Translation Series - Gita Bhashya - Introduction 3/3
srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM
Fri Oct 4 17:03:36 CDT 2002
Hari Om !!
--- Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Third of the three-part set on the introductory
> chapter in the Gita
> Posted on August 21, 2002, 6:50 pm, Pacific Standard
> Time by Vidyasankar
> Text -
> tasya asya giitaashaastrasya sa.nxepataH prayojanaM
> paraM niHshreyasaM
> sahetukasya sa.nsaarasya atyantoparamalaxaNam.h .
> tachcha sarvakarma-
> sa.nnyaasapuurvakaat.h aatmaGYaananiShThaaruupaat.h
> dharmaat.h bhavati .
> tathaa imaM eva giitaarthaM dharmaM uddishya
> bhagavataa eva uktam.h -
> "sa hi dharmaH suparyaapto brahmaNaH padavedane" iti
> anugiitaasu .
> tatraiva cha uktam.h - "naiva dharmii na chaadharmii
> na chaiva hi
> shubhaashubhii," "yaH syaadekaayane liinaH tuuShNiiM
> "GYaanaM sa.nnyaasalaxaNam.h" iti cha . ihaapi cha
> ante uktaM arjunaaya -
> "sarvadharmaan.h pariytajya maamekaM sharaNaM vraja"
> iti .
> Translation -
> The ultimate goal of the teaching of the Gita is the
> highest good
> which is liberation from transmigratory existence
> and its cause. This comes
> from the dharma of abiding in Self-knowledge,
> preceded by the renunciation
> all works (sarvakarma-sa.nnyaasa).
Here, as 'sarvakarmasanyAsa' and 'AtmajnAnanishtA' are
referred in the same case, should it not mean that
'the nihsrEyasa' has same relationship with
'sarvakarmasanyAsa', just like 'AtmajAnanishta', and
not exactly in the sense of 'preceding' ? These two
words seem to qualify 'Dharma' equally.
What more is there to derive as an 'effect' than being
able to renounce all karma and abiding in the self ?
So, should we not simply say, "That nihsrEyasa, is of
the form/type of Dharma/swabhava, which is full of
sarvakarmasanyAsa and is in the form of
Does 'samxEpataH' mean 'ultimate' ? or 'concise or
>Referring to this
> dharma taught in the
> it is said by the Lord Himself in the Anugita ,
> "This dharma is all that
> one needs, to know brahman." (MBh 14.16.12).
> same text, it is said,
> "Neither actively pursuing the law, nor by being
> lawless pursuing neither
> nor evil" (MBh 14.19.7)
Q: Are (1) and (2) not contradicing each other ? In
the first place, following 'dharma' is said to be
'paryapta' and in second quota it says that by
'follower of dharma or follower of adharma etc. ' is
not sufficiently equipped to know 'Brahman'.
Possibly should this mean that in quote (1) nihsrEyasa
dharma is meant and in the second quote living as per
smrithis with pravritti or against the directives of
the smrithi is meant.
Also, from the tone and sequence of the words 'dharmi,
adharmi, and subhasubhi, should we not infer that
'subhasubhi' should mean who does mixed subha and
asubha i.e dharma + adharma (as per smriti directives.
(In contrast to 'pursuing neither good nor evil');
all being not in the domain of 'nihsreyasa' (but in
pravritti domain) which is characterised by sarvakarma
sanyAsa' and 'AtmajAnanishta' and not of any 'dharmic
or adharmic activity' (I do not know the context in
; "He who is firmly
> grounded, silent, thinking no
> thoughts (MBh 14.19.9);
Q: what do 'tUshnEm' 'leenaH' mean separately in the
above sentence ?
>and "Knowledge is
> characteric of renunciation
> In the Gita itself, in the end, Arjuna is told,
> "Renouncing everything,
> to Me alone" (BhG 18.66).
for what ? .. for jnAna. Here also, it does not show
renunciation (or dharma endowed with renunciation) as
the cause of 'niHshreyasa'. Please see my first
I do not know if my (this type of ) questioning on
your posts in this way is acceptable or not. If not,
please let me know and I will desist.
Om Namo Narayanaya !!
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list