Brahman is known through the conjunction of knowledge and action—that is, some philosophers say—liberation or the attainment of Brahman will come if knowledge (true knowledge concerning the self and Brahman) and action (sacrifice, ritual, worship, and the like) are performed together. But this view is in fact untenable; even for those who hold it, this doctrine of conjunction (knowledge + action) ultimately does not survive—for those who believe that Brahman always retains the characteristic of difference (distinction)—Brahman himself is eternally manifest in manifold forms—both non-difference and difference are part of his essential nature.
We shall distinguish two kinds of the doctrine of difference-and-non-difference (Bhedābhedavāda), and show why the doctrine of "the conjunction of knowledge and action" fails in both cases. "Difference" (bheda) means distinction, and "non-difference" (abheda) means identity. Those who hold the doctrine of difference-and-non-difference say—the individual soul (the particular self) and Brahman (the supreme self) are identical in one respect, yet distinct in another. For example, a wave and the ocean—the wave is born of the ocean, and so is identical with it; yet in form and shape the wave is also different from the ocean.
There are two forms of the doctrine of difference-and-non-difference—the first view: the individual soul and Brahman are always identical—even in the state of bondage; but the individual soul, due to ignorance, sees itself as limited, as body and mind. The second view: the individual soul and Brahman are fundamentally distinct. The individual soul can never become the true Brahman.
Now let us see why the doctrine of "knowledge + action" does not hold. If the individual soul and Brahman are identical, then the only obstacle to the attainment of Brahman is ignorance. And only knowledge, not action, can dispel ignorance. Therefore action is here unnecessary. If the individual soul and Brahman are distinct, then the individual soul can never merge with Brahman. Therefore liberation is altogether impossible. Hence in no circumstance does the doctrine of conjunction "knowledge + action = the attainment of Brahman" survive.
Suppose (the view of identity) the sun and light are one, but clouds cover them so the sun cannot be seen. When the clouds part, light will come. (Knowledge = light, ignorance = clouds). Here, kindling fire through sacrifice or chanting in the Vedic manner (action) will not disperse the clouds. (The view of distinction) If we say the sun and darkness are eternally distinct entities, the coming or not coming of light does not depend upon the clouds parting, then light can never overcome darkness. Therefore liberation is impossible.
Hence the view that "knowledge + action together bring liberation"—this is untenable. Because—if the individual soul and Brahman are one, then the only obstacle on the path to liberation is ignorance; only knowledge will remove it. If the individual soul and Brahman are separate, then liberation is forever impossible. This doctrine of conjunction cannot hold—neither for those who believe the individual soul and Brahman are identical even in the state of bondage; nor for those who believe the individual soul and Brahman are distinct. The reason is—if they are identical, then the attainment of Brahman can be obstructed only by ignorance. And if they are distinct, then liberation is altogether impossible.
If it is held that the individual soul is by nature eternally Brahman, then ignorance alone stands as an obstacle to the attainment of God. Against this very view we argue—the means to destroy ignorance is not action. It is knowledge alone. Therefore action is futile in this case.
And if it is held that Brahman is distinct from the individual soul, then—neither through action, nor through knowledge, nor even through the combined application of knowledge and action—by none of these three means is the attainment of Brahman possible. For if Brahman is truly distinct from the individual soul, then only Brahman himself can bridge that distinction.
Where two things are by nature distinct, the identity of one with the other is never possible.
# On Liberation and Knowledge
And if we grant this possible, then for the individual soul and Brahman it would not be liberation or the attainment of God, but rather the complete annihilation of the soul—for since the soul and Brahman are distinct, one cannot obtain the other without completely negating the first.
A new school of Bhedabheda philosophers claims: liberation comes through knowledge alone. This is elegant, but the problem lies in this—the basis of their claim rests on a Vedic injunction. That is, they believe liberation means knowledge combined with the fruit of Vedic prescriptions (sacrifice, ritual, and so forth). What they are saying is—even if sorrowful dualists (those who believe the soul and Brahman are separate) properly practice spiritual discipline and cultivation, they too can attain liberation. But the Bhedabheda philosophers fail here, because—they think liberation is possible through action (sacrifice, ritual, and the like)—yet action itself carries within it the mark of duality; and liberation is the realization of non-duality.
Action by its very nature comprises three distinct entities: the doer, the deed, and the fruit. So whenever action persists, a duality remains—the opposite of non-dual experience. For this reason it is said—action, by its mere presence, opposes the supreme Self. Then does this not leave the Bhedabheda philosophers with a pressing question: how can a Vedic command inspire action in one who is established in Brahman complete, who has renounced all things, who sees no difference anywhere? Can the scriptures and their mandates still drive the wise toward action?
