[Advaita-l] gItA bhaashhya sudhaa bindavaH - 14

[Ramakrishna Upadrasta]

OM shrii sha~nkaraachaaryavaryaaya namaH
OM shrii gurubhyo namaH

namaste,

We continue with the series.

38. idaM cha anyat.h paaNDityaM keshhaaMchit.h astu -- xetraj~naH
iishvara eva | xetraM cha anyat.h xetraj~nasyaiva vishhayaH | ahaM tu
saMsaarii sukhii duHkhii cha | saMsaaroparamashcha mama kartavyaH
xetraxetravij~naanena\, dhyaanena cha iishvaraM xetraj~naM
saaxaatkR^itvaa tatsvaruupaavasthaaneneti | yashcha evaM budhyate\,
yashcha bodhayati\, naasau xetraj~naH iti | evaM manvaanaH yaH saH
paNDitaapasadaH\, saMsaaramoxayoH shaastrasya cha arthavattvaM
karomiiti\; aatmahaa svayaM muuDhaH anyaaMshcha vyaamohayati
shaastraarthasaMpradaayarahitatvaat.h shrutahaanim.h ashrutakalpanaaM
cha kurvan.h | tasmaat.h asaMpradaayavidapi sarvashaastravidapi
muurkhavadeva upexayaNiiyaH ||13.2||


##Some may have this other kind of learnedness: "The Knower of the
field is God Himself; and the field is something different and an
object of knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane
being, happy and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the
cessation of worldly existence through the knowledge of the field and
the Knower of the field, and by continuing to dwell in His true nature
after directly perceiving through meditation God, the Knower of the
field." And he who understands this, he who teaches that 'he (the
taught) is not the knower of the field,' and he who, being under such
an idea, thinks, 'I shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing
with the worldly state and Liberation' -- is the meanest among the
learned. That Self-immolator, being devoid of any link with the
traditional interpreters of the purport of the scriptures,
misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and imagines what is
not spoken there, and thereby himself becoming deluded, befools others
too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the traditional interpretation
is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be versed in all the
scriptures.##


39. atra aaha -- saa avidyaa kasya iti | yasya dR^ishyate tasya eva |
kasya dR^ishyate iti | atra uchyate -- ##'## avidyaa kasya
dR^ishyate\?##'##  iti prashnaH nirarthakaH | katham.h\?  dR^ishyate
chet.h avidyaa\, tadvantamapi pashyasi | na cha tadvati upalabhyamaane
##'## saa kasya ##'## iti prashno yuktaH | na hi gomati upalabhyamaane
##'## gaavaH kasya\?##'## iti prashnaH arthavaan.h bhavati | nanu
vishhamo dR^ishhTaantaH | gavaaM tadvatashcha pratyaxatvaat.h
tatsaMbandho.api pratyaxa iti prashno nirarthakaH | na tathaa avidyaa
tadvaaMshcha pratyaxau\, yataH prashnaH nirarthakaH syaat.h |
apratyaxeNa avidyaavataa avidyaasaMbandhe j~naate\, kiM tava syaat.h
\?  avidyaayaaH anarthahetutvaat.h parihartavyaa syaat.h | yasya
avidyaa\, saH taaM pariharishhyati | nanu mamaiva avidyaa | jaanaasi
tarhi avidyaaM tadvantaM cha aatmaanam.h ||13.2||


##Here, (the opponent) asks: to whom does ignorance belong?

(The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced!

Objection: In whom is it perceived?

Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is
ignorance experienced?'

Objection: How?

Reply: If ignorance be perceived by (you), then you perceive its
possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is
perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For
when an owner of cattle is seen, the question, 'To whom do the cattle
belong', does not become meaningful.

Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since the cattle
and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is
directly perceived. Hence the question is meaningless. Ignorance and
its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case
the question would have been meaningless.

Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of
ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of
ignorance?

Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, thefore it should be got rid of.

Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it!

Opponent: Indeed ignorance belongs to myself.

Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also youself who possess it?
##


(To be continued.)
namaami bahagavadpaada sha~nkaraM loka sha~nkaraM
Ramakrishna