Toward a New Hermeneutics of the Bhagavad Gītā: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Secret of Vijñāna

8/13/2019 Toward a New Hermeneutics of the Bhagavad Gītā: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Secret of Vijñāna

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/toward-a-new-hermeneutics-of-the-bhagavad-gita-ramakrishna-aurobindo-and 1/22

1

Ayon MaharajForthcoming in Philosophy East and West

Toward a New Hermeneutics of the Bhagavad G ! t " :

Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Secret of Vijñ" na

The Bhagavad G! t " has inspired more interpretive controversy than any otherreligious scripture in India’s history. The G! t ", a philosophical and spiritual poem ofapproximately 700 verses, is part of the ancient Sanskrit epic, the Mah"bh"rata. In theG! t ", the Lord K !"#a, who appears in the form of a charioteer, imparts spiritual teachingsto the warrior Arjuna and convinces him to fight in a just war that entails the slaughter ofmany of Arjuna’s own relatives and loved ones. $a%kara, the great eighth-centurychampion of the Advaita (“non-dual”) school of philosophy, wrote the first extantcommentary on the G! t ". In his commentary, $a%kara interpreted the G! t " strictly inaccordance with Advaita philosophy and attempted to refute various possible non-Advaitic readings of the text.

$a%kara’s influential commentary on the G! t " inaugurated a lively debate abouthow to interpret the G! t "’s philosophical teachings that continues to this day. R &m&nuja,the eleventh-century proponent of the Vi'i"t&dvaita (“qualified non-dual”) school of philosophy, rejected $a%kara’s Advaitic interpretation of the G! t " and claimed that theG! t " in fact propounds the philosophy of Vi'i"t&dvaita. Madhva, the thirteenth-centuryexponent of the Dvaita (“dualist”) school of philosophy, argued—against both $a%karaand R &m&nuja—that the G! t " teaches none other than Dvaita doctrine. Over thecenturies, countless other commentators holding a variety of philosophical and religious positions have claimed the G! t " as their own.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, numerous Indian and Westernscholars—ranging from B.G. Tilak and Aurobindo Ghose to R.C. Zaehner, Robert Minor,and Arvind Sharma—have rightly complained that many traditional commentators on theG! t " were guilty of reading their own prejudices and preconceptions into the text.1 AsMinor puts it, commentators such as $a%kara and R &m&nuja “believed that their systemsof thought must be contained in the G! t " and set out to ‘find’ them there and to claim theG! t " as a source of their point of view, even at the expense of the text.”2 In other words,while traditional commentators claimed to provide faithful exegesis of the G! t ", theyoften lapsed into the eisegetic practice of imposing their own conceptual frameworksonto the text, thereby distorting or falsifying fundamental aspects of the G! t "’s philosophical teachings.3

Many recent scholars have rejected this traditional eisegetic approach in favor of amore immanent approach to the G! t " that strives to understand the text on its own terms.One major consequence of this shift away from eisegesis in modern G! t " scholarship has been an increasing attention to a variety of apparent contradictions and puzzles in theG! t " that traditional commentators tended to ignore or explain away.4 Perhaps the mostfundamental puzzle concerns the G! t "’s complex views on the nature of God. At various points, the G! t " describes K !"#a as a personal God with numerous attributes. In IV.7-9,for instance, K !"#a declares himself to be an incarnation of God in human form, and inV.29, K !"#a states that he is the “mighty Lord of all the worlds.”5 However, the G! t " alsoaccepts the reality of the transcendental “ # tman” (“Self”) propounded in the Upani"ads,



2

the culminating portion of the Vedas. In II.17-25, K !"#a asserts in an Upani"adic veinthat Arjuna’s true self is not the empirical body-mind complex but the eternal # tman thatis without form and attributes. Strikingly, despite the fact that the G! t " characterizesK !"#a as a personal God, it also identifies K !"#a with the formless, impersonal # tman.As K !"#a declares to Arjuna in X.20, “I am the # tman residing in the hearts of all

beings.”To complicate matters further, the G! t " also maintains that God is at onceimmanent in the universe and transcendent to it. In Chapters 10 and 11, K !"#a details thevarious ways he is manifested in the universe, but in X.42, he points out that henonetheless remains transcendent to the universe: “I support this entire universe with aminute portion of Myself.” The challenge for the exegete intent on reading the G! t " onits own terms is to reconcile the seemingly incompatible aspects of K !"#a’s Godhoodwithout invoking external explanatory frameworks.6 Remaining strictly within the G! t "’sown thought-structure, how can we make sense of the G! t "’s central philosophical thesisthat God is both personal and impersonal, both with and without form, both immanentand transcendent? Recent scholars have not been able to provide a convincing answer to

this question.

7

Indeed, Deutsch and Surendranath Dasgupta have gone so far as todeclare that the G! t "’s views on God are fraught with irresolvable contradictions.8 I will make the case, however, that Aurobindo’s unduly neglected Essays on the

Gita (1916-20) worked out a convincing solution to this fundamental problem about thenature of God in the G! t ". Aurobindo (1872-1950), a British-educated Bengali yogi andmystic, was one of the first modern interpreters of the G! t " to reject the eisegetic practiceof traditional “polemist” commentators who turned the G! t " into “a weapon fordialectical warfare.”9 Ironically, Aurobindo himself has sometimes been accused ofeisegesis, since it may appear as if he read his own experiences and presuppositions intothe G! t " instead of taking the text on its own terms.10

I hope to demonstrate, however, that Aurobindo’s highly original interpretation ofthe G! t " is, in fact, rigorously immanent to the thought-structure of the G! t " itself. Parts Iand II provide the biographical and intellectual background necessary to appreciate therigor and far-reaching significance of Aurobindo’s reading of the G! t ". In Part I, Idiscuss some of the key teachings of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the nineteenth-centuryBengali mystic whom Aurobindo considered to be an avat "ra, an incarnation of God.11 In his recorded teachings, Ramakrishna repeatedly contrasts “ jñ"na,” spiritual knowledgeof the impersonal # tman, with “vijñ"na,” a deeper and more intimate realization of Godas at once personal and impersonal, at once beyond the universe and immanent in it.

Part II begins with a discussion of Aurobindo’s account of his formative mysticalexperiences between 1907 and 1909, which correspond quite closely to the experiencesof jñ"na and vijñ"na described by Ramakrishna. I then briefly examine Aurobindo’sessay, “The Yoga and Its Objects,” which was written shortly before he startedcomposing Essays on the Gita. In “The Yoga and Its Objects,” Aurobindo sketches aspiritual philosophy based implicitly on his own mystical experiences and begins toexplore how the concept of vijñ"na can motivate a new hermeneutic framework forreinterpreting the Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, the Upani"ads, and the G! t ".

With this background in place, I turn to an examination of Aurobindo’s Essays on

the Gita in Part III. Aurobindo, I argue, makes a convincing case that the crypticdistinction drawn in the G! t " between “ jñ"na” and “vijñ"na”—an aspect of the G! t "’s



3

philosophy not especially stressed by traditional commentators—holds the hermeneutickey to understanding the G! t "’s entire thought-structure. Aurobindo claims that in versessuch as VII.2 and IX.1 of the G! t ", “ jñ"na” means the spiritual realization of theimpersonal # tman, while “vijñ"na” is the higher and more “comprehensive” knowledgeof God as at once the transcendent # tman and the supreme Lord pervading the universe.

I will argue that Aurobindo provides a thoroughly immanent justification of hisinterpretation of jñ"na and vijñ"na in the G! t " by situating the concepts within the broader context of the G! t " as a whole. In fact, he demonstrates that the concept ofvijñ"na —when properly understood—helps clarify many of the G! t "’s most distinctiveand puzzling philosophical doctrines, including its seemingly contradictory account ofthe nature of God.

Part IV gestures toward some of the broader implications of Aurobindo’s radicalreinterpretation of vijñ"na in the G! t ". The concept of vijñ"na not only furnishes the philosophical basis for the G! t "’s unique syncretic approach to spiritual practice but alsohints at a fresh rationale for religious pluralism that could make a significant contributionto contemporary interreligious dialogue and suggest new directions for comparative

theology.I. Ramakrishna’s Philosophy of Vijñ"na

Ramakrishna (1836-1886), who reported having had mystical experiences of Godin numerous forms throughout his life, has earned a unique place in the history of worldreligious figures. He practiced—and claimed to have attained perfection in—a variety ofHindu and non-Hindu spiritual and religious disciplines, including Tantra, Advaita,Vi'i"(&dvaita, Vaish#avism, $aivism, Christianity, and Islam. Mahendranath Gupta, aclose householder devotee of Ramakrishna, carefully recorded in Bengali many of theconversations held between Ramakrishna and his devotees during the last five years ofRamakrishna’s life.

