An excellent Telugu translation of Bhagavad Gita Bhashya into Telugu is by mahaamahopaadhyaaya Shri Pullela Shri Ramachandrudu Garu (Shri Pullela Sri Ramachandra Garu). At the end of the translation is a collection of 70+ quotations from gItaa-bhaashhya of shankaraachaarya bhagavadpaada called as gItaa-bhaashhya-sudhaa-binduH (bhagavadgItaa-bhaashhyamuloni konni shankara vacana-sudhaa-binduvulu in Telugu). The following are the originals in transliteration with annotations from Swami Gambhirananda's English translation.
Postscript 1: A pdf version of this post is available from advaitin.net archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/files/sudhA_binduH.pdf.pdf. Link posted in this post#47167 of advaitin-list. Thanks a lot to Shri Sunder-ji for numerous corrections, and Shri Subbu-ji for the initial initiative.
Postscript 2: If one wants to see the devanaagari or other versions, they could use the excellent ITRANS-99 software available from Omkarananda Ashram available from http://www.omkarananda-ashram.org/Sanskrit/itranslator99.htm. Or Otherwise, one could use the online converter available from http://www.aczoom.com/itrans/
OM shrii gurubhyo namaH .
1. braahmaNatvasya hi raxaNe raxitaH syaadvaiidiko dharmaH\, tadadhiinatvaadvarNaashramabhedaanaam.h ||upodghAta \- giitaa\-bhaaShya ||
##When the Brahminhood is preserved, the Vedic Dharma becomes well guarded, for the distintions among the castes and stages of life depend on it.##
2. svaprayojanaabhaave.api bhUtaanujighRRixayaa vaidikaM dharmadvayam.h arjunaaya shokamohamahodadhau nimagnaaya upadidesha\, guNaaadhikairhigRRihIto.anushhThiiyamaanashcha dharmaH prachayaM gamishhyatiiti ||upo. bhaa ||
##Although He had no need for Himself, still for the sake of favoring the creatures He imparted that very two fold Vedic dharma to Arjuna who had sunk into the sea of sorrow and delusion, with the idea that dharma would surely propagate if it is accepted and put into by practice by people who are endowed with an abundance of good qualities.##
3. abhyudayaarthau.api yaH pravR^ittilaxaNo dharmau varNanaashramaaMshchoddishya vihitaH\, sa devaadisthaanapraaptiheturapi san.h\, iishvaraaarpaNabuddhayaa anushhTiiyamaanaH\, sattvashuddhaye bhavati phalaabhisaMdhivarjitaH || upo | bhaa ||
##That dharma, characterized by action and enjoined for different castes and stages of life, even though it is meant for acheiving prosperity and attaining heaven etc. yet, when performed with the attitude of dedication to God and without hankering for (selfish) results, leads to the purification of the internal organ (consisting of citta (mindstuff), buddhi (intellect), manas (mind) and ahaMkaara (ego)).##
4. sarvapraaNinaaM shokamohaadidoshhaavishhTachetasaaM svabhaavata eva svadharmaparityaagaH pratishhiddhasevaa cha syaat.h | svadharme pravR^ittinaamapi teshhaaM vaa~NgmanaHkaayaadiinaaM pravR^ittiH phalaabhisaMdhipuurvikaiva saahaMkaaraa cha bhavati || 2.11 ||
##It is thus that in the case of all creatures whose minds come under the sway of the defects of sorrow, delusion etc. there verily follows, as a matter of course, abandoning their own duties and resorting to prohibited ones. Even when they engage in their own duties their actions with speech, mind, body, etc. are certainly motivated by hankering for rewards, and are accompanied by egoism (Egoism consists in thinking that one is the agent of some work and the enjoyer of its result.)##
5. saMsaarabiijabhuutau shokamohau | tayoshcha sarvakarmasaMnyaasa\- pUrvakaadaatmaj~naanaat.h naanyato nivR^itttiriti tadupadidaxuH sarvalokaanugrahaartham.h arjunaM nimittiikR^itya aaha bhagavaanvaasudevaH || 2.11 ||
