Today, Swami Kaivalyananda continued with the discussion of the 2nd shloka, 13th chapter; ‘Know Me to be the Knower in all fields; the knowledge of the field and its knower is what I consider true knowledge.’

Here, the issue being debated is that if the Lord says that it is He alone that is the individual soul, or jiva, then this creates two defect; one is that God Himself is subject to the samsara, the travel through birth and deaths. If that is not so, then this means that there is no such thing as samsara, which is contrary to our own direct experience.

Finally, Shankara says that the experience of samsara, i.e., happiness and sorrow, and all other dualities, are because of Avidya, one’s incorrect knowledge. However, the Knower, which is God Himself, cannot be blemished even a bit by that ignorance, just like one cannot make a desert wet with the water in a mirage.

Then Shankara says that the knowledge in which one thinks; ‘I am happy,’ ‘I am sad,’ ‘I am in samsara, and want to strive for Moksha,’ ‘I want to realize God through meditation,’ – whoever has this knowledge, or ‘pandityam,’ is the lowest pandit, one who destroys his own self, who is completely stupid, and makes others fools as well.’

Here, Swami said that the words Shankaracharya uses here don’t sound so bad to us in Malayalam, but in Sanskrit, these are equal to curses. Shankara is using such harsh language, because this is sometimes necessary. If one speaks such things kindly, the listener may not grasp it. So here, Shankara uses the harshest language in Sanskrit.
Then he says, ‘such a fool doesn’t study through the tradition (sampradaya), and though he may know all scriptures, he is a complete fool, and should be rejected.’

Swami explained this part. For every shastra, or method of teaching, there is a sampradaya, or tradition of guru-disciple. To teach Advaita, namely the commentaries of Shankaracharya, one has to study in that sampradaya. Otherwise, that is not allowed.

Shankara says that even if one learns all scriptures on one’s own, the person should be rejected as if it was a mad person.

This doesn’t mean that anyone is refuted from speaking their own ideas. Anyone can become a Jnani and give their own ideas on spirituality. But if a person sets out to teach about Shankaracharya without studying in the traditional sampradaya, then that is strictly not allowed, and Shankara says that nobody should even listen to them. Instead of explaining about Shankaracharya’s Advaita, they should just say the ideas they have from their own experience. That is the meaning of what Shankara says here.

Otherwise, what we see is that people commentate and explain according to their own imagination. They leave behind the clear meaning accepted by acaryas and use their expansive imagination to create new and interesting meanings. Usually this is with the intention at sounding ‘new,’ otherwise nobody will pay attention. Shankara says that such a person is ‘sruti hani,’ he destroys the meaning of the scriptures, and also, ‘ashruta kalpana,’ he creates whatever meanings he feels like or imagines.

When such people teach others, they should say before they speak, ‘these our my own ideas, not belonging to any tradition.’ However, they instead say that they are saying Shankaracharya’s Advaita. Shankara says that these people are ‘murkhavad apekshaniya’ – they should be not be listened to, like a madman.

Piyush,
July 25, 2007