In his recorded teachings, Ramakrishna repeatedly draws a distinction betweentwo forms of spiritual knowledge, which he calls “ jñ"na” and “vijñ"na.” In a dialoguedated April 5, 1884, he explains this distinction in great detail:

Jñ"na is the realization of the # tman through the process of “neti, neti,” “Not this,not this.” One goes into sam"dhi through this process of elimination and realizesthe # tman. But vijñ"na means a deeper and more intimate knowledge of thesupreme reality [bi $e %r & pe j"n"]. Some have heard of milk, some have seen milk,and some have drunk milk. He who has merely heard of it is “ignorant.” He whohas seen it is a jñ"n! . But he who has drunk it has vijñ"na, that is to say, a moreintimate knowledge of it. After having the vision of God, one talks to Him as ifHe were an intimate relative. That is vijñ"na.

First of all you must discriminate, following the method of “Neti, neti”: “He is notthe five elements, nor the sense-organs, nor the mind, nor the intelligence, nor theego. He is beyond all these cosmic principles.” You want to climb to the roof;then you must eliminate and leave behind all the steps, one by one. The steps are by no means the roof. But after reaching the roof, you find that the steps are



4

made of the same materials—brick, lime, and brick-dust—as the roof. He who isthe Supreme Brahman has also become the universe and its living beings and thetwenty-four cosmic principles. He who is the # tman has also become the fiveelements.12

Ramakrishna’s description of “ jñ"na” and of the means of attaining it derives from$a%kara’s philosophy of Advaita Ved&nta, based on the Upani"ads. According toAdvaita Ved&nta, the sole reality is the non-dual # tman or Brahman that lies beyondthought and words, but we remain ignorant of the # tman so long as we cling to thisunreal world of names and forms. Hence, through a systematic process of discrimination between what is real and what is unreal, we can attain jñ"na, suprarational knowledge ofour true nature as the # tman. Ramakrishna likens this discriminatory process to climbinga staircase; all the steps have to be left behind, one by one, in order to reach the roof. InAdvaita Ved&nta, jñ"na is the highest realization, since there is nothing more to beknown once the supreme non-dual reality of the # tman is known.

Strikingly, however, Ramakrishna departs from the traditional doctrine of Advaita

in his insistence that there is a still higher form of spiritual knowledge he calls “vijñ"na.”He points out on several occasions that the notion of vijñ"na, far from being his ownoriginal insight, in fact derives from the classical scriptures, especially the G! t " and the Bh" gavata Pur "'a.13 After attaining knowledge of the non-dual # tman, the vijñ"n! ascends to the even deeper insight that God is at once the impersonal # tman and theSupreme Lord who both rules and pervades the universe. The jñ"n! dismisses the worldas unreal, but the vijñ"n! realizes that God—who, in his transcendent aspect, is theformless # tman —“has also become the universe.” The vijñ"n! , in Ramakrishna’smetaphor, is the one who recognizes that the stairs are made of the same materials as theroof. To the vijñ"n! , as Ramakrishna puts it elsewhere, this universe is a “mart of joy”since it is pervaded by God; to the jñ"n! , on the other hand, the universe is nothing but a“framework of illusion.”14 While the jñ"n! has realized only God’s transcendent aspectas the impersonal # tman, the vijñ"n! has a more intimate and comprehensive knowledgeof God as the impersonal-personal Absolute at once transcendent to, and immanent in,the universe. It is worth reiterating that $a%kara would reject the very possibility ofvijñ"na in Ramakrishna’s sense, since the notion of a form of spiritual knowledge that ishigher or more comprehensive than "tmajñ"na is incoherent within the framework ofAdvaita philosophy.

After realizing the transcendent # tman, the vijñ"n! returns to the relative plane asa “supreme devotee of God” (“uttam bhakta”).15 Whereas the jñ"n! dismisses theuniverse as illusory, the vijñ"n! sees the universe as God’s “play” or “sport” (“l ! l "”). AsRamakrishna puts it, “That person has attained ‘ripe’ knowledge [ p"k " jñ"n] as well as‘ripe’ devotion [ p"k " bhakti] who, after having reached the eternal [nitya], remains withGod’s play [l ! l "], and who can again ascend from God’s play to the eternal.”16 In termsof Ramakrishna’s metaphor of the staircase, the vijñ"n! is able to descend from the roofto the stairs as well as ascend from the stairs to the roof at will. The vijñ"n! —whorealizes that God is both personal and impersonal, both with and without form, bothimmanent and transcendent—revels in all the various manifestations and aspects of God.



5

Ramakrishna’s conception of vijñ"na furnished the philosophical basis for hiswell-known teaching that all religious faiths and paths lead to the same goal of God-realization:

I say that we are all calling on the same God. There is no need for jealousy and

malice. Some say that God is formless, and some that God has form. I say, letone man meditate on God with form if he believes in form, and let anothermeditate on the formless Absolute if he does not believe in form. That is to say,dogmatism is not good. It is not good to feel that my religion alone is true andother religions are false….I say this because one cannot know the true nature ofGod unless one realizes Him….

Hindus, Muslims, Christians, $&ktas, $aivas, Vai"#avas, the Brahmajñ&n ) s of thetime of the !"is…all seek the same Reality….Do you know what the truth is? Godhas made different religions to suit different aspirants, times, and countries. Alldoctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God.17

Ramakrishna stresses here that “one cannot know the true nature of God unless onerealizes Him.” For Ramakrishna, only the vijñ"n! who revels in the infinite aspects andmanifestations of God is in a position to appreciate the harmony of all religions. Thevijñ"n! sees that God takes a variety of forms and makes different religions to suit thetemperaments, capacities, and cultural backgrounds of individual religious and spiritualseekers. It is precisely on the experiential basis of vijñ"na that Ramakrishna declares thatall religions are so many equally valid “paths” to the direct experience of God.

Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Ramakrishna’s chief disciple, broadcastedRamakrishna’s message of the harmony of religions all over the world. According toVivekananda, there are four basic types of “Yoga” or spiritual discipline suited fordifferent temperaments: the Yoga of Devotion (“Bhakti Yoga”), the Yoga of Works(“Karma Yoga”), the Yoga of Knowledge (“Jñ&na Yoga”), and the Yoga ofConcentration and Meditation (“R & ja Yoga”). Echoing Ramakrishna’s saying that “the person who has reconciled various paths is the true human being,”18 Vivekananda assertsthat the ideal spiritual practice would combine all four Yogas. Practiced in combination,each individual spiritual discipline would balance—and correct for the defects of—theother disciplines.

For the purposes of this essay, three aspects of the influence of Ramakrishna andVivekananda on Aurobindo are especially important. First, as we will see in the nextsection, Ramakrishna’s seminal distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na equippedAurobindo with the grammar and vocabulary, as it were, to make sense of his ownmystical experiences.19 Second, Ramakrishna’s hint that the notion of vijñ"na can befound in the Indian scriptures planted the seed for Aurobindo’s ambitious attempt toreinterpret the Upani"ads and the G! t " on the basis of the concept of vijñ"na. Third, thedoctrine of the harmony of all spiritual and religious paths stressed by Ramakrishna andVivekananda helped attune Aurobindo to the G! t "’s pervasive syncretism, its attempt toharmonize seemingly irreconcilable spiritual paths and philosophical and theologicaldoctrines.



6

II. From Jñ"na to Vijñ"na: Aurobindo’s “The Yoga and Its Objects”

After studying classics at Cambridge University, Aurobindo returned to India in1893, where he perfected his knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit, became an active participant in the independence movement, and started practicing Yoga. At this time, he

read thoroughly the teachings of Ramakrishna in Bengali and the works of Vivekanandain the original English. In January 1908, he met in Baroda a Yogi named Vishnu BhaskarLele who instructed him in meditation. Aurobindo reported that after three days oftraining under Lele, he had a “series of tremendously powerful experiences,” which madehim “see with a stupendous intensity the world as a cinematographic play of vacant formsin the impersonal universality of the Absolute Brahman.”20 Aurobindo clarified thatthese experiences were Advaitic in nature: they revealed to him the non-dual reality ofthe impersonal # tman and the corresponding unreality of the universe.21 He also claimedthat during his time in Baroda, he made mystical contact with Ramakrishna, who had ofcourse passed away decades earlier. Ramakrishna’s profound influence on Aurobindo’sspiritual development is evident from Aurobindo’s statement to a disciple: “Remember

also that we derive from Ramakrishna. For myself it was Ramakrishna who personallycame and first turned me to this Yoga.”22 In May 1908, Aurobindo was incarcerated for a year in the Alipore jail for his

political activities. Aurobindo claimed to have received instructions in meditation fromSwami Vivekananda on an occult plane in his jail cell in Alipore: “Vivekananda in theAlipore jail gave me the foundations of that knowledge which is the basis of our Sadhana[spiritual practice].”23 During his imprisonment, Aurobindo also practiced in earnest “theSadhana of the Gita,” which led him—in his own words—to “realise what Sri Krishnademanded of Arjuna and what He demands of those who aspire to do His work, to be freefrom repulsion and desire, to do work for Him without the demand for fruit, to renounceself-will and become a passive and faithful instrument in His hands….”24 His intense practice of the teachings of the G! t " in the Alipore jail culminated in what he describes asa transformative mystical experience:

