Search:
Bhakti List Archives

RE: 'Akshara' etc. in the BhG

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna K • April 4, 2002 


Dear Sri Krishna Kashyap, Sri Martin and others,

My intention was to find out if there was enough reason *within* Sri Ramanuja's system for 'jIva' to be 'axara'; which your replies have answered. Whether the BG supports it or not is a contentious issue discussing which, I guess, will lead to dialectic over the basic philosophical axioms; and which perhaps will spoil the weather of this list. Since my original question was answered, I shall leave this thread here with some counterpoins and await your detailed analysis and Sri Chari's book.

It is surprising to find that the 15.16's axara purusha is made out to be the Jiva, when the Uttama purusha himself states in no uncertain terms that 'ksharaH sarvANi bhUtAni'. It is not possible to make this phrase 'sarvANi bhUtAni' out to the material/matter of this world, for, in many other instances in the Gita itself, this phrase is used to denote sentient beings (for example in 18.61, 'sarvANi bhUtAni' should refer to the sentient beings as the words 'hriddeshe' and 'bhrAmayan' are inapplicable for insentient matter). Also, that Jiva is not imperishable per se cannot be a justification to classify it as 'axara', for one even prakriti does not have 'svarUpa' destruction (there are 2 other reasons atleast).
Similarity of adjectives does not prove much; the same set of adjectives can refer to multiple entities.

That the 6 chapters refer to Jivopasana is quite new (atleast to me). IMHO, it looks more like how Jiva should do his upAsana rather than how Jiva should be upAsanA'ed (which is the subject of 12.01 according to Sri Ramanuja). The phrases quoted such as 'macchitta', 'matparaH', support such a view only. Also notable is that while stressing about the importance of Karma-sanga-tyAga, jnAna et al, i.e., the behavior of sthitaprajna, the relation of such acts with Lord is also mentioned (eshhaa braahmii sthiti.. mayi sarvANi karmANi and others). Thus, there is only a mention of how jiva himself should conduct itself; that too in relation with Lord. There is no mention of how Jiva should worship himself.
Honestly I don't still understand what this jIvopAsana is. If it constitutes the meditation as mentioned in 6.29, the very next verse makes it clear who this 'Atma' is. Despite that how can one construe Atma as the Jiva? Moreover, what is there in the Jiva to be meditated upon? All qualities such as 'achchedyatva', 'avyaktatva' etc are all because of the Lord (See 9.04 for example). Secondly, where is it mentioned that meditation on these qualities as possessed by the Jiva bestow moxa? That 'I' principle is more readily available is no good reason; there are things more easily available.

I refer you to BNK Sharma's review, published in BNKS' English Translation of Madhva's Gita Bhashya, of Prof.Robert(Roger?) Minor's article on Gita. It summarizes better than the book by Dr.S.K.Bhavani.

That Upasana of Lakshmi is a foreign concept to Gita can be concluded only if it is forgotten that she is equated to chitprakriti (of Madhvacharya's system). The two prakritis mentioned in 7.4 and 7.5 are jaDa and chit prakriti (9.10 refers to a prakriti as if it is a sentient being), according to Sri Madhvacharya. This is unlike Sri Ramanuja, who interprets 'prakriti' as 'nature'. IMO, this interpretation that talks of Lord as having two svabhAvas, lower and higher, not only corrupts His homogeneity but also makes the next verse vague: If everything fits in or is His nature, what is the big deal in claiming that there is nothing higher to Him, whatsoever? Moreover, in statements involving prakriti, it is clear that the Lord is talking of an entity different from Him and inferior to Him (mayAdhyaksheNa). The word 'me' in 7.4-5 meaning 'mine' can simply imply that both these prakritis belong to Him just like when I say 'this is my pen', the pen belongs to me. 

Your comments on the Advaita's interpretation are from a perspective outside the advaita system. Whether BG supports advaita or not is a different issue.

My reference to Prabhupaada's "BG as it is" (and not to other works in Chaitanya sampradaya) was in response to your comments on his deviation from Madhva. Regarding the interpretation of 'Atma', even Shankaracharya says that this word refers to Paramatma in his BSB on 3.1.1. Moreover, it is not difficult to derive such an interpretation given the context (For example, look at 6.29 and 6.30). IMO, the resemblances b/w his and Sri Madhva's bhAShya is, to a large extent, coincidental (Also, Prabhupada's interpretation never seems to be aware of Sri Madhva's Gita Tatparya). Whether he has played his 'role' well or not, how he should be judged etc is irrelevant, isn't it?

Regards,
Krishna


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