
So too, a wise person is like a wise person, which means that no comparison is
possible. Therefore, Arjuna did not become wiser by Krsna's statement. For the
wise person, what is reality is limitless. Oneself being everything is
reality. The reality is that Ìsvara is myself. For other people, Ìsvara is
located somewhere, in heaven perhaps, and is only a matter of belief. He sends
people down and then meddles in their affairs, they think. People have so many
kinds of beliefs, because, for them, the statement, 'I am everything,' is not
a reality. Therefore, there are all kinds of conjectures, speculations,
faiths, and beliefs. We find that for the ignorant, the ajnanis, everything is
guesswork, whereas for the jnani, the wise person, there is no problem. The
jnani sees no problem at all, whereas for the other person, everything is a
problem. For the wise person, everything is a glory. The physical body, the
mind, and the world are all glories, vibh£tis - my glories, mama vibh£tayah. I
am the food eaten, aham annam, and again I am also the eater of the food, aham
annadah. I am the thinker and I am the object of thought. I am free from all
these, also.

The ignorant are asleep to this vision of the reality and the wise are asleep
to what the ignorant are awake to. This is something like one person seeing a
snake and another person seeing a rope in the same object. The person seeing
the snake sweats and shivers in fear. Even the sound of the snake's rattle is
heard by this person in spite of the fact that there is no snake. There is
only a rope mistaken for a snake. Once a snake is seen, everything else comes
along with it - the sound of the rattle, the sight of its head rising, and so
on. For this person, the snake is a reality, whereas for the other person, all
that is there is a piece of rope - and he or she does not see what the
frightened person is fretting about. The one who sees the rope as rope will
either treat the other person with compassion or simply walk away because he
or she does not see a problem. Even if a person is told that there is a snake,
he or she will only reply that there is no snake, there is only the rope.

TO KNOW A WISE PERSON, YOU NEED TO BE WISE
This is strictly a matter of two different visions. How, then, is Arjuna going
to understand a wise person? Krsna was saying here that he could only do so by
being wise. There is no other way. Being ignorant, you want to understand a
wise person. In fact, there is really no such thing as a wise person. Wisdom
is you. You are the wisdom. The wise person is one who knows himself or
herself and if you know yourself you are a wise person. And until you know
yourself, how are you going to understand a wise person? To be a wise person
you have to be wise. There is no other way, then, of knowing the wise person.
In response to Arjuna's request for a description of a wise person, Lord Krsna
told him, the verse under study, that it takes wisdom alone to be a wise
person. The wise person is a wise person; he or she is awake to a reality to
which everyone else is sleeping. This answer could only have created despair
in Arjuna because he wanted to know the characteristics of a wise person so
that, by emulating them, he himself would become wise. The sleep of ignorance
that prevents one from knowing a wise person was explained further by Sankara
in his commentary on this verse. For the wise person, there is no activity
because he or she no longer takes himself or herself to be a doer. This
applies not only to the performance of Vedic rituals and prayers,
vaidika-vyavahara, but to worldly activities, laukika-vyavahara as well, such
as eating, cooking, dishwashing, bathing, laundering, vacuuming, and
conducting business. The notions, 'I am doing this, I am the doer,' are no
longer there.

TO PERFORM ACTION I HAVE TO KNOW 'I AM A DOER'
When you look upon yourself as a doer, you perform rituals and if you do not
perform them, you will do something else. And this something else may incur
sin. With reference to the performance of rituals, then, the Veda only
addresses the person who takes himself or herself to be the doer. A
brahmacari, a student, has to have the notion, 'I am a brahmacari,' in order
to perform the karma enjoined for brahmacaris by the Veda. If a brahmana is
enjoined to do certain karma, then the person doing it must look upon himself
or herself as a brahmana. The same thing applies to other varnas and asramas.
The Veda does not say that sat-cit-ananda should perform karma. It says that a
brahmana, a brahmacari, or a married person, a grhastha, should perform
karmas.

