[Advaita-l] Re: BGBh and yoga - yama-niyama - II

[Shrisha Rao]

I tried sending this once previously but it did not appear.  My apologies
if this is a duplicate. -- SR

On Thu May 12, 2005, Jaldhar Vyas wrote:

> idaM te nAtapaskAya nAbhaktAya kadAchana |
> na chAshushrUShave vAchyaM na cha mAM yo.abhsUyati || 67 ||
>
> "This [gita] you should not ever teach to one who is not a tapasvi,
> not a bhakta, does not want to listen and does not recognize me."
>
> Shankaracharya explains such as person as one who is
> without faith in Guru and God.  He believes that Vasudeva [Krishna]
> is a mortal man with faults, and does not recognize his divine
> nature.  Such a person should not be taught the Gita.  Even if the
> speaker had the best of intentions, it would be undvegakara to speak
> about such things to such an obviously unreceptive audience.

I'm sure you had the right meaning in mind, but as you have stated it
would appear that Sankara himself believed that Krishna was a mortal with
faults!  Furthermore, upon reading the bhAshhya it is evident that the
commentator is not taking a position saying that one without devotion in
Guru and Bhagavan also lacks knowledge of Bhagavan's divinity.

Rather, the commentator holds these as separate, in the following manner:

1> one must not discuss the intimate teachings of the 'Gita with one who
is not a tapasvI, i.e., not given to austerities (atapaskAya, taporihitAya
na vachyam.h);

2> even a tapasvI who lacks bhakti in Guru and Bhagavan is not a candidate
under any circumstances (tapasvine.api abhaktAya gurau deve cha
bhaktirahitAya kadAchana kasyAJNchidapi avasthAyAM na vAchyam.h);

3> one who is a tapasvI and a bhakta also, but not "nurturing" is not a
candidate either (bhaktaH tapasvI api san.h ashushrUshhuH yo bhavati
tasmai api na vAchyam.h);

4> finally, one who does not recognize the divine nature of Vasudeva
(Krishna) and regards Him as a mortal human on account of (his own) flaws
such as self-praise, and is ignorant and intolerant of His nature of
Lordship, even such a person is unqualified and with him one must not
discuss these matters (na cha yo mAM vAsudevaM prAkR^itaM manushhyaM matvA
abhyasUyati, AtmaprashaMsAdidoshhAdhyAropeNa IshvaratvaM mama ajAnan.h na
sahate, asAvapi ayogyaH, tasmai api na vAchyam.h).

The commentator concludes that a person who is cognizant of the Lordship
of Bhagavan, who is a tapasvI, a bhakta, and a shushrUshhu, to him this
shaastra is to be stated/given: bhagavati anasUyAyuktAya, tapasvine,
bhaktAya, shushrUshhave vAchyaM shAstram.h -- iti.

Therefore, there are separate cases of disqualification, and lack of
devotion is not automatically considered to imply something else, etc.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao