[Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sangeerth ji,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 2:20 PM Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> I am herewith attaching the questions asked from the purvapaksha from
> Vishishtadvaita Darshana for the Gita sloka-
>
> न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।
> न चैव नभविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥ १२ ॥
> Here I am attaching the link
> <
> https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=2&field_nsutra_value=12&scsh=1&scram=1&scvv=1
> >
> which
> will display the commentaries of both Sri Ramanujar (Gita Bashya[GB]) and
> Swami Vedanta Desikar's (Gita Bashya Tatparya Chandrika[TC]).
>
> Now moving to Ramanuja's and Desikar's arguments:
>
>    1. अज्ञानमोहितं प्रति तन्निवृत्तये
>    पारमार्थिकनित्यत्वोपदेशसमयेअहम्त्वम्इमेसर्वेवयम् इति
> व्यपदेशात्।-[GB-2-12]
>    1. In this line Ramanujar clearly tells that this is the time of advice
>       (all the acharyas atleast to the least knowledge which I have,
> had accepted
>       to the fact that the Gita shastra has come to remove the
> delusion). During
>       this time of advice, Krishna teaches him using the specific words - I
>       (aham), you (tvam), these (ime), we all (vayam) have been used.
> This bedha
>       is *पारमार्थिक*.
>
Bhagavan Krishna talks about many things, not everything is pAramArthika.
If he says karma has to be done, you are born as a kShatrIya, etc, then he
would be not talking of Atma, be it many, as being born, which is
unacceptable to all Astika darshanas. In Mimamsa, context is also
important. So, pArmArthika is the end goal, all teaching should lead there,
else there would be no need for 17 chapters of teaching. The Bhagavadgita
unfolds based on Arjuna's mind.


>       2. I think this is the reply which he wants to give to Adishankara
>       who in his Gita bashya tells देहेभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनं
> नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण।
>       (the multiplicity is told because of beda in the deha and not
> the atma beda)
>
because of anuvRtti of dehabheda, meaning it is already assumed by Arjuna.
He thinks so, and therefore, the teaching has to begin with that
assumption. All teaching does such hand-holding as per the level of the
shiShya.


>       3. So Ramanujar point, to my understanding is that if the
>       multiplicity is told for the deha, and in the case of Advaita
> paksha, the
>       upadhi deha itself is false(अतात्त्विकत्वेन), then showing the
> beda is not
>       apt. (तत्त्वोपदेशसमये भेदनिर्देशो न संगच्छते)
>
As above, although tattvopadesha is ongoing, it is not without a prakriyA.
Advaita Vedanta considers the anuvAda of already known as adhyAropa and
then the apavAda is the onset of the teaching that leads to paramArtha
advaita.  Bhagavan Gaudapadacharya says:
मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा ।
उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन ॥


>       4. Ramanujar provides pramana from the Swetashvatara Upanishad -
>       नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान्। (श्वेता0
>       6।13). This sentence is clearly mentioning about paramarthika beda
> and
>       Adisankara's vada contradicts to this Shruti.  You can also refer to
>       Ramanujar's Vedanta Sangraha (Aphorism-81)
>       2. अथ परमपुरुषस्य अधिगताद्वैतज्ञानस्य बाधितानुवृत्तिरूपम् इदं
>    भेदज्ञानं दग्धपटादिवत् न बन्धकम् इति उच्येत न एतद् उपपद्यते-[GB-2-12]
>    1. Here Desikar poses a valid question that If Krishna has attained this
>       knowledge by hearing or seeing? He says in both the cases Krishna
> having
>       attained Advaitic jnana is not apt because, if the person is able to
> see
>       some beda then doesn't it mean that he has attained the Advaitic
> jnana.
>       2. In this case Ramanuja gives an Advaitic Purvapakshi on the
>       standpoint of *Badhitaanuvruti*.
>       3. But Ramanujar argues that If one sees a mirage and now, he
>       understands that it's not a mirage then he will not take any
> action to get
>       the water from the mirage. But in case of Krishna, if Krishna is
> said to
>       have attained the Advaitic knowledge by hearing or seeing then
> Krishna
>       should not have advised because, if he takes an action then it means
> that
>       he has not understood abheda and then Krishna will become ineligible
> for
>       giving this advise which in any way is not true as per Advaitins.
>
badhitAnuvRtti is sadly misunderstood here. The example of sunrise and
sunset is bAdhitAunvRtti. Just because you know that sun neither rises nor
sets doesn't mean that you will stop saying sunrise or sunset. Another
example that advaita gives is bharjitabIjavat. Like a roasted seed doesn't
germinate but provide bhoga, similarly bAdhitAnuvRtti of ajnAna causes no
bondage, but results in prArabdhabhoga.( In this case, what is Krishna's
prArabdha? It is that which is common to avatAras, that is,
samaShTiprArabdha as puNyaphala and pApaphala of many).