I looked at the jail that secluded me from men and it was no longer by its highwalls that I was imprisoned; no, it was Vasudeva [another name for K !"#a] whosurrounded me. I walked under the branches of the tree in front of my cell but itwas not the tree, I knew it was Vasudeva, it was Sri Krishna whom I saw standingthere and holding over me his shade. I looked at the bars of my cell, the verygrating that did duty for a door and again I saw Vasudeva. It was Narayana whowas guarding and standing sentry over me. Or I lay on the coarse blankets thatwere given me for a couch and felt the arms of Sri Krishna around me, the arms ofmy Friend and Lover. This was the first use of the deeper vision He gave me. Ilooked at the prisoners in the jail, the thieves, the murderers, the swindlers, and asI looked at them I saw Vasudeva, it was Narayana whom I found in thesedarkened souls and misused bodies.25

Notice the striking similarity between Aurobindo’s Alipore experience and whatRamakrishna calls “vijñ"na.” According to Ramakrishna, the vijñ"n! first attainsknowledge of the impersonal # tman and then achieves the deeper insight that the



7

supreme impersonal-personal God “has become the universe.” Like Ramakrishna’svijñ"n! , Aurobindo reportedly had the Advaitic experience of the impersonal # tman under Lele and then, a year later in the Alipore jail, had the direct experience of LordK !"#a pervading the entire universe.

Indeed, in “The Yoga and Its Objects”—a remarkable essay written around

1912—Aurobindo seems to draw implicitly on Ramakrishna’s distinction between jñ"naand vijñ"na in order to articulate three fundamental stages in spiritual realization. Thefirst essential stage in spiritual experience, according to Aurobindo, is Advaitic"tmajñ"na, the knowledge of the “one divine impersonal Existence,” from the perspective of which “the One may seem to be the only reality and everything else maya,a purposeless and inexplicable illusion.”26 Clearly, this first stage corresponds toAurobindo’s experience of the impersonal # tman under Lele. In the second stage, oneexceeds the merely “impersonal realisation” of Advaita and comes to experience “thateven the names and forms are Brahman.”27 The third and final stage of spiritualrealization is “to perceive all things as God,”28 the first glimpse of which Aurobindoseems to have experienced in the Alipore jail:

But the crowning realisation of this yoga is when you become aware of the wholeworld as the expression, play or Lila of an infinite divine personality, when yousee in all, not the impersonal sad-atman which is the basis of manifest existence, -although you do not lose that knowledge, - but Sri Krishna who at once is, basesand transcends all manifest and unmanifest existence….29

Aurobindo’s account of the “crowning” spiritual experience, I would suggest, drawsimplicitly on Ramakrishna’s notion of “vijñ"na.” For Aurobindo, as for Ramakrishna,spiritual experience culminates in the realization that the entire universe is the “play orLila” of the infinite God, who is at once personal and impersonal, at once immanent inthe universe and transcendent to it. Just as Ramakrishna’s vijñ"n! sees the world as a“mart of joy,” Aurobindo claims that from the highest spiritual standpoint, the “wholeworld…appears to us in a changed aspect, as an ocean of beauty, good, light, bliss,exultant movement on a basis of eternal strength and peace.”30 And just as Ramakrishnadescribes vijñ"na as “ripe” jñ"na as well as “ripe” bhakti, Aurobindo describes thisculmination of spiritual experience as at once a “complete knowledge, the knowledge thatsees God in all things” and a “complete bhakti, which accepts all things with joy.”31

In other words, Aurobindo’s characterization of the final stage of spiritualexperience in “The Yoga and Its Objects” seems to be a retroactive conceptualization ofhis own experiences of vijñ"na, especially his realization of K !"#a’s all-pervasiveness inAlipore. In this essay, however, he conspicuously refrains from making anyautobiographical references to his own spiritual experiences, as if to block preemptivelythe charge that his claims about mystical experience are newfangled or merely subjective.Instead, Aurobindo refers continually to passages from the ancient scriptures—especiallythe Vedas, the Upani"ads, and the G! t " —to corroborate his claims about the fundamentalstages of spiritual experience. One of his most telling scriptural references is to theseventh mantra of the *'& Upani"ad, which he translates as follows:



8

When all created things become one with a man’s self by his getting theknowledge (vijnana), thereafter what bewilderment can he have or what grief,when in all things he sees their oneness?32

[ yasminsarv"'i bh&t "ny"tmaiv"bh&tvij"nata(

tatra ko moha( ka( $oka ekatvamanupa $ yata(]

33

In a subtle interpretive move, Aurobindo translates “vij"nata(” as the phrase “his gettingthe knowledge” and then notes parenthetically that this “knowledge” is none other thanvijñ"na, deriving this substantive—which is nowhere found in the *'& Upani"ad itself— from what he takes to be the Sanskrit participial “vij"nata(.” Notably, he neitherattempts to elaborate or justify his use of the term “vijñ"na” nor invokes the termanywhere else in the essay. What Aurobindo implies, however, is that his own earlieraccount of the culminating stage of spiritual experience—which, as we have seen, comesremarkably close to Ramakrishna’s conception of vijñ"na —can be traced to the *'& Upani"ad. Aurobindo’s isolated reference to vijñ"na in “The Yoga and Its Objects”

proves to be a decisive one, for it provides an early hint that Aurobindo would go on todevelop and amplify Ramakrishna’s philosophy of vijñ"na into a full-blown immanenthermeneutic paradigm for reinterpreting the early Indian scriptures.34

I would suggest that “The Yoga and Its Objects” is an especially rich documentfor understanding some of the fundamental interpretive principles governing Aurobindo’ssubsequently published Essays on the Gita. Toward the end of “The Yoga and ItsObjects,” Aurobindo expresses his conviction that “the best philosophy is that whichadmits the truth of all philosophies and gives each its right place.”35 In the followingsections, I will argue that this commitment to philosophical inclusivism deeply informshis sustained attempt in Essays on the Gita to interpret the G! t "’s philosophy in asyncretic and immanent manner that avoids pigeonholing it into a particular, exclusionary philosophical school such as Advaita or Vi'i"t&dvaita.

“The Yoga and Its Objects” outlines two key doctrines that play a crucial role inthe groundbreaking hermeneutic paradigm developed in Essays on the Gita. First,Aurobindo’s distinction in “The Yoga and Its Objects” between Advaitic knowledge ofthe impersonal # tman and a still higher realization of the transcendent-immanent Godinforms his highly original interpretation of the distinction between “ jñ"na” and“vijñ"na” in the G! t ". As we will see, his interpretation of the concept of vijñ"na in theG! t " helps resolve many of the puzzles and apparent contradictions in the G! t "’s philosophical teachings. Second, Aurobindo repeatedly emphasizes in “The Yoga and ItsObjects” that God is “at once personal and impersonal, finite and infinite, self-limitingand illimitable, one and many.”36 I hope to demonstrate that Aurobindo’s conception ofGod as an impersonal-personal infinite Being lies at the basis of his searchingreinterpretation of the key doctrine of the Puru %ottama, the “Supreme Person,” in Chapter15 of the G! t ". Departing from traditional commentators such as $a%kara and R &m&nuja,Aurobindo argues in Essays on the Gita that the divine Puru %ottama at once includes andexceeds the impersonal # tman- Brahman.



9

III. Aurobindo’s Immanent Hermeneutics of Vijñ"na in Essays on the Gita

Recent scholars have largely ignored Aurobindo’s Essays on the Gita, perhaps in part because it seems easy to dismiss as a flagrant case of eisegesis. Minor, for instance,makes the sweeping assertion that Aurobindo took his own mystical experiences as “the

highest authority and the first interpretive principle” for understanding the Indianscriptures, including the G! t ".37 As I hope to demonstrate, however, Minor’s simplisticassumption that Aurobindo’s “first interpretive principle” is his own spiritual experiencehardly does justice to the hermeneutic subtlety and sophistication of Aurobindo’s projectin Essays on the Gita.

