Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: 'Akshara' etc. in the BhG

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna K • April 5, 2002 


Dear Sri Martin,

I have tried replying to your comments; IMHO, any further comments will get to dialectic over 'sharIri-sharIra' bhAva and related concepts, which I don't know well. Since the moderator is yet to show his approval or otherwise, I shall post this with the promise that further communication will be off the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Gansten [mailto:Martin.Gansten@teol.lu.se]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:31 PM

> Dear Krishna,

> As you yourself point out, 'similarity of adjectives does not prove much'.
> The fundamental meaning of 'bhuta' is that which has come into being or
> been created; and this may refer to sentient as well as insentient
> entities. The BhG in at least one place (7.6) defines 'bhuta' as a
> combination of the two (etadyonini bhutani...). 

The referrent (etad) is the second prakriti, who is said to be yonIni of 'sarvANi bhUtAni'; note the change of numbers; 'etad' is singular, 'jIvabhUtaM' is singular; while 'sarvANi bhUtAni' isn't. Moreover, isn't it against plain experience that the Jiva cannot be the referrent in 'yayA idaM dhAryate jagat' (by which this world is held) ?

In what other places in Gita is 'sarvANi bhUtAni' (or similar phrase) used to refer to insentient matter? 

****
In 15.16-18, the word is  certainly used to denote either 'creatures' in the empirical sense (i.e., > bodies) or material elements (mahabhuta), as it would go absolutely against > the grain of the text -- and, indeed, of all vedantic texts -- to describe > the self as destructible (kshara). Matter, as you rightly point out, is not
> really destructible either; but it forms are, in contrast to the self.
> 
*****
Just as the tone of 'destruction' is reduced by saying that it is not matter itself, 'forms of matter' that are destructible, one can easily that the bodies that the Jivas take are destructible. In any case, the Jiva's linga deha is not destroyed till moxa. Since Jivas always have some body or the other, prior to moxa, and whose bodies are destructible, they can be called 'kshara'. 
This would go more 'with' the grain of BG and Vedanta because the multiplicity matches ('ksharaH sarvANi bhUtAni') unlike the singular used for axara.

***********
> On the other hand, while a single adjective may be used to refer to
> different entities, a long list of identical or near-identical attributes > narrows the scope considerably. 'The dark one' may refer to any number of > persons; 'the dark, four-armed, yellow-robed, discus-holding, > serpent-resting one' not so... The epithets in 2.24-25 and 12.3 are surely > too similar to leave an unprejudiced mind in doubt of their common 
***********
IMO, an unprejudiced mind would reason it out like this:

Till one comes to 15.16, the adjectives 'avyakta', 'achChedya', 'axara' et al are known as applicable to the Jiva and the Lord. Then, the Lord calls 'kUTastha' as 'axara'. Definitely, paramatma is not this kUTastha. Either it has to be a jIva or a new entity. Now, depending on what 'kshara' can mean, either it will be a jIva or a new entity. 

The Lord says that 'kshara' = 'sarvANi bhUtAni'. It cannot mean 'Matter' because 
(1) the context is regarding 'purushau' (about the two kinds of purusha). By no means can matter be called as purusha.
(2) Generally and in Vedanta, this phrase means "Beings" (unless the context demands otherwise).
(3) Had this phrase meant 'matter', many verses in Gita would not make sense, where the referrent of this phrase, have some area called 'hriddeshe' and is subject to delusion.
Thus, this phrase means 'all beings' only. This implies that 'axara' mentioned must be an entity, different from Jiva and Uttama purusha. 

********
> referent. To describe the self as akshara, and as the object of 
> meditation,
> is more in keeping with the tenor of the BhG than reading references to Sri
> and her worship into the text (where they are never mentioned).
********
Which verse unambiguously indicates that the Jiva should be meditated upon? Hope the difference between 'meditation on the Jiva' and 'sAdhana of jIva' is maintained. Pls answer these questions (ref my earlier mail).

The tenor of Gita can be decided only after the purport is understood well. As mentioned earlier, 7.5 is a proof that the Sritattva is one of the subjects of Gita. And such verses where 'prakriti' is referred as if it is a sentient being (vis-a-vis where it is referred as insentient also: 13th chapter, 14.3-5) support it. 

Another point to note is that 7.21 and 9.23 clarify that worship of other devatas is grades less than the worship of the Lord. Despite that, Arjuna's wanting to know which of Paramatma upAsana and X-upAsana would be redundant if X is any other jIva like the devatas; unless such is corroborated in the shrutis; hence the references to shrutis which speak of obtaining moxa on Lakshmi's upAsana. Sri Madhvacharya makes a point here, but this is not the place to discuss that :-)

I found your mail on the yahoo groups site; it didn't reach my inbox. Is this an old problem with yahoo groups?

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/