Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: 'Akshara' etc. in the BhG

From the Bhakti List Archives

bindinganavale suresh • April 16, 2002 


Dear Martin,
       
 Iam not objecting to your understanding of 
'prakriti-samsrishta' as 'embodied'.What iam objecting
is to the usage of the term "Dis-incarnate" instead of
"embodied" in BhG 3.35 in the source which you quote
from.If "Dis-incarnate" and "embodied" are understood
as same i.e to mean "embodied" then there is no
problem,otherwise it will mean that sankya yoga cannot
be practised by an embodied being i.e soul or purusha
identified to its embodiment due to its karma and can
only be practised by an "Dis-incarnate being" i.e a
purusha free from all this,if thats what you mean by
the term?.
   What Archarya Ramanuja says is that "sankya yoga is
difficult to practise by an embodied soul even though
it is qualified to practise the same" because it is
"still vulnerable to Rajo guna" even at this stage.
This concept is made clear in the last few slokhas of
3rd chapter by Sri Krishna to Arjuna when arjuna asks
sri krishna about the reason why even persons advanced
to the stage of sankya fall from their positions.

This however does not mean that sankya yoga "can never
be practised by an embodied soul" and the conclusion
that only "Dis-incarnate or avatara purusas" can
practise it will damage the context of the chapter and
also limit the powers of the jiva only as suitable to
karma yoga,when in fact it goes beyond sankya yoga
into Bhakti yoga to be ultimatley similar to Lord
himself(of course by his grace) as the lord himself
mentions at many places for example in chapter 4,10 th
slokha. 
            vita-raga-bhaya-krodha
            man-maya mam upasritah
            bahavo jnana-tapasa
            puta mad-bhavam agatah
  

Hope it is clear.Please write your comments about the
same.Any errors above are mine.

Sri Krishnaarpanamasthu
Suresh B.N.
   
--- Martin Gansten  wrote:
> Dear Suresh,
> 
> Thank you for your lengthy mail. If I understand you
> correctly, you object
> to my understanding of 'prakriti-samsrishta' as
> 'embodied'. You may of
> course be correct -- the word in itself means only
> 'united with [material]
> nature -- but I am not alone in this understanding
> (cf. Lester, 'Ramanuja
> on the Yoga'). You will note, also, that in his
> bhashya to BhG 15.15,
> Ramanuja makes use of a near-identical phrase, in
> the compound
>
jiva-shabda-abhilapaniya-brahma-adi-stamba-paryanta-ksharana-svabhava-acit-s
> amsrishta-sarva-bhutani 'all creatures united with
> insentient [matter, and]
> denoted by the term jiva, from Brahma to a clump of
> grass'. This certainly
> sound as though acit- or prakriti-samsrishta should
> be taken in the sense
> of embodiment.
> 
> Regards,
> MG
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------
           - 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/