What Minor ignores is Aurobindo’s conscious attempt to avoid eisegesis and tounderstand the G! t "’s philosophy on its own terms. I will make the case that Aurobindo’sspiritual experiences—far from serving as the basis for eisegesis—in fact led him toadopt a rigorously immanent hermeneutic approach to the G! t " that deserves to berecognized as a watershed in G! t " scholarship. In particular, Aurobindo’s spiritualexperiences attuned him to the centrality of the concept of vijñ"na in the G! t ", which he

identified as the hermeneutic key to elucidating the G! t "’s distinctive thought-structure.The term “ jñ"na,” which appears much more frequently in the G! t " than the term“vijñ"na,” often means direct realization of # tman-Brahman or God. In IV.39, forinstance, K !"#a asserts: “having attained Knowledge [ jñ"na)], one soon attains supremePeace.” $a%kara plausibly glosses “ jñ"na” in this verse as “full realization”( samyagdar $ana) of the # tman, which results in the goal of liberation fromtransmigratory existence.38

At five places in the G! t " —III.41, VI.8, VII.2, IX.1, and XVIII.42—the term“ jñ"na” is paired with the term “vijñ"na,” hence raising the question of the precisedistinction between the two terms.39 In III.41, for instance, K !"#a describes desire as “thedestroyer of jñ"na and vijñ"na” ( jñ"navijñ"nan"$anam), and in IX.1, K !"#a promises toimpart to Arjuna “ jñ"na combined with vijñ"na” ( jñ"na) vijñ"nasahitam). The Sanskrit prefix “vi-” typically functions as an intensifier; etymologically, then, vijñ"na would be adeeper or more comprehensive form of knowledge than jñ"na. This poses a problem for$a%kara, however, since $a%kara’s Advaita philosophy does not admit the possibility of aknowledge that is superior to "tmajñ"na. Hence, in his commentary on those verses inthe G! t " that distinguish between jñ"na and vijñ"na, $a%kara glosses jñ"na as mereintellectual understanding of the Self and vijñ"na as full-blown spiritual realization of theSelf. In his commentary on III.41, for instance, $a%kara defines jñ"na as theoreticalknowledge about the Self “derived from the scriptures and a teacher,” while he definesvijñ"na as “the full experience of that knowledge” (vi $e %ata( tadanubhava().40

However, $a%kara’s interpretation of the distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na inthe G! t " is not entirely convincing. First, the internal evidence in favor of hisinterpretation of the terms is slim. Second, he fails to provide a convincing rationale forinterpreting jñ"na as scriptural knowledge at certain places (such as in III.41) and ascomplete spiritual realization of the # tman at other places (such as in IV.39). Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, $a%kara leaves himself open to the charge of eisegesis,since his Advaitic bias leads him to foreclose summarily the possibility that vijñ"na isactually a higher form of spiritual realization than realization of the # tman.



10

Subsequent commentators have not fared much better than $a%kara in explainingsatisfactorily the distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na in the G! t ". R &m&nuja, in hiscommentary on VII.2, claims that jñ"na is knowledge of God’s essence (madvi %ayam

ida) jñ"nam) while vijñ"na is knowledge of what distinguishes God from all the thingsin the universe (vijñ"na) hi vivikt "k "ravi %aya) jñ"nam).41 However, R &m&nuja’s

idiosyncratic reading of vijñ"na as knowledge of God’s distinction from the universeseems to stem more from his eisegetic concern to fit the concept within the parameters ofhis Vi'i"t&dvaita philosophy than from a genuine attempt to understand vijñ"na in thecontext of the G! t "’s own thought-structure.

Recent scholars have continued to puzzle over the distinction between jñ"na andvijñ"na in the G! t ". As Minor points out, recent Western translators of the G! t " not onlydisagree about the meanings of jñ"na and vijñ"na but also about “which knowledge ishigher and which is lower.”42 Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the majority of recentscholars—including R.C. Zaehner, Franklin Edgerton, W.J. Johnson, and Minor—adopt areading akin to $a%kara’s interpretation of III.41, taking jñ"na as intellectual or rationalknowledge and vijñ"na as direct realization or insight.43 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and

David White, by contrast, reverse the priority of the terms, interpreting vijñ"na as mereintellectual knowledge and jñ"na as full-blown spiritual knowledge.44 Aurobindo’s Essays on the Gita, I will argue, makes a decisive intervention in this

ongoing debate about the meaning of vijñ"na in the G! t ". The first six chapters of theG! t ", according to Aurobindo, focus primarily on the necessity of jñ"na, the realization ofthe impersonal # tman (305). For Aurobindo, Chapter 7 adds a decisive new dimension tothe G! t "’s progressively unfolding thought-structure by shifting focus to vijñ"na, a higherform of spiritual knowledge that includes and exceeds the knowledge of the impersonal # tman. Aurobindo’s rendering of VII.1-2 is telling:

Hear how by practising Yoga with a mind attached to me and with me as "$raya(the whole basis, lodgment, point of resort of the conscious being and action) thoushalt know me without any remainder of doubt, integrally, samagra) m"m.[VII.1]

I will speak to thee without omission or remainder, a $e %ata(, the essentialknowledge [ jñ"na], attended with all the comprehensive knowledge [vijñ"na], byknowing which there shall be no other thing here left to be known. [VII.2] (266)

Departing starkly from all the traditional commentators on the G! t ", Aurobindo interprets jñ"na as “essential knowledge” and vijñ"na as “comprehensive knowledge.” “Essential”knowledge, according to Aurobindo, is the knowledge of one’s own essence as theimpersonal non-dual # tman, “the one immutable Self and silent Spirit” (264). Aurobindointerprets vijñ"na as the more “comprehensive” or “integral” realization that “the DivineBeing is all” (266).45 Vijñ"na, for Aurobindo, at once includes and surpasses jñ"na: ifthe Divine Being “is known integrally in all his powers and principles, then all is known,not only the pure Self, but the world and action and Nature” (266). In other words, theknowledge of the non-dual # tman, far from being the summit of spiritual experience,serves as the necessary foundation for vijñ"na, the still higher realization of God as atonce impersonal and personal, at once immanent in the universe and beyond it.46



11

Aurobindo’s interpretation of the distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na in theG! t " clearly echoes his earlier account of the three stages of spiritual realization in “TheYoga and Its Objects”—an account, as we have seen, that was itself based implicitly onRamakrishna’s distinction between the jñ"n! ’s knowledge of the impersonal # tman andthe vijñ"n! ’s deeper and more intimate realization of God’s all-pervasiveness. Hence, it

may seem that Aurobindo remains vulnerable to the charge of eisegesis: how can we besure that Aurobindo is not simply interpreting the G! t "’s doctrines in light ofRamakrishna’s teachings and his own personal spiritual experiences? A careful readingof Aurobindo’s Essays on the Gita, however, will reveal that Aurobindo provides animmanent contextual justification of his interpretation of vijñ"na in the G! t ".

In fact, I will argue that one of Aurobindo’s most original and significant insightsinto the G! t " is his recognition that the concept of vijñ"na —when properly understood— is the hermeneutic key to understanding the G! t "’s thought-structure as a whole. It wouldrequire an entire book to do justice to Aurobindo’s lengthy and nuanced discussion of thevarious ways that vijñ"na informs many of the fundamental metaphysical and theologicaldoctrines of the G! t ". In the remainder of this paper, I will attempt the more modest task

of sketching the main lines of Aurobindo’s sustained effort to establish the precisemeaning and significance of vijñ"na in the G! t ". As we will see, Aurobindo’s immanenthermeneutics of vijñ"na helps account for the G! t "’s unusual conception of God as theimpersonal-personal Puru %ottama, its privileging of bhakti to jñ"na, and its syncreticapproach to spiritual practice.

Aurobindo’s general interpretive strategy throughout the Essays on the Gita is todetermine the meaning of a given term on the basis of its broader context. Accordingly,Aurobindo first argues that his interpretation of vijñ"na in VII.2 as “comprehensiveknowledge” coheres well with the surrounding verses, VII.1 and VII.3. In VII.1, as wehave already seen, Arjuna is assured that by taking refuging in K !"#a, he will know K !"#a“ samagram,” which means “fully” or “integrally” (in Aurobindo’s translation). ForAurobindo, the “integral” knowledge of God mentioned in VII.1 provides a crucial clueto the meaning of “vijñ"na” in the next verse. Whereas jñ"na is knowledge of theimpersonal # tman, vijñ"na is a more comprehensive knowledge of the impersonal- personal God.

Aurobindo’s interpretation of vijñ"na as “comprehensive knowledge” also helpsaccount for K !"#a’s somewhat cryptic statement in VII.3, which has taxed the interpretiveingenuity of commentators. Aurobindo translates VII.3 as follows:

[A]mong thousands of men one here and there strives after perfection, and ofthose who strive and attain to perfection one here and there knows me in all the principles of my existence, tattvata(. (266)

[manu % y"'") sahasre %u ka $cidyatati siddhaye yatat "mapi siddh"n") ka $cinm") vetti tattvata(]47

Puzzlingly, VII.3 seems to assert that the attainment of “perfection” ( siddhi) is nottantamount to achieving the summum bonum of full knowledge of God. Faced with this puzzle, $a%kara denies the natural reading of “ yatat "mapi siddh"n")” (“of those whostrive and attain to perfection”), which clearly refers to those who have not only strived



12

for perfection but have actually attained it. $a%kara claims that the so-called “perfection”of these strivers is not to be taken literally: they are called “perfect,” he claims, only inthe weak sense that they are striving for perfection, even though they have not yetattained full-blown perfection.48 On the basis of this questionable reading, $a%kara goeson to assume that “full” or “comprehensive” (tattvata() knowledge of God is simply

"tmajñ"na, the realization of the non-dual # tman. As a result of his eisegetic bias,$a%kara not only arbitrarily weakens the meaning of the word “perfection” in VII.3 butalso denies the force of “tattvata(,” which suggests that the highest spiritual perfectionconsists not merely in the knowledge of the impersonal # tman but in the distinctlytheistic knowledge of God in all His fullness.

