Search:
Bhakti List Archives

'Akshara' etc. in the BhG

From the Bhakti List Archives

Martin Gansten • April 3, 2002 


I would like, if I may, to take a slightly different angle on this topic
and discuss it not on the basis of Ramanuja's Gitabhashya, but on the text
of the Bhagavadgita itself.

Like the Svetasvatara Upanishad, the BhG upholds the doctrine of three
ontological categories (tattvatraya). In 7.4-5, we find that Krishna has
two 'natures' (prakriti), the higher comprising the living beings (jiva),
the lower comprising the material elements. In the 13th chapter, matter is
termed prakriti while the self is designated as purusha, and God is a
'higher purusha' and the 'supreme self' (paramatman). Finally, in 15.16-18
the doctrine is presented in its most explicit form, with all three
categories designated as 'beings' (purusha) -- namely, kshara-purusha,
akshara-purusha, and purushottama.

Viewing the BhG as an internally consistent whole, it seems clear that:
1. (apara)-prakriti = kshara-purusha = matter or the material aspect of
living beings;
2. para-prakriti = (akshara)-purusha = the living being in itself, i.e.,
the self;
3. paramatman = purushottama = God as the supreme being and self of all.

In 15.16-18, the akshara or 'indestructible' being is defined as kutastha
'aloft' or 'immovable'. The same epithet appears in 12.3 along with
akshara, anirdesya 'undefinable', avyakta 'unmanifest', sarvatraga
'omnipresent', acintya 'inconceivable', acala 'immovable', and dhruva
'permanent'. Compare this list to 2.24-25, which is undisputably a
description of the self: nitya 'eternal', sarvagata 'omnipresent', sthanu
'permanent', acala 'immovable', sanatana 'ancient', avyakta 'unmanifest',
acintya 'inconceivable', avikarya 'unchangeable'.

>From these obvious similarities, it seems clear to me that BhG 2.24-25,
12.3, and 15.16 refer to one and the same entity, namely, the individual
self. The answer to the question of what scripture refers to the individual
self as 'akshara' is therefore: the BhG itself. It also definitely refers
to this self as omnipresent, however one cares to interpret that statement.
(Incidentally, BhG 4.35 also states that the jnanin will see 'all beings'
or 'all creation' first within himself, and then in God.)

Finally, if one takes the words 'jiva' and 'atman' as synonymous, as
Ramanuja generally does, there is no mystery about 'upasana of the jiva',
since meditation on the self is a common enough theme in the scriptures.
Ramanuja himself explains (in his Vedantadipa?) that meditation on God as
the self of the jiva, or on the jiva as the body of God, are both
acceptable since they ultimately contain the same elements. Only if 'jiva'
is construed as a less than real entity does this pose a problem.

Ramanujadasa:
Martin Gansten



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/