I contend that Shankara
imparts too much of his Advaita Vedanta Hindu philosophy’s penchant for renunciation in
interpreting the momentous chapter two of the Bhagavadgita. I know in having
translated a text that it is all too tempting to “embellish” a text by re-phrasing
beyond what is necessary for clarity. Sometimes, in reading another translation
of a text that I am translating, I am astounded to find even entire subordinate
clauses that do not correspond to the original text in its language. I believe
Shankara does something similar in both his emphasis on the self (atman)
as non-agent and his disavowal of action in favor of renunciation. Krishna’s
advice to Arjuna is not to renounce fighting in the war, which even Shankara
describes as righteous even though it is for earthly power. To fight dispassionately
is obviously not the same as not fighting (i.e., not acting). Krishna is not
in favor of Arjuna’s refusal to fight, whether Arjuna has knowledge of the Samkhya
(i.e., discrimination of metaphysical reality: that eternal, immutable atman
is Brahman).
The full essay is at "Shankara."