Aurobindo’s reading of VII.3 is not only far more convincing than $a%kara’s butalso shows how VII.3 flows naturally from VII.1 and VII.2. Unlike $a%kara, Aurobindotakes VII.3 literally: even among those strivers who have actually attained “perfection,”only a few achieve what he calls “integral knowledge” of God (266). Aurobindo is thefirst commentator to recognize that the notion of knowing God “tattvata(”—which herenders as knowing God “in all the principles” of His existence—refers back to the

“integral” ( samagram) knowledge of God in VII.1 and to the “comprehensiveknowledge” (vijñ"na) of God in VII.2. Aurobindo’s contextual approach allows him tohonor the crucial distinction K !"#a draws in VII.3 between lower and higher states ofspiritual “perfection.” From Aurobindo’s perspective, the “strivers” referred to in thesecond line of VII.3 have indeed attained the “perfection” of "tmajñ"na, knowledge ofthe impersonal # tman, but only a tiny minority of those jñ"n! -s go on to attain the higher perfection of vijñ"na, the “integral” or “comprehensive” knowledge of the impersonal- personal God. According to Aurobindo’s paraphrase of VII.3, vijñ"na —the “integralknowledge” of God—is “a rare and difficult thing,” even rarer than Advaitic "tmajñ"na(266).

For Aurobindo, the doctrine of vijñ"na introduced in VII.1-3 is the indispensablefoundation for the philosophical and theological ideas developed in the remaining twelvechapters of the G! t ". The rest of Chapter 7 of the G! t " begins to elaborate whatAurobindo calls the “comprehensive knowledge” (271) of the vijñ"n! —the knowledgethat, as VII.7 states, “all that exists” in the universe is “strung” on God “like pearls upona thread.” Aurobindo reads VII.15-19 as strong evidence that K !"#a takes the “integralknowledge” of vijñ"na to be a higher spiritual ideal than the knowledge of the impersonal # tman. In VII.17, K !"#a declares that the “ jñ"n! , who is ever in Yoga and endowed withone-pointed devotion [ekabhakti(], excels” (284). Throughout the first six chapters ofthe G! t ", jñ"na almost invariably means "tmajñ"na, knowledge of the impersonal # tman.Hence, it is striking that K !"#a describes the jñ"n! as a supreme devotee of God in VII.17.From Aurobindo’s perspective, this unique “ jñ"n! ” endowed with “ekabhakti(” is noneother than the vijñ"n! , who ascends from the knowledge of the impersonal # tman to theeven higher realization of the impersonal-personal God pervading the universe.

Accordingly, Aurobindo interprets VII.19 as a paean to what he calls the “bhaktiwith knowledge” of the vijñ"n! :

At the end of many births, the man of knowledge attains Me. Very rare is thegreat soul who knows that Vasudeva is all that is.



13

[bah&n") janman"mante jñ"nav"nm") prapadyate

v" sudeva( sarvam iti sa mah"tm" sudurlabha(]49

$a%kara, eager to fit the G! t "’s teachings into the framework of Advaita, glosses“v" sudeva(”—a name for K !"#a—as “the inner # tman” ( pratyag "tm"), thereby reducing

the patently theistic realization of God described in VII.19 to the jñ"n! ’s realization of theimpersonal # tman.50 Aurobindo, by contrast, strives to honor VII.19’s theistic cast: the“ jñ"nav"n,” he argues, has clearly ascended from the jñ"n! ’s knowledge of the # tman tothe vijñ"n! ’s higher “integral knowledge” of “the Divine as all things”—an integralknowledge described throughout the chapter (285). Aurobindo recognizes that VII.19’semphasis on the extreme rarity of attaining this “bhakti of an integral knowledge” (284)recalls the distinction made in VII.3 between the lower “perfection” of "tmajñ"na and thehigher “perfection” of vijñ"na attained by only a chosen few. Militating against$a%kara’s reductive reading of “v" sudeva(” as the impersonal # tman, Aurobindo makesa sustained case throughout Essays on the Gita that God in the G! t " should be understoodas at once impersonal and personal, at once immanent and transcendent.

Tellingly, Chapter 9 of the G! t " begins by reasserting the distinction already madein VII.2 between jñ"na and vijñ"na: “But to you who are not given to cavilling I shallspeak of this highest secret [ guhyatamam], which is jñ"na combined with vijñ"na

[ jñ"na) vijñ"nasahitam], by realizing which you shall be liberated from evil” (IX.1).Building on his reading of Chapter 7, Aurobindo claims that the “highest secret” of IX.1is the “knowledge of the whole Godhead,” which consists both in jñ"na —the “essentialknowledge” of the impersonal # tman —and vijñ"na, the “complete knowledge” of theGodhead “in all its principles which will leave nothing yet to be known” (309).

From Aurobindo’s perspective, K !"#a deliberately leaves the concept of vijñ"nasomewhat vague and mysterious throughout the G! t " precisely in order to signal itsesoteric and rarefied nature. The “supreme secret” of the G! t " is not the reality of the # tman but the deeper and more profound “mystery of the transcendent Godhead who isall and everywhere” (311), “at once impersonal and personal” (308)—a spiritual mysterydisclosed only by vijñ"na, not by jñ"na. While jñ"na was a familiar concept at the timeof the G! t ", vijñ"na— understood in the specific sense of a more comprehensiveknowledge of God—was virtually unknown. Hence, the G! t " conveys the nature andsignificance of vijñ"na not by defining it directly but by subtly insinuating the concept ofvijñ"na into the very underlying thought-structure of the G! t ". In other words, vijñ"na

should not be understood simply as one doctrine alongside other doctrines in the G! t " butas the very conceptual foundation for a variety of the G! t "’s most distinctive theologicaland philosophical doctrines.

The perspective of vijñ"na emphasized by Aurobindo helps explain an apparentcontradiction in IX.4-5. Immediately after declaring in IX.4 that “all beings are situatedin Me, not I in them,” K !"#a points out in IX.5: “And yet all beings are not situated inMe—behold My divine Yoga.” How are we to make sense of the notion that all beingsare situated in K !"#a and yet not situated in Him? For Aurobindo, K !"#a’s paradoxicalassertion signals the unfathomable mystery of God. If IX.4 might seem to suggest astraightforwardly pantheistic view of the “identity of God and universe,” IX.5 decisivelyrejects any such “limited view” (312). God’s mysterious “divine Yoga” cannot beconfined within any Procrustean theological paradigm that seeks to determine the nature



14

of God by means of the finite intellect alone. It is only through the spiritual experience ofvijñ"na, not through the blindly groping intellect, that we can grasp the supreme divinemystery that God “is at once one with all that is and yet exceeds it” (312).

The first six chapters of the G! t " stress the need for realizing the “unmanifest” and“unthinkable” # tman (II.25) but also sometimes emphasize K !"#a’s divine nature as the

“great Lord of all the worlds” (V.29), the avat "ra who incarnates on earth wheneverrighteousness wanes (IV.7). Notably, however, the precise relationship between God andthe impersonal # tman remains mysterious in the first six chapters. With the momentousintroduction of vijñ"na in Chapter 7, this relationship begins to get clarified, eventually becoming one of the paramount themes of the G! t ". While the impersonal # tman of the path of jñ"na and the personal God of the path of bhakti may seem difficult to reconcile,Aurobindo demonstrates that jñ"na and bhakti can indeed be reconciled from the uniquestandpoint of vijñ"na.

Chapter 10 of the G! t " is an especially rich elaboration of the vijñ"n! ’s insight intothe unfathomable mystery of God. K !"#a, we are told, is not only the “great Lord of theworld” (X.3) but also the impersonal “ # tman residing in the hearts of all beings” (X.20).

Strikingly, K !"#a then proceeds to catalogue some of his primary “manifestations”(vibhuti-s) in the universe. For instance, K !"#a is “Om among words” (X.25), the“Ganges among rivers” (X.31), and even the “gambling of the cunning” (X.36). In X.42,the final verse of the chapter, K !"#a points out that his various manifestations in no wayexhaust his infinite being: “I support this entire universe with a minute portion ofMyself.” From Aurobindo’s perspective, the various seemingly contradictory aspects ofGod mentioned in Chapter 10 are reconciled in the experience of vijñ"na. The vijñ"n! alone, according to Aurobindo, realizes that God is at once the impersonal # tman and theLord of the universe capable of incarnating in human form, at once the transcendentAbsolute beyond name and form and the immanent divine Spirit pervading the entireuniverse.

