[Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

[Sangeerth P]

Namaskaram

I am herewith attaching the questions asked from the purvapaksha from
Vishishtadvaita Darshana for the Gita sloka-

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।
न चैव नभविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥ १२ ॥
Here I am attaching the link
<https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=2&field_nsutra_value=12&scsh=1&scram=1&scvv=1>
which
will display the commentaries of both Sri Ramanujar (Gita Bashya[GB]) and
Swami Vedanta Desikar's (Gita Bashya Tatparya Chandrika[TC]).

Now moving to Ramanuja's and Desikar's arguments:

   1. अज्ञानमोहितं प्रति तन्निवृत्तये
   पारमार्थिकनित्यत्वोपदेशसमयेअहम्त्वम्इमेसर्वेवयम् इति व्यपदेशात्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. In this line Ramanujar clearly tells that this is the time of advice
      (all the acharyas atleast to the least knowledge which I have,
had accepted
      to the fact that the Gita shastra has come to remove the
delusion). During
      this time of advice, Krishna teaches him using the specific words - I
      (aham), you (tvam), these (ime), we all (vayam) have been used.
This bedha
      is *पारमार्थिक*.
      2. I think this is the reply which he wants to give to Adishankara
      who in his Gita bashya tells देहेभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनं
नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण।
      (the multiplicity is told because of beda in the deha and not
the atma beda)
      3. So Ramanujar point, to my understanding is that if the
      multiplicity is told for the deha, and in the case of Advaita paksha, the
      upadhi deha itself is false(अतात्त्विकत्वेन), then showing the
beda is not
      apt. (तत्त्वोपदेशसमये भेदनिर्देशो न संगच्छते)
      4. Ramanujar provides pramana from the Swetashvatara Upanishad -
      नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान्। (श्वेता0
      6।13). This sentence is clearly mentioning about paramarthika beda and
      Adisankara's vada contradicts to this Shruti.  You can also refer to
      Ramanujar's Vedanta Sangraha (Aphorism-81)
      2. अथ परमपुरुषस्य अधिगताद्वैतज्ञानस्य बाधितानुवृत्तिरूपम् इदं
   भेदज्ञानं दग्धपटादिवत् न बन्धकम् इति उच्येत न एतद् उपपद्यते-[GB-2-12]
   1. Here Desikar poses a valid question that If Krishna has attained this
      knowledge by hearing or seeing? He says in both the cases Krishna having
      attained Advaitic jnana is not apt because, if the person is able to see
      some beda then doesn't it mean that he has attained the Advaitic jnana.
      2. In this case Ramanuja gives an Advaitic Purvapakshi on the
      standpoint of *Badhitaanuvruti*.
      3. But Ramanujar argues that If one sees a mirage and now, he
      understands that it's not a mirage then he will not take any
action to get
      the water from the mirage. But in case of Krishna, if Krishna is said to
      have attained the Advaitic knowledge by hearing or seeing then Krishna
      should not have advised because, if he takes an action then it means that
      he has not understood abheda and then Krishna will become ineligible for
      giving this advise which in any way is not true as per Advaitins.
      4. What i felt was that Ramanujar asks questions to the Advaitins
      that *Vyavahara *must be in accordance with *Tatvanishchaya *and not
      two different things.
      3. किं च परमपुरुषश्च इदानीन्तनगुरुपरम्परा च अद्वितीयात्मस्वरूपनिश्चये
   सति अनुवर्तमाने अपि भेदज्ञाने स्वनिश्चयानुरूपम् अद्वितीयम् आत्मज्ञानं कस्मै
   उपदिशति इति वक्तव्यम्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. He gives multiple examples
      1. He goes to the level of asking to whom Krishna will teach if the
      teacher has got Advaita Jnana. If one says that he is teaching to his own
      reflection (प्रतिबिम्बवत्प्रतीयमानेभ्यः) मणिकृपाणदर्पणादिषु
logic cannot be
      applied here is what Ramanujar states.
      2. Karana (Dosha) and Karya (Branti) - this karanakarya bhava cannot
      be applied to Krishnar.
      3. द्विचन्द्रज्ञानादौ- A person if he has an eye problem and sees 2
      moons and get a knowledge from his teacher that only one moon exist,
      because of this knowledge his eye disease will not be cured. If this
      example is true then Ramanujar points out *Bedhabrama (*wrong
      knowledge*) *and *Bhedabramabadaka*(knowledge of no multiplicity)
      will come to picture and say previously I had a wrong knowledge and now I
      have a correct knowledge, then there is one another truth apart from
      Brahman which is this Bhedabramabadaka jnana which is second to
Brahman and
      Advaita does not give place to this.
      4. If these jnana are there for Krishna then he will not a an
      eligible person for Upadesha. And if this bedha is not there then Krishna
      should not have given advised because then it will raise a
question of whom
      is Krishna advising to? This is dealt greatly by Desikan
      4. गुरुः तज्ज्ञानं च कल्पितम् इति चेत् शिष्यतज्ज्ञानयोः अपि
   कल्पितत्वात् तदपि अनिवर्त्तकम्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. If Krishna is giving advice as guru, imagining a Jagat as in dream,
      then also this logic can be applied to the student as well that
the student
      is there in the dream and the dream can collapse anytime and let him come
      out of the dream anytime and removing the need for Upadesha.


To whatever I understood from their commentary I have jotted a few points
here. Please feel free to point out my mistake in their understanding. The
main purpose of listing these are as

   1.  To get an idea of how the Advaitins as Uttarapaksha reply to these
   Purvapaksha replied by Ramanujar and Desikar.
   2. Does Shankara himself reply to these questions asked by Ramanuja and
   Desikar, in any of his granthas beforehand only. If yes, please attach
   references.
   3. What is the reply of the acharyas post-Shankara. Give references
   4. I would like to specifically here if Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi takes
   any of these pakshas and discuss in his granthas as he himself is from a
   SriVaishnava family. Give references.


Regards
Sangeerth
8608658009