##Thus, sorrow and delusion are therefore the sources of the cycles of births and deaths. And their cessation comes from nothing other than the knowledge of the Self which is preceded by the renunciation of all duties. Hence, wishing to impart (knowledge of the Self) for favouring the whole world, Lord Vasudeva, making Arjuna the medium said 'ashochyaananvashochastvaM iti' (2.11)##
6. na hi pittaprashamanaarthinaH vaidyena madhuraM shItalaM cha bhoktavyam.h ityupadishhTe tayoranyataratpittaprashamanakaaraNaM brUhi iti prashnaH saMbhavati || 2.11 ||
##Indeed, when a physician tells a patient who has come for a cure of his biliousness that he should take things which are sweet and soothing, there can be no such request as "Tell me which one of these two is to be taken as a means to cure biliousness"!##
7. na hi atra yuddhakartavyataa vidhiiyate\, yuddha pravR^itta eva hi asau shokamohapratibaddhaH tushhNiimaaste | ataH tasya pratibandhaapanayanamaatraM bhagavataa kR^iyate | tasmaat 'yudhyasva' iti anuvaadamaatram\, na vidhiH || 2.18 ||
##Here, there is no injunction to take up the war as a duty, because he (Arjuna), though he was determined for war, remains silent as a result of being overpowered by sorrow and delusion. Therefore, all that is being done by the Lord is the removal of the obstruction of his duty. "Therefore, join the battle" is only an approval, not an injunction.##
8. vidushhaH karmaasaMbhavavachanaat yaani karmaaNi shaastreNa vidhiiyante taani avidushho vihitaani iti bhagavato nishchayo.avagamyate || 2.21 ||
## From the statement that action is impossible for a man of realization it is understood that the conclusion of the Lord is that, actions enjoined by the scriptures are prescribed for the unenlightened. ##
9. shaastraachaaryopadeshashamadamaadisaMskR^itaM manaH aatmadarshane karaNam.h || 2.21 ||
## [In reply to an objection that the Self is beyond any scope of means of knowledge.] The mind that is purified by the instructions of the scriptures and the teacher, control of the body and organs, etc. becomes the instrument for realizing the Self.##
10. naiteshhaaM shlokaanaaM paunaruktyaM chodaniiyam.h\, yataH ekenaiva shlokena aatmanaH nityatvamavikriyatvaM choktam.h ##'##na jaayate mriyate vaa##'## ityaadInaa | tatra yadeva aatmavishhayaM kiMchiduchchate tadetatsmaat shlokaarthaannaatirichyate\; kiMchichchhabdataH punaruktam.h kiMchidarthataH iti | durbodhatvaat.h aatmavastunaH punaH punaH prasa~Ngamaapaadya shabdaantareNa tadeva vastunirUpayati bhagavaan.h vaasudevaH kathaM nu naama saMsaariNaamasaMsaaritvabuddhi\- gocharataamaapannaM sat avyaktaM tattvaM saMsaaranivR^ittaye syaat.h iti || 2.24 ||
##It is not to be argued that 'these verses are repetitive since eternality and changelessness of the Self have been stated in a single verse itself, "Never is this One born, and never does It die," etc. (20). Whatever has been said there (in verse 19) about the Self does not go beyond the meaning of this verse. Something is repeated with those very words, and something ideologically.' Since the object, viz the Self, is inscrutable, therefore Lord Vasudeva raises the topic again and again, and explains that very object in other words so that, somehow, the unmanifest Self may come within the comprehension of the intellect of the transmigrating persons and bring about a cessation of their cycles of births and deaths.##
11. yogasthaH san.h kuru karmaaNi kevalamIshvaraarthanaM\; tatraapi 'iishvaropi me tushhyatu' iti sa~NgaM tyaktvaa || 2.48 ||
##yogasthaH, by becoming established in yoga; O dhananjaya, kuru, undertake; karmaaNi action, for the sake of God alone; even there, tyaktva, casting off, sangam, attached in the form, 'God will be pleased with me'. Undertake work for pleasing God, but not for propitiating Him to become favorable
towards yourself.##