In XV.16-18, the G! t " explicitly codifies its various teachings about the infinitenature of God in the crucial doctrine of the Puru %ottama, the “Supreme Person,” whichhas puzzled many commentators:

There are these two Persons [ puru %au] in the world—the perishable [k %ara] andthe imperishable [ak %ara]. The perishable [k %ara] is all beings; the unchanging[k &* astha] is called the imperishable [ak %ara].

But other than these two is the Supreme Person [uttama( puru %a(] who is calledthe Supreme # tman [ param"tm"], who enters the three worlds and upholds them,the imperishable Lord [avyaya !$vara(].

Since I am beyond the perishable [k %ara] and above even the imperishable[ak %ara], I am known in the world and in the Vedas as the Supreme Person[ puru %ottama]. (XV.16-18)

This is the G! t "’s most explicit and unambiguous statement that God—conceived as the Puru %ottama —is even greater than the “imperishable” (ak %ara) # tman. The term“ak %ara,” which occurs frequently in the G! t ", refers almost invariably to the impersonal



15

# tman, as in VIII.11, VIII.21, XII.1, and XII.3. In XV.16, “ak %ara” is defined as the“unchanging” (k &* astha), a term used in XII.3 to refer to the imperishable # tman. Hence,it is reasonable to assume from the context that “ak %ara” is being used in the sense of the“imperishable” # tman in XV.16 and XV.18. $a%kara, however, interprets “ak %ara” inXV.16 and XV.18 as “m" y",” the seed of the mutable universe, despite interpreting

“ak %ara” in other places in the G! t " —such as XII.1 and XII.3—as the “immutable” # tman. On $a%kara’s reading, then, the “ Puru %ottama” is the impersonal # tman beyondthe “ak %ara,” taken in the sense of m" y".51 As T.G. Mainkar has pointed out, $a%karaadopts this implausible reading of “ak %ara” in XV.16 and XV.18 as a result of hiscommitment to the philosophy of Advaita, which denies that there is anything superior tothe # tman.52

Aurobindo more plausibly interprets “k %ara” in XV.16 and XV.18 as the totalityof the mutable universe (436) and “ak %ara” as the full-blown impersonal # tman, “theimmutable Self of all” (440). Although the k %ara and the ak %ara may seem to beirreconcilable opposites, Aurobindo claims that the “highest spiritual experience” ofvijñ"na reveals that “these two spirits are a dual status of one eternal and universal

existence,” which the G! t " here refers to as the Puru %ottama (438). By attaining jñ"na,we realize the impersonal # tman, the “immutable” (ak %ara) aspect of the Puru %ottama.When we ascend from jñ"na to vijñ"na, however, we realize the higher and morecomprehensive truth that the Puru %ottama is not only the “Supreme # tman” (XV.17)— the ak %ara beyond the universe—but also the “imperishable Lord” (XV.17) who bothrules over and pervades the k %ara, the domain of the phenomenal universe. The vijñ"n! ,as Aurobindo puts it, attains the integral knowledge of God as the impersonal-personal Puru %ottama, who is “more even than a highest unmanifest Akshara, more than anynegative Absolute…because he is to be known also as the supreme Purusha who extendsthis whole universe in his own existence” (441). For Aurobindo, then, the concept ofvijñ"na is the key to understanding how the G! t " can maintain without contradiction thatGod is at once the impersonal # tman and the Lord of all the worlds, at once thetranscendent Brahman and the immanent Divine pervading the entire universe.

Perhaps the single strongest piece of evidence in favor of Aurobindo’s radicalreinterpretation of vijñ"na and the Puru %ottama in the G! t " is a remarkable passage fromChapter 18, which clearly distinguishes two fundamental stages in spiritual experiencethat correspond perfectly to Aurobindo’s notions of jñ"na and vijñ"na:

One who resorts to solitude, eats sparingly, with speech, body, and mind undercontrol, who is intent on meditation, and who resorts to dispassion, [XVIII.52]

That person, having wiped out egoism, force, pride, desire, anger, and superfluous possessions, free from the idea of “me” and “mine,” and serene, becomes fit for becoming Brahman [brahmabh& y" ya kalpate]. [XVIII.53]

When one has become Brahman [brahmabh&ta(] and has attained the serene # tman, when one neither grieves nor desires and is the same toward all beings,then one attains supreme devotion to Me [madbhakti) labhate par "m].[XVIII.54]



16

Through devotion, that person knows Me, who and how much I am and in all thereality and principles of My being. Then, having known me comprehensively,one enters into That. [bhakty" m"mabhij"n"ti y"v"nya $c" smi tattvata( | tato m")

tattvato jñ"tv" vi $ate tadanantaram] [XVIII.55]

Even while continuing always to perform all actions [ sarvakarm"' yapi sad "] andresorting to Me as refuge, one attains by My grace the eternal and imperishableState. [XVIII.56]

These pregnant verses, according to Aurobindo, contain “all the kernel of the completeYoga of the Gita” (539). On Aurobindo’s reading, the special Yoga described in theseverses encompasses a “double realisation” (536) that can only be understood on the basisof the G! t "’s seminal distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na. The first essential stage ofspiritual experience is embodied in XVIII.52-54: by eradicating all egoism, one“becomes Brahman” in the sense of attaining jñ"na, the realization of the “serene # tman”(XVIII.54). As Aurobindo puts it, “To lose ego and be this impersonal self, to become

this impersonal Brahman in our consciousness is therefore the first movement of thisYoga” (533).Strikingly, however, the G! t " does not stop with the attainment of jñ"na. Verses

XVIII.54-56 proceed to describe the spiritual ascent from jñ"na to a still higher and morecomprehensive realization. After realizing the impersonal # tman, the jñ"n! goes on toattain “supreme devotion” ( par "m bhaktim) (XVIII.54) toward K !"#a. This passageleaves little doubt that the spiritual ideal taught in the G! t " is not jñ"na —as $a%karawould have it—but bhakti, albeit a special form of “supreme bhakti” rooted in the priorattainment of jñ"na. Aurobindo makes a convincing case that this “supreme bhakti” isnone other than vijñ"na, the “integral knowledge” of the impersonal-personal Puru %ottama pervading the universe (536). The unusual adverb “tattvata(” used twice inXVIII.55 clearly recalls the “tattvata(” of VII.3, a verse that distinguishes the lower perfection of jñ"na from the higher perfection of vijñ"na, a comprehensive knowledge ofGod “in all the principles of His existence.” Reading XVIII.54-56 within the broadercontext of the G! t "’s teachings on vijñ"na, Aurobindo observes: “Here there is given tous something yet higher than the Impersonal, — here there is the supreme Self who is thesupreme Ishwara, here there is the supreme Soul and its supreme nature, here there is thePurushottama who is beyond the personal and impersonal and reconciles them on hiseternal heights” (535). By ascending from jñ"na to vijñ"na, one realizes the supremesecret that God is the infinite Puru %ottama who is not only the impersonal # tman but alsothe Lord dwelling in the hearts of all creatures as well as the Divine Spirit pervading theentire universe.

Significantly, XVIII.56 adds that the vijñ"n! continues to perform “all actions”( sarvakarm"'i) as a perfect instrument of the divine Puru %ottama. As Aurobindo puts it,the vijñ"n! acts “for the sake of the Divine in the world, for the good of all beings, for thefulfilment of the world action and the world purpose, or in one word for the sake of thePurushottama and done really by him through his universal Shakti [power]” (538). Takentogether, verses XVIII.54-56 indicate that the integral realization of vijñ"na involvesnothing less than a perfect synthesis of knowledge, devotion, and selfless action—a fact,as Aurobindo recognizes, that has far-reaching consequences for how we understand the



17

G! t "’s complex teachings about spiritual practice. As we will see in the followingsection, the syncretic spiritual ideal of vijñ"na proves to be the foundation for thecomprehensive form of spiritual practice preferred by the G! t " —one that combines thedisciplines of jñ"na, bhakti, and karma instead of emphasizing one discipline at theexpense of the others.

IV. Vijñ"na as the Basis for the G! t "’s Philosophical Syncretism and Religious Pluralism

Aurobindo’s Essays on the Gita, I have been arguing, is one of the mostsophisticated and convincing attempts in the history of commentary on the G! t " todetermine the philosophy of the G! t " on the basis of the G! t "’s own immanent thought-structure. From Aurobindo’s perspective, the G! t "’s whole philosophical edifice is builton the foundational thesis that there are two basic stages of spiritual experience: jñ"na,the knowledge of the impersonal non-dual # tman, and vijñ"na, the higher and morecomprehensive realization of God as the infinite Puru %ottama, who is at once personaland impersonal, at once immanent and transcendent.

The G! t "’s philosophy, I would suggest, is best understood not as one competing philosophical position among others but as a more elemental philosophical matrix fromwhich a variety of philosophical positions can be derived.53 As Aurobindo aptlyobserves, unlike the rigidly defined philosophical schools that emerged centuries after theG! t " such as Advaita and Vi'i"t&dvaita, the G! t "’s broad and syncretic philosophy “mapsout, but it does not cut up or build walls or hedges to confine our vision” (9). No wondercommentators subscribing to a wide array of philosophical and theological views haveclaimed the G! t " as their own. The G! t "’s philosophy of vijñ"na, which combineselements of both jñ"na and bhakti, lends itself to being appropriated in a variety of ways by readers of differing temperaments and philosophical persuasions.