>       4. What i felt was that Ramanujar asks questions to the Advaitins
>       that *Vyavahara *must be in accordance with *Tatvanishchaya *and not
>       two different things.
>

As above.

      3. किं च परमपुरुषश्च इदानीन्तनगुरुपरम्परा च अद्वितीयात्मस्वरूपनिश्चये
>    सति अनुवर्तमाने अपि भेदज्ञाने स्वनिश्चयानुरूपम् अद्वितीयम् आत्मज्ञानं
> कस्मै
>    उपदिशति इति वक्तव्यम्।-[GB-2-12]
>    1. He gives multiple examples
>       1. He goes to the level of asking to whom Krishna will teach if the
>       teacher has got Advaita Jnana. If one says that he is teaching to
> his own
>       reflection (प्रतिबिम्बवत्प्रतीयमानेभ्यः) मणिकृपाणदर्पणादिषु
> logic cannot be
>       applied here is what Ramanujar states.
>
विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत कल्पितो यदि केनचित् । उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न
विद्यते says Bhagavan Karikakara Gaudapadacharya, which is elaborated in
bhAShya so: अत उपदेशादयं वादः — शिष्यः शास्ता शास्त्रमिति । उपदेशकार्ये तु
ज्ञाने निर्वृत्ते ज्ञाते परमार्थतत्त्वे, द्वैतं न विद्यते ॥ It is all a
prakriyA for teaching, an assumed bheda till the so-called shiShya gets
jnAna from the so-called Acharya, based on so-called shAstra. jnAte dvaitaM
na vidyate.



>       2. Karana (Dosha) and Karya (Branti) - this karanakarya bhava cannot
>       be applied to Krishnar.
>       3. द्विचन्द्रज्ञानादौ- A person if he has an eye problem and sees 2
>       moons and get a knowledge from his teacher that only one moon exist,
>       because of this knowledge his eye disease will not be cured. If this
>       example is true then Ramanujar points out *Bedhabrama (*wrong
>       knowledge*) *and *Bhedabramabadaka*(knowledge of no multiplicity)
>       will come to picture and say previously I had a wrong knowledge and
> now I
>       have a correct knowledge, then there is one another truth apart from
>       Brahman which is this Bhedabramabadaka jnana which is second to
> Brahman and
>       Advaita does not give place to this.
>
countless mithyA, kalpita, imagined bheda cannot compromise advaita. A
dreamer sees so many living beings and things in a dream, interacts with
them, but he is still a single waker, uncompromised! svapnavat mithyA. All
kAryakAraNabhAva is also in the mithyA category only, doesn't compromise
advaita, the only abAdhita satya.



>       4. If these jnana are there for Krishna then he will not a an
>       eligible person for Upadesha. And if this bedha is not there then
> Krishna
>       should not have given advised because then it will raise a
> question of whom
>       is Krishna advising to? This is dealt greatly by Desikan
>
As above. All these are not separate Qs as thought by Vishishtadvaitins,
all are already answered in answering the first category of objections. The
rest stand resolved therein itself.


>       4. गुरुः तज्ज्ञानं च कल्पितम् इति चेत् शिष्यतज्ज्ञानयोः अपि
>    कल्पितत्वात् तदपि अनिवर्त्तकम्।-[GB-2-12]
>    1. If Krishna is giving advice as guru, imagining a Jagat as in dream,
>       then also this logic can be applied to the student as well that
> the student
>       is there in the dream and the dream can collapse anytime and let him
> come
>       out of the dream anytime and removing the need for Upadesha.
>
You can't come out of the dream by your choice till prArabdha in jAgRt
starts ticking. Similarly, just because one wakes up doesn't mean he will
not dream again. The upadesha is to make sure that the shiShya doesn't get
into this dream of janma again. The example goes only thus far.


> To whatever I understood from their commentary I have jotted a few points
> here. Please feel free to point out my mistake in their understanding. The
> main purpose of listing these are as
>
>    1.  To get an idea of how the Advaitins as Uttarapaksha reply to these
>    Purvapaksha replied by Ramanujar and Desikar.
>    2. Does Shankara himself reply to these questions asked by Ramanuja and
>    Desikar, in any of his granthas beforehand only. If yes, please attach
>    references.
>    3. What is the reply of the acharyas post-Shankara. Give references
>

The above three are answered somewhat above individually inline. As for the
4th below...