Karma, then, is enjoined only for the one who looks upon oneself as something
or other such as - 'I am this, I am that,' etc. It is not meant for the person
who has jnana, in whom self-knowledge has taken place. Once this knowledge has
dawned, it stays. Self-knowledge is not a dawning knowledge; it is a fully
blazing, mid-day sun. In the wake of this knowledge, worldly and scriptural
karmas both go away because all activity, vyavahara, is born out of the
notion, 'I am the doer.' Unless you consider yourself a doer, you cannot
perform scriptural or worldly activities, activity itself being a product of
self-ignorance. But, for the one who has self-knowledge, this ignorance is not
there and, thus, it is said that the vyavahara, all activity, goes away.

KNOWLEDGE REMOVES THE NOTION OF DOERSHIP
Does knowledge remove the product of ignorance or does it remove the ignorance
itself? Sankara deals with this question in his commentary on this verse. When
knowledge takes place, the ignorance is removed. This knowledge, which is of
the nature of a discriminative understanding between the real and the unreal,
atma-anatma-viveka-jnana, is opposed to ignorance. Thus, when self-knowledge
takes place, self-ignorance goes away. And when ignorance goes away, its
broods, its products, also go away. To take the classic example of the seeing
of the rope as a snake, ignorance of the rope produces a snake. When the rope
ignorance goes away, the snake also goes away. And when, we may ask, does the
rope ignorance go? When the rope is seen, when it is known. Rope ignorance
will go only in the wake of rope knowledge. Therefore, rope knowledge is the
opposite of rope ignorance. When rope ignorance goes, anything that was there
due to that ignorance will also go because when the cause of a problem is
removed, the symptoms also disappear. Similarly, for the person who has
knowledge, all activity is gone. Such a person becomes a sarva-karma-sannyasi,
one who renounces all karma.

The Veda sets out the karmas that have to be done and Sankara clarifies as to
who has to do them - the person who has such notions as 'I am a brahmacari,'
'I am a brahmana,' 'I am a married person,' 'I am bound by time, spring, new
moon day, full moon day, morning, evening.' The one who has these kinds of
notions about himself or herself, the one who thinks that he or she is
time-bound, place-bound, and group-bound, is the person whom the sruti, the
Veda, addresses with reference to the performance of rituals. If the person
knows 'I am sat-cit-ananda,' the sruti does not address him or her at all. In
fact, it says that you are sat-cit-ananda, but it reserves this particular
statement for the last chapter, which is what we call Vedanta. Until then, the
Veda talks exclusively about rituals and meditation, all of which are dvaita,
dual. Only at the end of all this does it say, 'You are that Brahman, tat tvam
asi.'

WHY SHOULD I PERFORM KARMA?
The question may then be asked, 'Why did the sruti not say this in the
beginning?' If it had done so, I need not have done all this karma. I did the
morning and evening prayers because the Veda said to do them and I had faith
in the Veda. Now I find that these karmas have become a colossal waste
because, at the end of it all, the Veda tells me that I am Brahman and that
karma is of no use. If karma will not give me moksa, why did it not say so in
the beginning?' The reason the Veda does not tell you right in the beginning
that you are Brahman is because you have to be ready for this knowledge. By
performing karma you are able to eventually get to the last chapter of the
Veda and understand what it says. By not performing karma you will be neither
a jnani nor a devout person. You will only be driftwood with no moorings
whatsoever. The rule is that those who are not ready for the knowledge should
not be disturbed with it. We will see this later in the Gita. Instead, people
are encouraged to perform karma in order to prepare their minds for the
knowledge. They are told about svarga, heaven, in the beginning, so that they
will perform the enjoined rituals for gaining svarga. In this way, they will
definitely avoid papa, and punya will follow. The person who performs karma
will have a value for dharma-adharma, right and wrong, and will come to
believe that there is an atma, a self, other than the body. That much is
enough in the beginning.

Once you respect dharma-adharma, the ability to discriminate between the real
and the unreal will not be far behind. To respect dharma-adharma is not to be
swayed by your raga-dvesas. Therefore, the pressure of raga-dvesas will be
less. This is what is meant by viveka. Viveka begins as soon as you start to
question what is what. First, there is an internal leisure and then viveka
naturally comes. Once viveka is there, you will naturally turn to Vedanta.
Only in this way can you proceed properly. Therefore, as long as
self-ignorance is there, one should perform karma, whereas once there is
self-knowledge, there is renunciation of karma, sarva-karma-sannyasa. Sankara
repeats this argument throughout his commentary on the Gita. This is because
there was a notion, prevalent in his day, that the Veda enjoins one to do
karma and, at the same time, to gain the knowledge that 'I am Brahman. ' This
position maintains that both will give you moksa, and is refuted by Sankara at
every opportunity. Or, if either karma or jnana is adequate for moksa why
should anyone do the other? If moksa is something that I produce, why do I
need jnana? And, if karma is not going to produce moksa, there is no reason to
do karma. If I am Brahman and I merely need to know it, which is Sankara's
contention, then jnana is moksa, and I do not need to do anything. Thus, the
question, why should one do karma? The answer is that one performs karma in
order to purify the mind, for citta-suddhi. Citta means 'mind.' We have seen
the word suddhi with reference to raga-dvesas. Reality is already
accomplished; it is not something to be created. Reality is. Whatever the
reality, that is what is. It is a thing to be recognised. Therefore even if
you do millions of karmas, you do not create the reality that exists. Because
of the prevalence in Sankara's time of the synthesis argument of combining
karma and jnana, he goes all out to clarify the difference between karma and
jnana. There are certain topics that every teacher has to highlight, given
the views of his or her time. In Sankara's time, the
jnana-karma-samuccaya-vada, the contention that moksa is not gained by
knowledge alone, but by a combination of knowledge and action. was widespread.
Therefore, he found it necessary to refute it by continually pointing out the
fallacies in it. This is the job of a teacher. Here, also, Sankara points out
that karma applied only until knowledge comes. For one who does not have
knowledge, the karma enjoined by the Veda is a valid pramana, whereas for the
wise person, it is not. Once the jnana is there, the person is a simple
sannyasi, one who is not a doer and therefore one for whom no karma is
enjoined by any sastra.

A WISE PERSON CANNOT BE EMULATED BASED ON ACTION
Since a wise person does not do karma, you cannot emulate him or her. You
cannot say that because he or she does not do karma, you will not do karma.
The wise person does not perform karma because the need to do so is no longer
there. Because you still need to perform karma, you cannot imitate a wise
person in this respect. Krsna did not say that the wise person is one who does
not do any karma. To say that this person has no duty whatsoever could be
interpreted by a mumuksu in such a way that he or she would not live a life of
karma-yoga and, instead, would become nothing more than a lazy person. This is
why Krsna pointed out here that, for a wise person, night is what is day for
everyone else, meaning that no karma is enjoined. What is a means of
knowledge, pramana, for you is not a pramana for the wise person. In fact,
what Krsna was saying here is that for the wise, there is no pramana at all.
Even the usefulness of the last pramana, Vedanta, is over for them. Vedanta
says that you are Brahman. Until you know this, Vedanta is a pramana and
afterwards it, too, becomes mithya. With knowledge, there is no means of
knowledge, known, or knower, the differences between these three having been
swallowed. The pramana, the means of knowledge, is gone; it is Brahman, as are
the pramata, the knower, and the prameya, the object to be known. The very
knower is cancelled by the knowledge that says you are not a knower.

RESOLUTION OF THE KNOWER, KNOWN, KNOWLEDGE

Sankara says that the final pramana, the statement, tat tvam asi, itself goes
away, having dismissed the pramana. An example generally given to illustrate
how the knowledge works is the method of using a thorn to remove the thorn
that is lodged in one's foot. Once the thorn is removed, we discard both the
thorns. There is also a more interesting example used. When a body is
cremated, a huge funeral pyre is made out of wood. If the person who died was
rich, the pyre will be made of sandalwood, but this is the only difference.