Thus far, I have been discussing the G! t "’s philosophy, but the G! t " is not merelya philosophical treatise but also a “ yoga $" stra,” a scripture oriented toward “Yoga” in thesense of spiritual discipline or practice. I will conclude this essay by highlighting all too briefly the intimate connection between the G! t "’s philosophy of vijñ"na and its syncreticapproach to spiritual practice. As many commentators have noted, the G! t " recommendsa comprehensive form of spiritual practice that combines the Yoga of Knowledge( jñ"nayoga), the Yoga of Devotion (bhaktiyoga), and the Yoga of Selfless Action(karmayoga).54 Aurobindo claims that the G! t "’s “triune path” cultivates the “will, heart,thought” so that they are all raised “to the Highest and into the being of that which is thesupreme object of all action, love and knowledge” (39). For Aurobindo, the profoundlogic behind the syncretic spiritual practice taught in the G! t " is that it cultivates equallythe volitional, emotional, and intellectual dimensions of our being instead of developingonly one of these dimensions at the expense of the others.

Recent scholars have tended to discuss the G! t "’s views on spiritual practice inisolation from its broader philosophical thought-structure. Aurobindo, by contrast, makesa powerful case that the philosophy of vijñ"na in fact lies at the basis of the G! t "’sthreefold Yoga of works, devotion, and knowledge. As Aurobindo observes, thevijñ"n! ’s “integral turning of the soul Godwards bases royally the Gita’s synthesis ofknowledge and works and devotion” (324). I take this to be a very pregnant insight, for itsuggests that the G! t " holds up the vijñ"n! as the ideal embodiment of the synthesis of



18

jñ"na, karma, and bhakti that all spiritual aspirants should strive to emulate. As we haveseen, the vijñ"n! described in XVIII.53-56 of the G! t " ascends from the realization of thenon-dual # tman to the still rarer and higher state of “supreme bhakti” (XVIII.54).Having thereby attained a “comprehensive” knowledge of God as the impersonal- personal Puru %ottama pervading the universe, the vijñ"n! continues to perform “all

actions” (XVIII.56) as a perfect instrument of the divine Puru %ottama. Hence, the vijñ"n! alone is at once the consummate jn"na-yog ! , the consummate bhakta-yog ! , and theconsummate karma-yog ! .

Pursuing Aurobindo’s hint, I think it would be fair to call the “triune path” taughtin the G! t " “Vijñ&na-Yoga,” since the essence of this threefold Yoga is to see, and act in,the universe precisely as the vijñ"n! would see and act in it. In III.30, for instance, K !"#ainstructs Arjuna: “Giving up all your actions to Me, with your mind on the inner # tman [adhy"tmacetas"], free from hope and all egoistic notions of ‘me’ and ‘mine,’ fightdevoid of the fever of the soul.” Notice the syncretic thrust of this verse: the spiritualaspirant, according to the G! t ", should be not only a jñ"na-yog ! intent on realizing the # tman but also a karma-yog ! who performs selfless works and a bhakti-yog ! who

lovingly dedicates all these works to the supreme Lord. In other words, the G! t " calls onus to practice Vijñ&na-Yoga by striving to emulate the ideal vijñ"n! who, after havingrealized the impersonal # tman, continues to act selflessly in the world as an instrument ofthe impersonal-personal Puru %ottama.

Indeed, commentators such as Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan have claimed plausibly that the G! t "’s remarkable acceptance of diverse spiritual paths can be extended beyond the Hindu tradition to encompass non-Hindu religious and spiritual traditions aswell.55 In IV.11, K !"#a voices the bold pluralist view that people following a variety ofreligious paths are all ultimately worshipping one and the same God: “As peopleapproach me, so do I accept them. O P&rtha, human beings follow My path in everyway.”

And here we come full circle to Ramakrishna, who explored even more fully thanAurobindo the radical pluralist implications of the philosophy of vijñ"na. The root of allreligious dogmatism and fanaticism, in Ramakrishna’s view, is a one-sided emphasis onone aspect of God or Reality at the expense of other aspects. The vijñ"n! , however,revels in God’s various manifestations and aspects and, hence, is in a unique position toappreciate the truth of all religions. The vijñ"n! alone, according to Ramakrishna, is ableto recognize that the practitioners of different religions—including “Hindus, Muslims,and Christians”—are “all calling on the same God” and seeking “the same Reality.”56

Ramakrishna’s startlingly modern observations about the harmony of religions, Iwould suggest, provide a clue to the philosophical basis of the G! t "’s own religious pluralism expressed in verses such as IV.11.57 While it would take another essay tosubstantiate this claim, I believe a convincing case can be made that the G! t "’s doctrineof vijñ"na implicitly motivates its acceptance of various religious paths. The vijñ"n! ,who knows God “comprehensively” (tattvata() in His various manifestations, is able toconfirm experientially the bold pluralist doctrine expressed at various points in the G! ta:God, the infinite Puru %ottama, manifests Himself to religious seekers in various waysdepending on their respective backgrounds, temperaments, and capacities. The G! t "’sconcept of vijñ"na thus proves to be of potentially immense contemporary significance,



19

opening up exciting possibilities for interreligious dialogue and providing a fertile basisfor new directions in comparative theology.

1 See B.G. Tilak, + r ! Bhagavadg ! t "-Rahasya or Karma-Yoga-+" stra, vol. I (trans. B.S.Sukthankar; Bombay: Bombay Vaibhav Press, 1926) xxiv-xxv; Sri Aurobindo, Essays on

the Gita (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 1997) 8-9; R.C. Zaehner, The Bhagavad-

G! t " (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969) 1-4; Robert Minor, “The G! t "’s way as the only way,” Philosophy East and West 30.3 (July 1980) 339-340; Robert Minor, Bhagavad-G! t ": An

Exegetical Commentary (New Delhi: Heritage, 1982) xi; Keith Yandell, “On Interpretingthe ‘Bhagavadg ) t&,’” Philosophy East and West 32.1 (January 1982) 38; T.G. Mainkar, AComparative Study of the Commentaries on Bhagavadg ! t " (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1969; R.D. Ranade, The Bhagavadg ! t " as a Philosophy of God-Realisation (Bombay:Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1982) 39; Arvind Sharma, The Hindu G! t ": Ancient and

Classical Interpretations of the Bhagavadg ! t " (La Salle: Open Court, 1986) vii.2 Minor, “The G! t "’s way,” 340.3 I follow Minor and Yandell in borrowing the term “eisegesis” from Biblicalhermeneutics and applying it to G! t " interpretation. See Yandell, “On Interpreting the‘Bhagavadg ) t&,’” 37-9, and Minor, “The G! t "’s way,” 354 fn. 35. As should be obvious,I agree with the scholars listed in footnote 1 that many traditional commentators on theG! t " often lapsed into eisegesis. However, a full substantiation and defense of this largeand controversial claim would require a book in its own right. In this paper, I will restrictmyself to defending the more specific claim that traditional commentators such as$a%kara and R &m&nuja fall into eisegesis when they interpret particular passages in theG! t " relating to the Puru %ottama and to the distinction between jñ"na and vijñ"na.4 For some discussions of the apparent contradictions in the G! t ", see Sharma, The Hindu

G! t ", xii-xvi; Ranade, The Bhagavadg ! t ", 159-169; Eliot Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t " (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968) 174-76; Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian

Philosophy, vol. I (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008) 451-60. Somecommentators, such as Richard Garbe, explain away the apparent contradictions in theG! t " by claiming that the G! t " is itself a composite text comprising multiple redactions.See Garbe, “The Bhagavad-G ) t&,” in J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and

Ethics, v. II (New York: Scriber, 1956), pp. 535-38. I will argue, by contrast, that theG! t " is a unitary text with a coherent philosophical thought-structure.5 Throughout this essay, I cite passages from the Bhagavad G! t " by chapter and versenumber in the body of the text. Translations of passages from the G! t " are my ownexcept in cases where I specifically cite Aurobindo’s own translation in Essays on the

Gita (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram, 2006). I often consult the followingtranslation: Bhagavadg ! t " with the Commentary of + a'kar "c"rya (trans. Sw&m )

Gambh ) r &nanda; Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2010).6 Of course, $a#kara’s Advaita philosophy is able to resolve this apparent contradictionabout God by distinguishing between Brahman “without qualities” (nirgu'a) and Brahman “with qualities” ( sagu'a). God, according to Advaita, is simply sagu'a Brahman, and that very same God minus “qualities” is the nirgu'a Brahman. However,as Deutsch points out, the G! t " itself does not subscribe to this Advaitic distinction between nirgu'a and sagu'a Brahman, so any attempt to explain the G! t "’s philosophyin terms of Advaita would be a case of eisegesis. See Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t ", 175.



