mṛtyu and śoka (gītā 2.11)

The onset of death in those close to us brings about a temporary renunciation in all of us. This is called śmaśāna-vairāgya (renunciation of the cremation ground) and lasts for as long as the body burns on the funeral pyre. Unfortunately, this is not true renunciation, because it is not born of discrimination (viveka). As the aparokṣānubhūti points out --

brahmādisthāvarānteṣu vairāgyaṁ viṣayeṣvanu. yathaiva kākaviṣṭhāyāṁ vairāgyaṁ taddhi nirmalam .. (aparokśānubhūti)

vairāgya does not self-manifest, but is born following (anu) the cultivation of the discriminative intellect. What’s wrong with śmaśāna-vairāgya? After all, isn’t any kind of  vairāgya good? The very word vairāgya means one who is devoid (vi) of attachment and the like (rāga). Unfortunately, śmaśāna-vairāgya is born out of rāga itself. Attachment (rāga) and it’s opposite (vairāgya) cannot co-exist.

Temporary fake vairāgya is not a new phenomenon. śaṅkarācārya himself calls true renunciation as nirmala-vairāgya. Thus, we have two kinds of renunciation – (1) the real deal, known as nirmala-vairāgya, or śuddha-vairāgya, and (2) the fake kind, known as aśuddha-vairāgya.

In the gītā, arjuna foresakes his duty. His decision is born out of pure attachment, and is an example of aśuddha-vairāgya. “na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha” (gītā 2.9). What was the result? kṛṣṇa immediately starts delivering a lecture on viveka, the only true cause of lasting vairāgya.

nityam ātma-svarūpaṁ hi dṛśyaṁ tadviparītagam | evaṁ yo niścayaḥ samyag viveko vastunaḥ sa vai || (aparokṣānubhūti)

“Knowing the self to be ever-lasting, and everything else to be impermanent, is called discrimination.” This is the same message that kṛṣṇa delivers in the gītā proper as he starts his gītopadeśa.

aśocyān anvaśocastvaṁ prajñāvādāṁśca bhāṣase | gatāsūn agatāsūṁśca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ || (2.11)

“You grieve for those who shouldn’t be grieved. The learned ones don’t grieve for the dead, or for the living” extolls kṛṣṇa. saṁkarānanda sarasvatī details the thinking process.

Do you grieve for the person, or for their soul ? Let’s assume the former. Do you grieve because they’ve led a unfulfilling life, or do your lament their death? It makes no sense to grieve their life. If there wasn’t anything to celebrate, you wouldn’t have formed an attachment to them. Further, nothing can be changed. Similarly, you can’t possibly lament their death, because all life is transitory. All beings have limited time on earth, and everyone is constantly marching towards their grave. Thus, if you use reason, you couldn’t possibly grieve for their body.

If you don’t grieve for the person, or the body, you must grieve for the soul. But this doesn’t make any sense either. Because, the soul is eternal – it is neither born, nor does it die. Since this is true, why in the world would you grieve for something that is eternal?

saṁkarānanda sums it up as follows:

na hi buddhimatāṁ nityaḥ padārthaḥ śocyo bhavati, nāpi anityaśca ..

The wise do not grieve for the ever-lasting (because they are ever-lasting), and they don’t grieve for the impermanent (because impermanence is their very nature).

He also divides beings into three categories:

1. mūḍha – The dumb one, who grieves for the living, and for the dead.
2. śāstrajña – The learned one, who only grieves for the living
3. paṇḍita – The intelligent one, who grieves neither for the living, nor for the dead

All of us should strive to climb the staircase, from mūḍhatvam to śāstrajñatvam to pāṇḍītyam.