The Bhedabheda philosophers say: even while dwelling in worldly life, the soul is identical with Brahman. But if the soul is identical with Brahman, then it would become identical with all castes as well; yet the nature of Vedic laws is precisely this—they apply to specific castes (brahmin, warrior, merchant, laborer)—that is, the principle of distinction is unambiguous here. Then according to the Bhedabheda perspective, would not the very force and relevance of these laws become utterly void?
The Bhedabheda philosophers sought to explain liberation by bringing action and knowledge together. But the problem is—action is genuinely an obstacle on the path to non-dual realization. If one is identical with Brahman, caste distinctions cannot be honored, yet the Vedic laws are built entirely upon caste distinction. Therefore their position cannot stand at all.
Should the Bhedabheda philosophers claim—”The Vedic laws can still apply even to one who has recognized his identity with Brahman, yet through force of habit or delusion still identifies himself with the body”—the clear answer would be: “This is never so.” For a defining mark of the truly wise is precisely this: they can no longer identify themselves with the body. To mistake the body for the Self is the fruit of ignorance. The scriptures have repeatedly declared—this very confusion of distinction, this illusion of oneness between body and Self, is the delusion born of Maya, what is called “demonic ignorance or avidya.”
Now if it be said—ignorance possesses such power that it can even confound the wise—then the consequences would be terrible. For then all meaning would drain from Self-knowledge and the attainment of God. If after gaining knowledge, a person still takes the body to be the Self, we must understand: that knowledge was not true knowledge at all—it was merely theoretical conception or intellectual information.
When true knowledge dawns, the delusion of body and Self vanishes completely. Then in no circumstance whatsoever can the wise mistake the body for themselves. And if someone still clings to the body as the Self, they remain shrouded in ignorance’s darkness, are not truly wise—they have never truly known, they have only learned intellectual facts; understanding has not risen in the heart. True knowledge is a light so radiant that it utterly dissolves the delusion of body and Self.
To regard the body as the self is to remain trapped in ignorance; this never happens in the case of the knower.
Consider the illusion of a rope mistaken for a serpent in the darkness. But once light is shed and the truth is revealed—”This is merely rope, not serpent”—that same rope will never again appear as a serpent. If someone still trembles in fear, imagining it to be a serpent, we would know they have not truly seen the light. Darkness exists only through the absence of light, yet when the sun rises, darkness vanishes in an instant. If someone were to say, “The sun has risen, yet darkness remains”—that would be a contradiction. Similarly, knowledge and ignorance cannot coexist. Where self-knowledge has dawned, the darkness of ignorance is dispelled forever.
(Vedic) action—sacrifice and ritual—is the fruit of ignorance. Therefore, no union between knowledge and action—neither simultaneous nor sequential—is ever possible, for one is founded upon truth (knowledge) and the other upon falsehood (action born of ignorance). If a man of knowledge were to identify himself with body and mind, he would not truly be a knower but deluded. Let him perform actions—who can restrain the ignorant?
It is said: “All action is already accomplished.” What does this mean? The yogi, the knower—one established in the non-dual vision—in his seeing, there is no such thing as “I, a separate agent.” Nature (body, mind, and senses) moves according to its own course. Therefore, there is nothing to command separately, nothing to say “Do this.” In this sense, it is being said: action is already unfolding, already being accomplished—breath flows, the heart beats, digestion occurs, speech, thought, and movement—all happen in the stream of nature. Thus, there is no need to newly initiate something by saying “perform action.” Imagine telling someone: “Start your heartbeat”—that would be meaningless, for the heartbeat already operates of itself. For the knower, the domain of action is precisely thus—what naturally unfolds continues to unfold.
Why is it that action cannot be commanded? A precept (vidhi) means: “Do this”—implying that an agent exists separately, that the deed must be newly initiated. But in the case of the knower—the sense of agency has vanished; therefore, the language “You ought to do this deed” simply does not apply. What is natural, what is automatic, cannot be commanded into being—precisely as with breathing. “Breathe” is not a precept; for even without your telling, the person breathes. “Let the sun rise”—this too cannot be a precept; for the rising of the sun is not within your power.
Let us contemplate the meaning of: “Both particular and universal action are the very nature of that yogi.” Here two levels of ‘action’ are indicated—particular action: a specific deed explicitly defined, such as conversing with someone, walking, cooking, or a particular rite of a sacrifice. Universal action: the larger flow of activity—such as the earth’s rotation, the cycles of nature, the life-processes moving within the body, the ongoing course of society and world.