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

[V Subrahmanian]

This is regarding the cited Shvetashvatara mantra:

नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् । 6.13

Brahman is the Eternal among eternals and the Consciousness/Sentience among
sentients....

The above line appears in the Kathopanishat too 2.2.13

For the Kathopanishat mantra Shankara's bhashyam is: किञ्च, नित्यः अविनाशी
नित्यानाम् अविनाशिनाम् । चेतनः चेतनानां चेतयितॄणां ब्रह्मादीनां
प्राणिनाम् । अग्निनिमित्तमिव दाहकत्वमनग्नीनामुदकादीनामात्मचैतन्यनिमित्तमेव
चेतयितृत्वमन्येषाम् ।  It's Brahman that lends etnerality to those which
are eternal. It is the Consciousness principle inherent in sentient
entities such as Brahmaa, etc. For this the analogies given by Shankara
are: the burning power in various manifestations of fire is due to the
basic fire. It's due to Brahma Chaitanyam that entities are able to
display/manifest possibilities of grasping, knowing, etc.

Thus, the Shwetashvatara mantra does not teach jiva - Ishwara difference.
As per Shankara's interpretation of the KaTha and Shwetashwatara mantras,
the body-mind complex which is a product of prakriti, cannot have the power
to perform what all functions they are designed to perform by Prakriti.
Thus, the body-mind is insentient, jaDa. For it to function the
Consciousness power form Brahman is required. Just like the various
electrical gadgets we have, while designed to perform specific functions,
are able to perform their functions only when power, current, is connected
to them. The consciousness that has the wrong identification with the
body-mind complex is called jiva. The consciousness aspect is Brahman.
Hence, there is no question of jiva-Ishwara bheda that is absolute.

From the Kenopanishat initial mantras and from Dhruva's prayer in the
Bhagavatam -

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ४/अध्यायः ९
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/acv
<https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsa.wikisource.org%2Fs%2Facv%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3MOFeHS7G7HyEME1fTlN8SCtOIsLv1_Ix95MrYszqZa_RYVZoBIpmd0qw&h=AT36z9ifqtrIvZXh-octqSnPvjUUG9r2vttdgxZOQGaQTHCzOq5E_56D1so9MLAP3OvV9z54clkvU-Ubxh2Lc5jxJ9kkE21drcF4bFYPaW4v_n99dKsF5BbC3LsV1ma9fcXK&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT2vYB7h-TjlUQQu31-8skYsJK7yaNs52pkpHg5xP_H-9GNpqMGwUfpWTi7sMqKjugDf2EZNf9SA_gUF_h_NkmGZzNY4X_tHjkuaGR8EfpKl1AlwBKsccG_k6dQUwvKva53wK1GzkAQl0qAWyfZCMHyD0A>
*ध्रुव उवाच -*
*योऽन्तः प्रविश्य मम वाचमिमां प्रसुप्तां*
*संजीवयत्यखिलशक्तिधरः स्वधाम्ना ।*
*अन्यांश्च हस्तचरणश्रवणत्वगादीन्*
*प्राणान्नमो भगवते पुरुषाय तुभ्यम् ॥ ६ ॥*

Here we see Dhruva acknowledging the Power of Brahman in
activating/enlivening the organs such as speech. hands, feet, touch, and
other organs (which are all evolutes of Prakriti and therefore jaDa).

From this we conclude that only jaDa requires Chetana/chaitanya to
function. Chaitanya/chetana does not require chaitanya to function. From
this rule, the teaching of the Vedanta, Puranas, etc. is that the jiva,
when divested of the identification with jaDa, is Brahma Chaitanya alone.

Dhruva confirms this in these verses:

एकस्त्वमेव भगवन् इदमात्मशक्त्या
मायाख्ययोरुगुणया महदाद्यशेषम् ।
सृष्ट्वानुविश्य पुरुषस्तदसद्‍गुणेषु
नानेव दारुषु विभावसुवद्विभासि ॥ ७ ॥

You, One alone, due to Maya endowed with Sattva, etc. gunas, are appearing
as mahat, etc. in creation and have 'entered' into them as the sentient
principle and are appearing as though multifold/many. Dhruva gives the
analogy of fire appearing latent in combustible objects.

It is thus only in Advaita that the jiva is not jaDa. In other systems the
jiva is essentially jaDa as those systems accept that the jiva is eternally
dependent on Brahman for sentiency too.

The Bh.Gita 13th chapter verses 5 and 6 clearly teach that the entire
created world of objects, called kShetram, Prakriti, here, including the
body mind and the emotions/reactions like desire, etc. and the world of
objects outside the body, are all jaDa requiring the Kshetrajna, Brahman,
to validate them. The Gita at the end of this chapter gives the analogy of
the One Sun illuminating the entire world, to drive home the point that
Kshetrajna, the sentient Principle, is the one that
illuminates/knows/perceives the entire created world.

Om Tat Sat




On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 2:10 PM Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>