[Advaita-l] gItA bhaashhya sudhaa bindavaH - 5

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <
uramakrishna at gmail.com> wrote:

> OM shrii gurubhyoH namaH
>
> namaste,
> We continue with the series.
>
> 24. naapi nityaanaam.h akaraNaat.h abhaavaat.h
> pratyavaayabhaavotpattiH\, ##'## naasato vidyate bhaavaH ##'##  iti
> vachanaat.h ##'##  kathaM asataH sajjaayeta' iti cha darshitam.h
> asataH sajjanmapratishhedhaat.h | asataH sadutpattiM bruvataa asadeva
> sadbhavet.h\, sa cha api asat.h bhavet.h ityuktaM syaat.h | taccha
> ayuktam.h sarvapramANavirodhaat.h | na cha nishhphalaM vidadhyaat.h
> karma shaastram.h\, duHkhasvarUpatvaat.h\, duHkhasya cha
> buddhipuurvakatayaa kaaryatvaanupapatteH | tadakaraNe cha
> narakapaataabhyupagamaat.h anarthaayaiiva ubhayathaa api karaNe cha
> akaraNe cha shaastraM nishhphalaM kalpitaM syaat.h || 4.18 ||
>
> ##Nor can any evil, which is an entity, arise from the non-performance
> of nityakarmas, which is an non-entity, for there is the statement,
> "Of the unreal, there is no non-being"2.16, and (in the Upanishad) it
> has been pointed out, "How can existence originate from
> non-existence?" (Ch. 4.2.2).  Since emergence of the existent from the
> nonexistent has been denied, therefore anyone's assertion that the
> existence originates from the nonexistent will amount to saying that a
> non-entity  becomes an entity, and an entity becomes a non-entity. And
> that is not rational because it runs counter to all the means of valid
> knowledge.
>
>
> Further, the scriptures cannot enjoin fruitless actions, they being
> naturally painful; and it is illogical that what is painful should be
> done intentionally. Also, if it is admitted that falling into hell
> results from their non-performace (i.e., of the nityakarmas), the that
> too is surely a source of evil. In either case, whether one undertakes
> them or not, the scriptures will be imagines to be useless. And that
> will be a contradiction with your standpoint when, after holding that
> the nityakarmas are fruitless, you assert that they lead to
> Liberation.##.
>

Bhagavatpada is never tired to point out the illogicality of having a cause
as an non-existent, abhAva entity.  We have shown  another instance of this
in the bhashyam for the third chapter recently.  It is only from a bhAvarUpa
kAraNa can any kArya come.  The KaraNa and kArya need not be ontological
realities; they could be members of the vyavaharika.  Yet, they have to be
bhAvarUpa if they have to have any purpose to serve and a logical status to
understand them.

>
> 25. j~naanavanto.api kechit yathaavat.h tattvadarshanashiilaaH\, apare
> na \; ato vishinashhTi tattvadarshinaH iti| ye samyagdarshinaH taiH
> upadishhTaM j~naanaM kaaryaxamaM bhavati netarat.h iti bhagavato
> matam.h || 4.34 ||
>
>
> ##Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know the Truth
> just as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification,
> "who have realized the Truth". The considered view of the Lord is that
> Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes
> effective, not any other.##
>
>
Here a distinction  is made between jnAnam and vijnAnam; the former being
the knowledge as obtained from the ShAstram and Acharya and the latter being
the outcome of assimilation of the knowledge.  When the scripture says the
Guru is to be a 'shrotriya brahmaniShTha', it means the presence of the two:
Shaastra teaching *and* the one had on the experiencing the teaching,
assimilation of the teaching.  It is such a Guru who has the personal
experience, aparoksha sAkShAtkAra, a 'tattva dasrshi', that can deliver the
liberating knowledge to a seeker. Sri Krishna uses this term in yet another
place in the Gita:
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः।।2.16।।
Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the
nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

PUjya Swami Paramarthananda calls 'jnAnam and vijnAnam' as 'information and
transformation' respectively.  The former is fruitful only when the latter
is had.  And the one who has the latter alone can most effectively
communicate it to the seeker.  The Kathopanishat too stresses this point:

न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष
सुविज्ञेयो बहुधा चिन्त्यमानः ।
अनन्यप्रोकेते गतिरत्र नास्ति
अणीयान्ह्यतर्क्यमणुप्रमाणात् ॥ 1.2.8

[Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not easily comprehended,
because It is diversely regarded by disputants. But when It is taught by him
who has become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt about It.
Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not to be known through argument. ]

Pl. also see Shankaracharya's commentary to the above mantra for finer
insights into the topic.

Om Tat Sat
subbu


>
> bhava Sankara deshika me sharaNaM
> (To be continued.)
> Ramakrishna
>