Karma and Jnana — Action and Knowledge
Shankara's position that Jnana (knowledge of Brahman) and Karma (ritual action) cannot be combined as co-equals for liberation — Jnana alone liberates — established one of the central debates in Hindu philosophy.
One of the most important philosophical debates in the history of Vedantic thought concerns the relationship between Jnana (knowledge of Brahman) and Karma (ritual action, moral action). Shankara maintained that Jnana and Karma are fundamentally incompatible as co-equal means to liberation: Karma operates in the realm of multiplicity (doer, action, result) while Jnana recognizes non-duality; they cannot be practiced simultaneously as equals. Karma purifies the mind and creates the prerequisites for Jnana, but it is Jnana alone (Jnana Nishtha — commitment to knowledge) that directly produces liberation. Mandana Mishra (a contemporary of Shankara who was later converted by Shankara and became Suresvara) had argued for Jnana-Karma Samucchaya (the combination of knowledge and action). The Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita) and Madhva (Dvaita) schools later contested Shankara's position on different grounds. The Bhagavad Gita's synthesis — advocating both Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga as valid paths — represents the more inclusive traditional position.
Action can produce only purity of mind; it cannot produce liberation. Liberation comes only from the direct knowledge of Brahman.
Philosopher Gilbert Ryle's distinction between 'knowing that' (propositional knowledge) and 'knowing how' (practical skill) — and his argument that these are irreducibly different kinds of knowledge — parallels Shankara's argument that Jnana (knowledge of Brahman) is categorically different from Karma (action/practice) and cannot be reduced to it.
Brahmasutra Bhashya
Written about in
- What Advaita Vedanta says about purpose
Shankara's harder claim is that action can produce purity of mind but not freedom. Doing more will not get you there, which is a strange thing to meet in a discussion of purpose.