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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Sangeerth ji.

All doubts are resolved by referring to the dream example.

Just as in your dream, there was Gita, Krishna and Arjuna - similarly now
in waking world.

Just as you assumed in dream that Ishwara Krishna was giving upadesha to
jIva Arjuna, similarly here also you are assuming.

There is nothing more to it. So, all objections of Ramanuja fall flat at
the mighty altar of dream illustration. अत्र च
सम्भावित-सकल-शङ्का-पङ्क-प्रक्षालनं स्वप्न-दृष्टान्त-सलिल-धारयैव कर्तव्यम्
(SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha).

From Samkshepa ShArIraka, 2nd Chapter

तव गाढमूढतमसा रचितं जगदीशजीववपुषा सकलम्। प्रतिभाति तावददृढं दृढवत् समुदेति
यावदवबोधरविः॥२२२॥

तव चित्तमात्मतमसा जनितं परिकल्प्यत्यखिलमेव जगत्। तव कल्पनाविरचितः स
गुरुस्तव रूपमद्वयमुदाहरति॥२२५॥

न हि चित्तदृश्यमपि सत्यमिति प्रतिपन्नमस्ति भुवि किञ्चिदपि। रशनाभुजङ्गसदृशं
सकलं जगदिन्द्रजालमिति सिद्धमतः॥२२६॥

परिकल्पितोऽपि सकलज्ञतया गुरुरेव पूर्णमवबोधयति। परिकल्पितोऽपि मरणाय भवेदुरगो
यथा न तु नभो मलिनम्॥२२७॥

*Now, point-by-point rebuttal to Ramanuja and Desika's views whose
objections are rooted in ignorance of advaita siddhAnta:*

// 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*.//

If bheda is pAramArthika, then non-duality of Brahman, established through
Shruti is contradicted. So, the objection is unsustainable. The usage of I,
you, these etc is done doing the anuAvda of lOka-siddha-vyavahAra. That is
acceptable in VedAnta.

//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)//

This is very much logical. Shruti tells, rUpam rUpam pratirUpam babhUva.
Here Rigveda propounds pratibimba-vAda demonstrating that there is no bheda
in AtmA. The bheda appears owing to deha-upAdhi.

// 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)//

Tattva-upadesha is multifold. Tattva-upadesha is pariNAma-VAda,
vivarta-vAda and ajAti-VAda. All three are taught in Shruti depending on
the maturity of sAdhaka. In pariNAma-vAda and vivarta-vAda, which have
adhyAropa built-in, bheda is utilised. Bheda is utilised during adhyArOpa,
which is negated in apavAda. So, atAtvika-upAdhi-bheda-prayukta-vyavahAra
is acceptable at adhyArOpa stage of tattva-upadesha.

//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)//

You can refer to ShAnkar bhAshya on this verse to see how advaita is in
harmony with Shruti. Basically, whatever Ramanuja calls as bheda-Shruti and
seeks to reconcile it with abheda-Shruti through ghaTaka-Shruti is not
needed. The bheda-Shruti are explained through they having anuvAdakatva or
being vyAvahArika-bheda-paratva.

//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.//

Seeing bheda does not imply absence of advaita-jnAna. In case of mirage,
the perception of water does not mean that you don't understand that it is
desert which appears as mirage-water. SOpAdhika-bhrama may continue so long
as the upAdhi continues.

Krishna is Ishwara. So, his jnAna is nitya. There is no question of
acquiring it from some person in some point of time.

// In this case Ramanuja gives an Advaitic Purvapakshi on the standpoint of
*Badhitaanuvruti*.//

That is accepted in srishTi-drishTi-vAda but not in drishTi-srishTi-vAda.

// 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.//

Sir. advaita accepts Krishna as Ishwara and hence lokavat tu lIlA kaivalyam
applies in His case. In case of jIvanmukta guru, the activities are
explained on account of prArabdha. In either case, there is no
contradiction because prArabdha is not contradictory to advaita-jnAna.

//What i felt was that Ramanujar asks questions to the Advaitins that
*Vyavahara *must be in accordance with *Tatvanishchaya *and not two
different things.//

Sir, there isn't and there cannot be any vyavahAra in nishkriya Brahman.
For vyavahAra, one has to per force of logic accept illusory avidyA. So, if
Ramanuja holds that tattva and activity go together, then violation of
ShvetAshvatar shruti is unavoidable.

// 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.//

Sir, for the teacher, in SDV, the world including his body is part of
prakriti and acts, while being dependent on Brahman. It is a drama which he
sees ceaselessly. He sees his own body as if it is of someone else. So,
everything goes on. His body teaches, interacts, eats etc according to the
prArabdha. It is not that bimba is teaching to pratibimba. It is
pratibimba-1 teaching to pratibimba-2 and bimba merely sees.

// Karana (Dosha) and Karya (Branti) - this karanakarya bhava cannot be
applied to Krishnar.//

Of course. Nor to the guru.

//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.//

Here, the cause analogous to timira dOsha is avidyA, which itself is
accepted to be illusory. So, in case avidyA is removed, it is not the
experience that I was deluded for so long -- rather the experience is --
there has been no ignorance ever. So, there is no objection of a second
entity other than Brahman. There is no ignorance. The concept of ignorance
itself is owing to the ignorance of Brahman.

//Advaita does not give place to this.//

This statement is made because of lack of understanding of
advaita-siddhAnta.

// 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//

Sir, Krishna is MAyA-upahita-chaitanya. His activities are explained
through MAyA-vritti. The activities are within the domain of MAyA and do
not touch the upahita-chaitanya. There can be interactions within the realm
of illusory MAyA. There is no incongruity. In case of jIvanmukta, it is
explained through prArabdha. In case of Ishwara, through lIlA. Both are
MAyA-kArya.

//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.//

Sir, it is me who is dreaming that Krishna is giving upadesha as guru to
Arjuna. If Ramanuja brings dream example, he should come to the fold of
eka-jIva-vAda. Otherwise, one will misunderstand dream-example. In
eka-jIva-vAda, just as I assumed Krishna teaching in dream, similarly I now
imagine Him teaching. Where is the problem?

//1.  To get an idea of how the Advaitins as Uttarapaksha reply to these
Purvapaksha replied by Ramanujar and Desikar.//

Ramanuja is mixing different models. We have different models depending on
the level of maturity of seeker. PariNAma-vAda, vivarta-vAda (within which
there are srishTi-drishTi and drishTi-srishTi-vAda) and finally ajAtivAda.
The objections are responded to accordingly. Dream example applies with
full force in DSV. PrArabdha and jIvanmukti apply in SDV.

//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.//

Everything is answered in bhAshya.

 //3. What is the reply of the acharyas post-Shankara. Give references//

I have given answers. You can check अथ भेदश्रुतेरनुवादत्वोपपत्तिः and अथ
भेदश्रुतेर्व्यावहारिकभेदपरत्वोपपत्तिः in Advaita Siddhi. Also,
eka-jIva-vAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda in Advaiata Siddhi and SiddhAnta
Lesha Sangrah.

Regards
Sudhanshu Shekhar.