12. sarvatraiva hi adhyaatmashaastre kR^itaarthalaxaNaani yaani taanyeva saadhanaani upadishyante\, yatnasaadhyatvaat.h | yaani yatnasaadhyaani saadhanaani laxaNaani cha bhavanti taani || 2 . 54||
##For in all scriptures without exception, dealing with spirituality, whatever are the characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result of effort. And those that are disciplines requiring effort, they become the characteristics (of the man of realization). ##
13. taavadeva hi purushhaH yaavadantaHkaraNaM tadiiyaM kaaryaakaarya\- vishhayavivekayogyam.h | tadayogyatve nashhTa eva purushho bhavati || 2.63 ||
##Indeed, a man continues to be himself so long as his mind remains fit to distinguish between what he ought to and ought not to do. When it becomes unfit, a man is verily ruined.##
14. moxasya cha akaaryatvaat.h mumuxoH karmaanarthakyam.h || 3.1 ||
##As Liberation is not a result (of action), actions become useless for one aspiring for Liberation.##
15. yadi vihitaakaraNaat asaMbhaavyamapi pratyavaayaM bruuyaat.h vedaH\, tadaa anarthakaraH vedaH apramaaNamityuktaM syaat.h\; vihitasya karaNaakaraNayoH duHkhamaatraphalatvaat.h || 3.1 ||
##Should the Vedas speak even of the impossible, that sin accrues from the non-performance of enjoined rites, then it will amount to saying that the Vedas are a source of evil and hence invalid! For the result of either doing or not doing what is enjoined would be pain.##
16. tasmaat aj~nena adhikR^itena kartavyameva karma || 3.16 ||
##Action must be undertaken by one who is qualified (for action) but is unenlightened.##
17. praarabdhakarmaayattaH tvaM lokasaMgraham.h eva api lokasya unmaargapravR^ittinivaaraNaM lokasaMgrahaH\, tamevaapi prayojanaM saMpashyan kartum.h arhasi || 3.20 ||
##tvaM: you, who are under the influence of past actions; arhasi, ought; kartum, to perform (your duties); saMpashyan api, keeping also in view; loka-saMgrahaM, the prevention of mankind from going astray; even that purpose.##
18. prakR^itirnaama pUrvakR^itadharmaadharmaadisaMskaaraaH vartamaanajanmaadau abhivyaktaaH || 3.33 ||
##Nature means the impressions of virtue, vice etc. acquired in the past (lives) and which become manifest at the commencement of the present life.##
19. yadi sarvaH jantuH aatmanaH prakR^itisadR^ishameva cheshhTate\, na cha prakR^itishUnyaH kashchit.h asti\, tataH purushhakaarasya vishhayaanupapatteH shaastraanarthakyapraptau idamuchyate || 3.33 ||
##If all beings behave only according to their own nature -- and there is none without nature -- then, since there arises the contingency of the scriptures becoming purposeless owing to the absense of any scope for personal effort, therefore the following is stated [Verse 3.34: indriyasyendriyasyaarthe ...]##
20. yadaa punaH raagadveshhau tatpratipaxeNa niyamayati tadaa shaastradR^ishhTireva purushhaH bhavati\, na prakR^itivashaH || 3.34 ||
##On the other hand, when a person controls love and hatred with the help of their opposites, then he becomes mindful only of scriptural teachings; he ceases to be led by his nature;##
21. kaamo hi udbhUtaH rajaH pravartayan.h purushhaM pravartayati ##'## tR^ishhNayaa hi ahaM kaaritaH ##'## iti duHkhitaanaaM rajaHkaarye sevaadau pravR^ittaanaaM pralaapaH shrUyate || 3.37 ||
##When desire comes into being, it instigates a person by arousing rajas. People who are engaged in service etc. which are effects of rajas, and who are striken with sorrow are heard to lament, "I have been led to act by desire indeed"##
22. ##'## xipraM hi maanushhe loke ##'## iti visheshhaNaat.h anyeshhvapi karmaphalasiddhiM darshayati bhagavaan.h || 4.12 ||
##By the specific statement, "For, in the human world, success comes quickly", the Lord shows that results of actions can accrue even in the other worlds.##
