I was busy with travel and being ill and so could not continue.
Now continuing from Verse 21 Last post where we saw Purvapakshi has one more argument that I can accept that atma is changeless and therefore akarta, and atma is not a knower. However, the wise person being a knower of atma, must be subject to change, because he cannot know without undergoing a knowing process. Any knower has to be associated with a knowing process. And the knowing process is associated with change. So knower of atma must also be associated with change and so the knower of atma is a changing entity and not a changeless entity, so he cannot be akarta, he must be a karta. And since he is a karta he must combine knowledge with karma. The Purvapakshi or ooponent wants to establish that the wise man has to perform karma, just like the ignoramt person.
Shankarcharya write in the Bhashya यथा बुद्ध्याद्याहृतस्य शब्दाद्यर्थस्य अविक्रिय एव सन् बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन अविद्यया उपलब्धा आत्मा कल्प्यते एवमेव आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया असत्यरूपयैव परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते। It is from the empirical standpoint that उपलब्धा आत्मा कल्प्यते we assume that atma is a knower. कल्प्यते indicates, assumed/accepted. Here उपलब्धा indicates the knower. So here from an empirical standpoint ie vyavaharika drshti, we are accepting knower-ship for atma. Knower of sense-objects etc शब्दाद्यर्थस्य. So we assume that atma is the knower of the five-fold sense-objects from an empirical stand-point. And the instrument for atma to be a knower is the buddhi -बुद्ध्याद्याहृतस्य. So atma alone is the knower (from an empirical stand-point) of whatever the sense-objects are grasped by the intellect and the sense-organs. What kind of knower is atma? An as though knower because it is अविक्रिय एव सन् - remaining changeless it as though becomes a knower.
How can atma be changeless and yet be a knower? After all to be a knower, means atma has to be associated with the process of knowing. And to be associated with the process of knowing means to be undergoing change - so how can you say atma knower is avikriyah, changeless?
Because the knower status is not satya, it is mithya - merely an assumed status ...कल्प्यते. So atma is not affected or changed by the assumed status of knower-hood... atma remains changeless. अविक्रिय एव सन् आत्मा उपलब्धा कल्प्यते - The wise person knows this knower-hood to be unreal, yet the ignoramt person takes this knower-hood to be real knower-hood. अविद्यया - because of ignorance, बुद्धिवृत्त्यविवेकविज्ञानेन because of false knowledge - meaning because of false knowledge in the intellect owing to ignorance, the knower-hood is taken to be real, by the ignorant person.
Because of ignorance atma's knower-hood status is taken as real b y the ignorant. Because of knowledge (of the truth of atma being changeless), the knower-hood status of atma is understood to be mithya (false). So both the ignorant person as well as the wise person will say atma is the knower - however the for the wise person the status of being a knower is mithya - ie knower-hood is recognized to be superimposed on atma.
एवमेव - as in the case of sensory knowledge talked about in previous paragraph, in the case of Vedantic knowledge also आत्मानात्मविवेकज्ञानेन - by gaining the discriminative knowledge of atma and anatma, for which the instrument is also the buddhi बुद्धिवृत्त्या विद्यया through the knowledge which is in the form of a thought (the' I am Brahman' thought)असत्यरूपयैव - which is but a vyavaharika vritti , a mithya vritti (all vrittis being not real like atma). Ok so I gained knowledge through a mithya vritti using a mithya instrument - the what is the cahnge that I undergo? परमार्थतः अविक्रिय एव- In reality remaining the same, changeless alone आत्मा विद्वानुच्यते - I gain a new status as though of being a brahmajnani.
So I the brahmajnanai am the same as brahman meaning there is no difference between atma and atma-jnani.
This elaborate bhasya was for refuting the purvapakshi. Let us rememebr what the purvapakshi was saying.... he said that in 19 verse you said atma is changless, in 20th verse you said therefore atma is akarta, and in 21st verse Krishna is saying atmajnani is akarta. By establishing in verse 19 and 20 that atma is akarta, how do you say in Verse 21 that atmajnani is akarta? Is atma akarta or is atmajnani akarta?
Shankaracharya pointed out that there is no contradiction because atmajnani is akarta because atma alone is having the status of atmajnani in vyvahara not in reality. So there is no difference between atma and atmajnani.
My namaskaram to Swami Paramarthanandaji ... to whom I owe this article.