   4. I would like to specifically here if Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi takes
>    any of these pakshas and discuss in his granthas as he himself is from a
>    SriVaishnava family. Give references.
>
> ...
I assume you know Sanskrit, so I am just copy-pasting the same. The
bhAvArtha is the same as responded to above, but details vary, especially
with the section that begins at the end of the following, responding to 2nd
AkShepa.

अथ यच्चात्र रामानुजेनोक्तम् — एवं भगवतस्सर्वेश्वरादात्मनां च परस्परं भेदः
पारमार्थिक
इति भगवतैवोक्तमिति प्रतीयते - अज्ञानमोहितं प्रति तन्निवृत्तये
पारमार्थिकनित्यत्वोपदेशसमये अहं
त्वमिमे सर्वे वयमिति व्यपदेशात् । औपाधिकभेदवादे
ह्यात्मभेदस्यातात्त्विकत्वेन तत्त्वोपदेशसमये
भेदनिर्देशो न सङ्गच्चत इति, तच्चासत्— भीष्मादीननित्यत्वेन
शोच्यान्मन्यमानायार्जुनाय तावन्न ते
भीष्मादयश्शोच्या नित्यत्वादित्येतावदेव तावदुपदेष्टुमुचितं कृष्णस्य, न
त्वात्मैकत्वम् !


तद्धि कृष्ण-
स्स्वयं पश्चादुपदेक्ष्यति - 'अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं तत'
मित्यादिना । वक्ष्यति च तत्र
रामानुजो गत्यभावाज्जात्येकत्वमपि । यदि कृष्णस्यात्मभेद एव वास्तव
इत्यभिप्रायस्तर्हि - 'अनाशिनस्तु
'तान्विद्धि यैस्सर्वमिदमावृत' मित्येवावक्ष्यत् ।
किं चात्मनामनेकत्वे तत्तद्देहावच्छिन्नत्वेन सर्वव्यापकत्वमेव माभूत् नहि
चैत्रेणात्मना मैत्रदेहो
व्याप्तो दृश्यते - चैत्रात्मनो मैत्रदेहसुखदुःखाद्यनुभवाभावात् ।
ततद्देहाद्यनवच्छिन्नस्त्वात्मा सर्वव्यापक
एक एव तद्भेदकाभावात् । यदि त्यादिना शीति श्लोकः परमात्मानं ब्रूत
इत्युच्येत, तर्हि सर्वव्यापकः
परमात्मैवाविनाशी न त्वात्मानः- ते हि परिच्छिन्नत्वाद्धादिवदनित्या एवेति
महदिदमनिष्टमापतितम् ।
तस्मान्न त्वेनाहमितिश्लोके आत्मभेद, अविनाशीतिश्लोके आत्माभेदं च प्रतिपादयतः
कृष्णस्याशयः
आत्मन औपाधिक एव भेदः, नतु तात्त्विक इत्येवंरूप एवेति सुखेन निश्चीयते
विद्वद्भिः ।


तत्त्वोपदेशसमयेऽप्यौपाधिकं भेदमनूद्यैव पारमार्थिकाऽभेदो बोधनीय इति
नानुवादमात्रेण
भेदस्य पारमार्थिकत्वम् । कृष्ण इत्यर्जुन इति नराधिपा इति च व्यवह्रियमाणाः
सर्वे वयं अविनाशि
तद्ब्रह्मैव- 'येन सर्वमिदं तत मिति हि श्लोकद्वयस्यैकवाक्यार्थः ।
तस्मात्सर्वव्यापकस्य नित्यस्यात्मनो
भेदकाभावान्नास्ति पारमार्थिक आत्मभेद:- भेदकानां सर्वेषामप्यात्मनैव
व्याप्तत्वात् । व्यवहारतस्तु
कल्पितोऽस्त्यात्मभेद आकाशभेदवदिति ।


अथ यदप्युक्तं रामानुजेन - शङ्करमते ग्रन्थारम्भ एव न सम्भवति परमपुरुषस्य
परमार्थदृष्टे -
निर्विशेषकूटस्थ नित्य चैतन्यात्मयाथात्म्यसाक्षात्कारान्निवृत्त /
ज्ञानतत्कार्यतया अज्ञानकृतभेददर्शनं तन्मूलोप-
देशादिव्यवहाराश्च न सङ्गच्छन्त इति, तदपि मन्दम् —

The section is quite long. Pls refer to it for more details and response to
all Ramanujiya Qs.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */