[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 47, Issue 4

[shankar narayanan]

Dear Kashyap,I have Atma Vidya Vilasam with me . You
can take a xerox and give it to me..I too stay in
Bangalore..

You can reach me at 9448460183.

With Love
Shankara Narayanan

--- advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org wrote:

> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
> 	advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 
>
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: bhagavad.h gItA 2.11 (Siva Senani Nori)
>    2. Re: Re: SSS and Madhva (Ravishankar
> Venkatraman)
>    3. Re: bhagavad.h gItA 2.11 (Siva Senani Nori)
>    4. Regarding a book (kashyapa sharma)
>    5. RE: Sringeri and Sureshvara (was Re:
> [Advaita-l] On recent
>       mails the	listhas see (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
>    6. Re: Sringeri and Sureshvara (was Re:
> [Advaita-l] On recent
>       mails	thelisthas see (Stig Lundgren)
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 05:21:47 -0800 (PST)
> From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] bhagavad.h gItA 2.11
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> <117957.83043.qm at web54207.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> Siddhartha gAru, namaskAram!
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy
> <annapureddy at gmail.com>
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 1:37:35 PM
> Subject: [Advaita-l] bhagavad.h gItA 2.11
> 
> 
> praNAm.h All,
>        I have a question on shaN^kara's
> interpretation of bhagavad.h gItA
> 2.11. Thanks in advance.
> 
> First, the verse 2.11 itself:
> ashochyaananvashochastvaM praGYaavaadaa.nshcha
> bhaashhase
> gataasuunagataasuu.nshcha naanushochanti paNDitaaH
> 
> * Let us examine the anvayArtha as well: tvam = you,
> anvaSochah = have grieved, aSocyAn = about those not
> to be grieved for; [and]  bhAshase = talk,
> praj~nAvAdAn ca = the words of the wise; paNDitAh =
> the learned, na = do not, anuSocanti = grieve about,
> gatAsUn = the dead, agatAsUn ca = and the living.
> Meaning: You talk like a wise man, yet grieve about
> those not to be grieved for; the learned do not
> grieve about the dead or the living.
> 
> Ananda tIrtha (madhva) interprets praGYAvAdAMshcha
> as praGYA avAdAMshcha, i.e., Arjuna is speaking
> words not spoken by the wise. Interestingly, the
> Kashmir version of the bhagavad.h gItA commented
> upon by abhinavagupta has "praGYAvat na
> abhibhAShasE" which clearly suggests the same idea.
> 
> * I have seen neither (at the IIT, Kanpur's
> supersite on Gita, SrimanmadhvAcArya's commentary is
> obviously corrupted, and Abhinavagupta is said not
> to have commented on the said Sloka), but yes one
> can read like that as well: You do not talk like a
> wise man and grieve about those not to be grieved
> for; the learned do not grieve about the dead or the
> living. However, note that there are three ways of
> getting that meaning: a) praj~nAvAdAn na bhAshase
> (the most direct version), b) apraj~nAvAdAn bhAshase
> (you talk like the not-learned), and c)praj~nAvatAm
> avAdAn bhAshase (you talk that which is not spoken
> by the learned). The entire style of Bhagavadgita is
> simple and direct, with almost no attention paid to
> sophistication and style in expression; from the
> overall style of Bhagavadgita, I would rather think
> that if the intent were to express that Arjuna does
> not talk like a wise man, a) or b) above would be
> used, rather than the contrived construct of c).
> 
> On the contrary, shaN^kara comments thus: tvaM
> praGYAvAdAn.h praGYAvatAM budhdimatAM vAdAMshcha
> vachanAni cha bhAShasE. tadEtat.h mauDyaM pANDityaM
> cha virudhdaM Atmani darshayasi unmatta iva
> ityabhiprAyaH.
> 
> * Yes, not 'on the contrary', but a few hundred
> years earlier than all the others quoted (at least
> on this list, we must assume what the AchArya says
> to be right, and other views to be contrary).
> 
> Thus, shaN^kara interprets praGYAvAdAMshcha as
> praGYA vAdAMshcha. To try to make sense of what
> shaN^kara intends, we considered the following
> possibilities:
> 
> * Not required, the bhAshya makes clear sense.
> 
> -- shaN^kara intends that shrI kR^iShNa calls arjuna
> a paNDita only in a mocking tone. But that does not
> seem to be the case, since shaN^kara sees both
> mauDyaM and pANDityaM in arjuna. Indeed, only if
> shaN^kara sees both these qualities simultaneously
> can he call arjuna "unmatta iva". Thus, this
> is not what shaN^kara intends.
> 
> * No, the bhagavatpAda indeed sees both pANDityam
> (based on his earlier words upto that stage) and
> mauDhyam of grieving for the not to be grieved for. 
> 
> -- shaN^kara means only worldly wisdom when he uses
> praGYAvatAM, budhdimatAM etc. But this also does not
> seem to be the case given that shaN^kara uses the
> word "pANDityaM darshayasi" for arjuna, and in the
> same paragraph, he goes on to define paNDita as
> "paNDA AtmaviShayA budhdiH yEShAM tE hi paNDitAH".
> Thus, praGYA could not have been used in the sense
> of the worldly
> wise.
> 
> * There are two ways to look at this. pANDityam as
> used in the first instance (in 'tadetat mauDhyam 
> pANDityam ca Atmani darSayasi) cannot mean
> "knowledge of the Self" because in an unmatta, such
> a knowledge of the Self and mauDhyam do not
> co-exist. Why? where there is Atmaj~nAna, how can
> there be mauDhyam? Why will such a j~nAni be an
> unmatta? In the first instance, pANDityam should be
> taken to mean scholarship etc. Only on such a
> reading is the analogy with unmatta apt because such
> a person sometimes speaks profoundly, and at other
> times is deranged. The second way of looking at it
> is, Arjuna is speaking the words of a praj~nAvAn,
> buddhimAn but such praj~nA or buddhi is not firmly
> established in Arjuna, and so even as he speaks the
> words of the learned, grieves about those not to be
> grieved for.
> 
> -- shaN^kara intends that arjuna indeed spoke words
> of wisdom (in the sense of speaking words fit to be
> spoken by an AtmaGYAni). 
> 
> * No, the bhagavatpAda intends that Arjuna spoke
> words fit to be spoken by scholars, not Atmaj~nAnis.
> 
> And Anandagiri commenting on this gives the verse
> "utsanna kuladharmANAM" as an example of
> wise words. But even a cursory look at the context
> in which arjuna speaks these words shows that he
> spoke these words under delusion, almost like one in
> delirium. 
> 
> * No, far from being in delirium, Arjuna has taken
> up imporant aspects of consequences of war and
> dharma: "1. To get the kingdom and pleasures
> thereof, we have to cause the death of the very
> people (friends and relatives) for whose benefit we
> make this war; 2. Even if these dhArtarAshTras are
> AtatAyins, it is pApam to kill them (actually, the
> dharmaSAstras say 'na AtatAyivadhe doshah'); 3.
> kulakshayakritam and mitradroha are pAtakas, which
> others (Duryodhana etc.) might not know, but Arjuna
> clearly knows them; 4. The consequences of
> kulakshayam are a) kuladharmanashTam, b) spread of
> adharma, c) violation of kulastrIs, d)
> varNa-sa~Nkara, e) naraka for those responsible for
> varNa-sa~Nkara, and f) pitri-patanam due to absence
> of piNDa and udaka kriyas. Should we condemn our
> entire kula to eternal misery so that we might enjoy
> kingdom and pleasures?" Arjuna offers to die rather
> than perpetuate such colossal misery on the entire
> kshatriya kula. utsanna kuladharmANam ... narake
>  niyatam vAsah (1-44), means 'to those whose
> kuladharma has been uprooted, the stay in hell is
> eternal.' It is not delirium, but a serious doubt.
> What has taken hold of Arjuna is confusion as to
> what the correct dharma is: svadharma or
> paramdharma, 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?  
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.