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

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Shrisha Rao wrote:

> 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!

Oh my God, that was a terrible grammatical lapse indeed!  Yes "He" refers 
to the non-tapasvi not to Shankaracharya.   Thanks.

>  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.
>

Well I see it slightly differently.  See below.

> 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).
>

Incidently I take AtmaprashaMsAdidoshhAdhyAropeNa to refer to Krishna 
Bhagavan.  The unqualified person isn't full of self-praise, he thinks 
Krishna Bhagavan is just out to praise himself.  In other words his sin is 
that he is projecting (Adhyaropa) defects onto the defectless Lord.

> 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.

The reason I put it the way I did is to be found in the bhashya 
immediately after this part.  Shankaracharya says:

...tatra medhavine tapasvine va iti anayoH vikalpadarShanAt
shuShrUShAbhaktiyuktAya tapasvine tadyuktAya medhAvine vA vAchyam |

"On that, 'to a wise man or a tapasvi' mentioned in another text shows that 
there is an option between a tapasvi who is endowed with devotion and faith
or a wise man who is also endowed with those."

And in case we didn't get the point:

shuShrUShAbhaktiviyuktAya na tapasvine nApi medhAvine vA vAchyam |

"Neither the tapasvi nor the wise man who is without devotion and faith 
[should be taught the Gita]"

So assuming tapas = karma and medhA = GYAna (which I think is what 
Shankaracharya is getting at here.  I don't know where the quote is from.) 
it is possible to practice them independently but bhakti should be the 
foundation of both.  If it isn't then the prospective student of the 
Gita is ineligible regardless of other qualifications.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>