Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: 'Akshara' etc. in the BhG

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna K • April 8, 2002 


--- In bhakti-list@y..., Martin Gansten  wrote:

I didn't intend to reply on this thread, but a look at Sri Ramanuja's commentary on 15.16 seemed relevant here; hence the response.

> This is not correct. Etadyoni- is an adjective compound (bahuvrihi-samasa),
...
> guruH depending on the context. The number, therefore, must be decided from
> the context.

Thanks for the above correction. However the point re multiplicity still remains. That 'jIvabhUtAM' is in singular is still answered. One has two ways of replying; that the referrent is either (i) the collective or (ii) the abstract entity 'jIva'. If the former, it is against one's experience that the collective of Jivas is the referrent of 'yayA idam dhAryate jagat' (by that which the world is held); if the latter, it is never the case that an abstract entity *supports* concrete stuff. 
Another point, not yet answered, is that if everything is the Lord svabhAva, what's the point in the Lord claiming Himself to be superior to everything else in the next verse?

> To make etad- in BhG 7.6 to refer only to the para-prakriti, you have to
> disregard the context to a degree 

The context in this case is very 'open': anything can be made out of it when the Lord is saying that not many people know *this* knowledge. Each can easily accuse the other of 'violating the text'.

> which I would consider as seriously violating the text (though perhaps 
> not to the extent of the famous ChU
> gloss 'atat tvam asi'!). But enough said. Many meanings can be read into a
> text (eisegesis), and arguments fabricated to support them, if one is not
> content to approach the text on its own terms. If you wish to believe that
> the BhG labels the self 'destructible' (kshara) and introduces Sri as a
> separate tattva under the designation 'purusha' (!), I will not waste my
> time or yours trying to persuade you otherwise.

It is well accepted that scriptures contradict themselves on the face of it (Why, Yudhishthira accepts that in MBh!); that's why each Acharya has given his way of interpretation. It is not possible to get to 'gati sAmAnyAt' (unity of purport of scriptures) without resolving such conflicts. For example, can you accept whatever is mentioned on the face of it in the nAsadIya sUkta? or in 'asadvA idamagra AsIt; tato vai sadajAyata' (Taittariya Up). 
Specific to the Chandogya statement, it is perhaps forgotten that the compound can be split eitherway. Sri Madhva gives his reasons including contextual ones as to why the split should be done as 'atat' (Also, refer to Sri Vyasatirtha's Nyayamrita on this). Btw, I have read that He has even explained the vulgate reading also. Also refer to his commentators on this.

Two points need clarification: 
a. Regarding 'ksharaH sarvANi bhUtAni' of 15.16, as noted earlier, anything existing, be it either matter or jiva, cannot have svarUpa destruction (2.16). Obviously the sense of 'destruction' has to be toned down. You prefer to classify 'matter' as kshara. I have given reasons in my earlier mails why that cannot be and hence classify the jIvas as kshara, whose contact with matter is destructible (in terms of body loss).

b. Regarding Lakshmi being classified as purusha need not be puzzling. All through the Gita, the word purusha is used. (A simple search should yeild many occurences). In most of the cases, it obviously means 'Being'; otherwise the Lord should be accused of being unfavorable to women! Also, Lakshmi is said to be more powerful than any puruSha other than the Lord (ambhraNi/devI sUkta), hence classifying her as 'purushha' is not a problem.

I looked up Sri Ramanuja's commentary on 15.16. Regarding point (a), what he says is different from this: "kshara-purusha == matter or the material aspect of living beings;". According to him : ksharaH cha axara eva cha iti dvau imau puruShau loke prathitau |  tatra xara shabda nirdiShTaH puruSho jIvashabdAbhilipanIya brahmAdistambhaparyantaxaraNasvabhAva *achitsamsR^iShTa sarvabhUtAni...." and "axarashabda nirdiShTaH... muktAtmA", all beings who are yet to be liberated are classified as kshara and all muktas are axara. Thus it is clear that he too sees problems with calling 'matter as kshara', instead classifies 'beings with material contact, which is destructible' as kshara. 
With this intepretation of axara as mukta jIva, the questions would be: (a) Where is mukta-jIvopAsana mentioned? (b) why the singular despite the multiple mentioned for 'ksharaH'? esp when amukta jIvas don't become one on mukti (c) whether mukta or amukta jIvas are mentioned for upAsana, 7.20 and 9.23 clearly put 'upAsana of any other jIva' on a scale lower than that of Paramatma. In that light, isn't Arjuna's question in 12.01 redundant?

For the arguments made by me so far re how Sri's upAsana can be a subject in 12.01 (see 14.3-5), I think a response better than 'Arguments fabricated to support', which looks like a tacit acceptance of lack of answers, is possible. I await Sri Krishna Kashyap's mail.

Regards,
Krishna

[ In this thread, please focus on Sri Ramanuja's interpretation and not
  a defense or attack of Sri Madhva's position. The latter is beyond
  the scope of this email list.  Often Sri Madhva's arguments rely
  on nuances and ingenious usage of grammar, often lending unusual
  meanings to very familiar and straightforward words. Debating such
  involved interpretation is too difficult to do over email. 
  Thanks. -- Moderator ]


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