샹카라는 바가바드기타의 주제를 지혜의 길에서 찾는다. 그렇기 때문에 지혜와 행위를 결합해야 한다는 지행회통론에 대해서는 날카로운 비판을 행한다. 첫째, 크리쉬나에 의해서 지혜와 행위가 각기 다른 근기의 사람들을 위한 것으로 제시되었다는 것이다. 얼핏 회통적인 이중주제설(二重主題說)로 보이지만, 그렇지 않다. 이중적으로 설해진 두 가지 주제가 평등하다고 말하는 것은 아니기 때문이다. 둘째, 지혜가 행위보다도 더 우수한 것이라 주장한다. 그 근거로서 3.1에서 아르쥬나는 “만약 당신께서 지성이 행위보다도 더 우수하다고 생각하신다면”이라고 말했지 않느냐는 것이다. 그러나 아르쥬나의 질문을 가지고서 기타의 정설(正說)로 삼으려는 것은 설득력이 없다. 셋째는 5.2에 대한 주석에서 샹카라는 ‘행위의 포기 vs 행위의 요가’ 라는 쌍에서 ‘행위의 포기’를 다시 ‘자아를 아는 자 vs 자아를 모르는자’로 세분한다. 이를 통하여 자아를 아는 자는 지복(至福)을 얻는 것이 가능하지만, 자아를 모르는 자는 지복을 얻을 수 없다는 것이다. 이는 5.2의 입장과는 정면에서 배치되는 논리이다. 결국 샹카라의 지행회통 비판은 기타의 본래 입장을 왜곡한 것이 적지 않음을 확인할 수 있었다.

Sankara acknowledges only jnana as the moksa-dharma. In the point of view, it is thought that the doctrine of the Bhagavadgita, which emphasizes in no small measure karma or bhakti, has given a dilemma to him. Though the Bhagavadgita suggested two paths/arts of karma and bhakti as well as jnana, the first target of criticism was karma. No wonder the jnana-karma-samuccayavada, which asserts that through the unification of jnana and karma can achieve the moksa, was embraced generally by people before his age (and of course after him as well). I examined how Sankara criticized the jnana-karma- samuccayavada and then whether his criticism has validity. At first, Sankara criticized that in the Bhagavadgita 3.3, Krsna presented jnana and karma for the people who have different readiness(根機, adhikara) respectively. Therefore, he asserted that those two cannot be united/amalgamated each other. Nevertheless, his double-subjected theory cannot be called as samuccayavada. Because saying that jnana and karma are applied respectively is just a strategy for criticizing the samuccayavada and it does not mean that he re gards those two subjects are equal. Secondly, he claims that jnana is superior than karma. He provides the verses in the Bhagavadgita 3.1 in which can be read as “if you think that jnana is superior than karma,” as a reasonable evidence of his opinion. However, it shows a logical fallacy. Because the question of Arjuna in that verse is not a uttarapaksa(後論) or siddhanta(正說), but a mere purvapaksa(前論) which would be denied by Krsna. It is not persuasive because he tried to make a siddhanta of Bhagavadgita based on the position of Arjuna, not Krsna. Therefore, Against his opinion, in the Bhagavadgita 3.3, Krsna mentions that contending for superiority between those two is meaningless by saying “[perfection of] reflective person is made by jnana-yoga, and [perfection of] yogins are made by karma-yoga”. Sankara comprehends the difference in readiness as an unequal hierarchy, not the difference in preference/aim. According to him, the pair of ‘reflective person vs yogin’ transforms into ‘one who knows the truth vs one who does not know the truth’. His understanding is not only away from the fundamental purpose (tatparya) of Bhagavadgita but also kind of obsession with readiness itself, and I rechristen such attitude as ‘readiness-ism’. Though I think ‘consideration of readiness’ is necessary and has educational value, the ‘readiness-ism’ should be differenciated with it because it is uninstructive/ anti-instructive. Thirdly, Sankara subdivides the readiness of ‘renunciation of karma’, which is occurred as a component in the pair of ‘renunciation of karma vs karma-yoga’ in the Bhagavadgita 5.2, into ‘one who knows atman vs one who does not know atman’. After that, he says that one who knows atman can achieve bliss, but one who doesn`t know cannot. It means that he stands against the stance of the Bhagavadgita 3.3 in which asserts “Both renunciation [of karma] and karma-yoga are capable of achieving bliss.” Moreover, Bhagavadgita even shows that “Of the two, karma- yoga is superior than renunciation of karma.” I understand that the first half of Bhagavadgita 5.2 presents the fundamental purpose(tatparya) and the last half shows the method(upaya) for the purpose. Though jnana-karma-samuccayavada is the fundamental purpose of the Bhagavadgita, in this context, saying that “karma-yoga is superior than renunciation of karma” might emphasize on the significance of karma. Therefore, the verse 5.2 stands directly opposite side of Sankara who asserts only jnana denying jnana-karma-samuccaya. After all, we could find many contradictions and fallacies in Sankara`s criticism on jnana-karma-samuccayavada. Of course in his position as an advaita Vedanta scholar, giving a criticism on jnana-karma-samuccayavada could be inevitable. However his interpretation on the Bhagavadgita, in that context, was rather a distortion of original intention of the text.