20

7 See, for instance, Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad G! t " (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1994) 44-54; Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, 451-53.8 Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t ", 174-6; Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 2 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1975) 527-533.9 Aurobindo, Essays on the Gita, 9. Hereafter, I will refer to Aurobindo’s Essays on the

Gita in the body of the essay by citing the page number in parentheses.10 See, for instance, Minor, “Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin,” in Modern Indian

Interpreters of the Bhagavad Gita, ed. Robert Minor (Albany: SUNY Press, 1986) 81.11 For instance, Aurobindo refers to Ramakrishna as “the personified consummation of allthe past incarnations of God.” See Sri Aurobindo, “Sri Ramakrishna and Future India,”reprinted in Prabuddha Bharata 100.1 (January 1995) 132.12 + r !$r ! r "mak ,%'akath"m, ta: + r ! ma-Kathita (Kolkata: Udbodhan, 2010) 415; Gospel of

Sri Ramakrishna 417-8. I cite Swami Nikhilananda’s translation of the Bengali text,although I sometimes make minor modifications: The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (trans.Swami Nikhilananda; New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1992).13 See, for instance, + r !$r ! r "mak ,%'akath"m, ta, 985; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 910.14 + r !$r ! r "mak ,%'akath"m, ta, 479; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 478.15 Ibid., 247; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 271.16 Ibid., 534; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 523.17 Ibid., 576-7; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 559.18 Ibid., 494; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 490.19 Since Aurobindo also read Vivekananda’s works, one might wonder whetherAurobindo’s conception of vijñ"na was influenced at all by Vivekananda’s thought.Interestingly, however, on those rare occasions when Vivekananda contrasts jñ"na withvijñ"na, he follows $a%kara in conceiving jñ"na as “intellectual” knowledge and vijñ"naas “realization.” See The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, v. IX (Kolkata:

Advaita Ashrama, 1997), p. 239. As far as I am aware, Vivekananda never explicitlyconstrues vijñ"na in Ramakrishna’s sense. Hence, I believe it is far more plausible toconjecture that Aurobindo was influenced primarily by Ramakrishna’s conception ofvijñ"na rather than Vivekananda’s. 20 Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library, vol. XXVI (Pondicherry: Sri AurobindoAshram Trust, 1972) 78. Hereafter, this set of Aurobindo’s complete works will beabbreviated SABCL.21 SABCL, XXVI, 80.22 SABCL, XXVII, 434 (letter dated 1913).23 Ibid., XXVII, 434 (letter dated 1913).24 SABCL, II, 2.25 Ibid., 3.26 SABCL, XVI, 415.27 Ibid., 415.28 Ibid.29 Ibid.30 Ibid., 416.31 Ibid., 422.32 Ibid., 416.



21

33 Eight Upani %ads, vol. I (trans. Swami Gambhirananda; Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama,2004) 14.34 Indeed, in his detailed commentary on the *'& Upani"ad published between 1914 and1915, Aurobindo repeatedly employs the term “vijñ"na” in Ramakrishna’s sense as a“perfect knowledge” of the One in the multiplicity. See Sri Aurobindo, The Upanishads:

With Sanskrit text, English translation and commentary (Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus LightPublications, 1996) 48. It might be argued that Aurobindo himself is guilty of eisegesis ifhe attempts to use Ramakrishna’s notion of vijñ"na in order to read the ancient scriptures.However, as I pointed out in the previous section, Ramakrishna explicitly traces vijñ"nato the Indian scriptures, especially the G! t " and the Bh" gavata Pur "'a. Hence, I think itwould be more accurate to claim that Ramakrishna’s teachings about vijñ"na attunedAurobindo to a crucial—if latent or underemphasized—strain in the ancient scripturesthemselves.35 SABCL, XVI, 427.36 Ibid., 412.37 Minor, “Sri Aurobindo as a Gita-yogin,” 63.38 + r ! madbhagavadg ! t ": +")karabh"% ya hind ! -anuv"dasahita (Gorakhpur: Gita Press,2011) 139.39 It should be noted, however, that other grammatical forms of the noun “vijñ"na” occurat several places in the G! t ": “vijñ"tum” (XI.31), “vij"nata(” (II.46), “vij"n! ta(” (II.19),“vij"n! y"m” (IV.4), “vijñ" ya” (III.18).40 + r ! madbhagavadg ! t ", 104.41 + r ! R"m"nuja G! t " Bh"% ya: With Text and English Translation (trans. Sv&m ) +didev&nanda; Mylapore: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2009) 244.42 Minor, Bhagavad-G! t ": An Exegetical Commentary, 141.43 See Zaehner, The Bhagavad-G! t ", 222 and 244; Edgerton, The Bhagavad G! t ", 73;

Franklin Edgerton, “Jñ&na and vijñ&na,” in Festschrift für Moritz Winternitz , eds. O.Stein and W. Gambert (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1933) 217-220; The Bhagavad Gita(trans. W.J. Johnson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 33; Minor, Bhagavad-G! t ": An Exegetical Commentary, 141-2; Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. II,491.44 Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita (New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2010) 280;David White, “Proto-S&,khya and Advaita Ved&nta in the Bhagavadg ) t&,” Philosophy East and West 29.4 (October 1979) 501.45 It is worth noting that in such works as The Synthesis of Yoga and The Life Divine,where Aurobindo elaborates his own spiritual philosophy, he conceives vijñ"na in arather different sense. In The Synthesis of Yoga, for instance, he defines vijñ"na as

“gnosis” or the “knowledge-self,” which is his rendering of the vijñ"namayako $a fromthe Taittir ) ya Upani"ad. See SABCL, XXII, 475. As an anonymous referee pointed out tome, the fact that Aurobindo refrains from reading his own notion of vijñ"na into theG! t "’s conception of vijñ"na lends support to my view that Aurobindo strives to avoideisegesis in his interpretation of the G! t ".46 Étienne Lamotte, R.V. De Smet, Deutsch, and Zaehner similarly argue that thesupreme goal taught in the G! t " is a supreme bhakti attained after realization of the non-dual # tman. However, none of these commentators links the G! t "’s doctrine of supreme



22

bhakti to the concept of vijñ"na. See Lamotte, “Notes sur la Bhagavadg ) t& (1929),” inOpera Indologica (Louvain-La-Neuve: Institut Orientialiste de Louvain, 2004) 97; R.V.De Smet, “Manman&,” in Studies in the Gita, ed. M.D. Paradkar (Bombay: PopularPrakashan, 1970) 174-8; Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t ", 167-169; Zaehner, The Bhagavad-

G! t ", 27-36. Eknath Easwaran, perhaps following Aurobindo, makes the passingsuggestion that the term “vijñ"na” in the G! t " could be understood in terms ofRamakrishna’s notion of vijñ"na, but he makes no attempt to justify this reading. SeeEaswaran, The Bhagavad Gita (London: Arkana, 1985), 111.47 Bhagavadg ! t " with the Commentary of + a'kar "c"rya, 317.48 + r ! madbhagavadg ! t ", 197.49 Ibid., 330.50 + r ! madbhagavadg ! t ", 205.51 Ibid., 376-7.52 Mainkar, A Comparative Study of the Commentaries on Bhagavadg ! t ", 16.53 Deutsch and Edgerton make a similar point. See Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t ", 160 andEdgerton, The Bhagavad G! t ", 108.54 See + r ! R"m"nuja G! t " Bh"% ya, 210-12; Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, 54-55;Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy I, 473; Minor, “The G! t "’s way”; Aurobindo, Essays

on the Gita, 263-336; Swami Tapasyananda, + r ! mad-Bhagavad-G! t ": The Scripture of Mankind (Mylapore: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2008) 105-6; Deutsch, The Bhagavad G! t ",162; A.H. Armstrong and R. Ravindra, “The Dimensions of the Self: Buddhi in the‘Bhagavad-G ) t&’ and ‘Psyché’ in Plotinus,” Religious Studies 15.3 (September 1979)333.55 The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. I (Kolkata: Advaita Ashrama, 2007)3-5; Radhakrishnan, The Bhagavadgita, 183. Minor, by contrast, rejects such a pluralistinterpretation of the G! t "’s teachings. See his “The G! t "’s way as the only way,” 339-

354. Minor does not seem to me to provide sufficient evidence for his thesis that the G! t " teaches exclusively one spiritual path and denies the efficacy of all other paths.56 + r !$r ! r "mak ,%'akath"m, ta, 576-7; Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 559.57 For a helpful discussion of Ramakrishna’s religious pluralism, see Jeffery Long,“(Tentatively) Putting the Pieces Together: Comparative Theology in the Tradition of SriRamakrishna,” in The New Comparative Theology, ed. Francis Clooney (London:Continuum, 2010) 151-170.

Documents

Toward a New Hermeneutics of the Bhagavad Gītā: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Secret of Vijñāna