When the pyre is ready, the body is placed on it, covered with husks and small
pieces of wood, and then the fire is lit. Once the body has caught fire, the
people who came for the ritual all go away. But the ritual itself is still
incomplete and continues the next day when the person performing the ritual
comes to pick up the ashes and bones. This person is either the departed one's
eldest son or a cousin, someone who is closely related. When this person comes
to pick up the ashes, there should be no portion of the body left unburned. It
must be burnt thoroughly; there should be nothing remaining but the ashes and
bones. Until this happens, the ritual is incomplete. The person in charge of
the cremation ground is the one who must ensure that the body is completely
burned. Because the body is not to be touched and, being in the fire, cannot
be handled. A stick is used for this purpose. Once the person is sure that the
body is completely burnt, he throws the stick into the funeral fire. Having
done its job, the stick also gets burnt.

Similarly, the statement, 'You are That - tat tvam asi,' is a pramana. The
pramata, the knower, you, the jiva, is told, 'You are Brahman.' If you are
Brahman, there is no knower. After this knowledge takes place, the pramata is
just an 'as though' pramata. There is no real pramata any more. When the
knower is told, 'You are not a knower - You are Brahman,' the knower is
sublated. And when the knower is not there, where is the pramana? It too goes.
All three, the knower, known, and means of knowledge are understood to be
Brahman.

All duality goes in the wake of this knowledge, including the knower, the
known, and the knowledge itself. The known, the prameya, is gone because there
is nothing to know. Once knowledge takes place, all three - pramata, prameya,
and pramana - become meaningless. Therefore, all the knower-known-knowledge
activities resolve in the wake of the knowledge that I am Brahman. This is
what Krsna meant when he said that what is day for everyone else is night for
the wise person. This was alone conveyed by Sankara in his commentary. All
translations, therefore, should be read with this meaning in mind.

EMULATE THE VALUES OF A WISE PERSON
Any description of a person of steady wisdom, sthitaprajna, is useless, really
speaking. We can only talk about the wisdom, prajna, that makes a person wise.
Unless you have this wisdom yourself, you cannot understand what a wise person
is. A mahatma knows a mahatma, whereas one who is not a mahatma cannot
appreciate a mahatma. Therefore, any description, other than an unfoldment of
the wisdom that makes such a person wise, is really meaningless. But, still,
Arjuna wanted a description. He also wanted to know how a wise person reacts
to the world. In his response, Krsna told Arjuna certain things, including the
fact that one cannot emulate a wise person, except insofar as values are
concerned.

The wise person may not perform Vedic rituals. For such a person, these karmas
are no longer necessary because the previous performance of the scriptural
injunctions has found its fulfillment in wisdom. Whether the person has taken
sannyasa or not, he or she is a sarva-karma-sannyasi. The doership is already
negated in the person. There is no real doer. And when there is no real doer,
there is no real karma. In this way, the wise person is not bound by duty of
any kind. To emulate a wise person, therefore, is dangerous. Krsna mentioned
the mind, values, control, and mastery of a wise person because these alone
are to be emulated. In this way, Krsna confirmed for Arjuna that the
characteristics of a wise person, as demonstrated in his or her interactions
in day-to-day life, can become the means, the sadhana, for a seeker.

Finally, Krsna said that a wise person is as different from an ajnani as day
is from night, meaning that there is no way of unfolding what a wise person
is. What is night for all the people is day for the wise and what is day for
them is night to the wise. Arjuna was bound to be flabbergasted by this. He
was definitely not going to be any wiser for having heard this particular
verse. Therefore, out of sympathy and compassion, Krsna followed his
night-and-day example with another example, an illustration that Arjuna could
hold on to and one that would enable him to appreciate, in a way, what a wise
person is.