23. tadetat.h uktaprativachanamapi asakR^it.h atyantavipariitadarshanabhaavitatayaa momuhyamaano lokaH shrutamapi asakR^it.h tattvaM vismR^ittya vismR^ittya mithyaaprasa~Ngam.h avataaryaavataarya chodayati iti punaH punaH uttaramaaha bhagavaan.h\, durvij~neyatvaM cha aalaxya vastunaH || 4.18 ||
##Although this answer has been given more than once, still a man becomes repeatedly deluded under the influence of a totallly opposite perception. And forgetting the truth that has been heard again and again, he repeatedly raises false issues and questions! And therefore, observing that the subject is difficult to understand, the Lord gives His answer again and again.##
24. naapi nityaanaam.h akaraNaat.h abhaavaat.h pratyavaayabhaavotpattiH\, ##'## naasato vidyate bhaavaH ##'## iti vachanaat.h ##'## kathaM asataH sajjaayeta' iti cha darshitam.h asataH sajjanmapratishhedhaat.h | asataH sadutpattiM bruvataa asadeva sadbhavet.h\, sa cha api asat.h bhavet.h ityuktaM syaat.h | taccha ayuktam.h sarvapramANavirodhaat.h | na cha nishhphalaM vidadhyaat.h karma shaastram.h\, duHkhasvarUpatvaat.h\, duHkhasya cha buddhipuurvakatayaa kaaryatvaanupapatteH | tadakaraNe cha narakapaataabhyupagamaat.h anarthaayaiiva ubhayathaa api karaNe cha akaraNe cha shaastraM nishhphalaM kalpitaM syaat.h || 4.18 ||
##Nor can any evil, which is an entity, arise from the non-performance of nityakarmas, which is an non-entity, for there is the statement, "Of the unreal, there is no non-being"2.16, and (in the Upanishad) it has been pointed out, "How can existence originate from non-existence?" (Ch. 4.2.2). Since emergence of the existent from the nonexistent has been denied, therefore anyone's assertion that the existence originates from the nonexistent will amount to saying that a non-entity becomes an entity, and an entity becomes a non-entity. And that is not rational because it runs counter to all the means of valid knowledge.
Further, the scriptures cannot enjoin fruitless actions, they being naturally painful; and it is illogical that what is painful should be done intentionally. Also, if it is admitted that falling into hell results from their non-performace (i.e., of the nityakarmas), the that too is surely a source of evil. In either case, whether one undertakes them or not, the scriptures will be imagines to be useless. And that will be a contradiction with your standpoint when, after holding that the nityakarmas are fruitless, you assert that they lead to Liberation.##
25. j~naanavanto.api kechit yathaavat.h tattvadarshanashiilaaH\, apare na \; ato vishinashhTi tattvadarshinaH iti| ye samyagdarshinaH taiH upadishhTaM j~naanaM kaaryaxamaM bhavati netarat.h iti bhagavato matam.h || 4.34 ||
##Although people may be wise, some of them are apt to know the Truth just as it is, while others may not be so. Hence the qualification, "why have realized the Truth". The considered view of the Lord is that Knowledge imparted by those who have full enlightenment becomes effective, not any other.##
26. saMnyaasakarmayogau j~naanatadupaayasamabuddhitvaadisaMyuktau saaMkhyayogashabdavaachchyau iti bhagavato matam.h || 5.4 ||
##Those very 'renunciation' and 'karma-yoga', when they are (respectively) associated with Knowledge and such of Its means as equanimity etc. are meant by the words "Samkhya" and "yoga". This is Lord's view.##
27. dR^ishyate hi brahmavit.h shhaDa~Ngavit.h chaturvedavit.h iti puujaadaanaadau guNavisheshhasaMbandhaH kaaraNam.h || 5.19 ||
##It is indeed seen that in worship, charity, etc., the determining factors are the possession of such special qualities as being 'a knower of Brahman', 'versed in the six auxiliary branches of Vedic learning', and 'versed in the four Vedas'.##
28. svaM naasikaagraM saMprexya samyak.h prexaNam.h darshanaM kR^itveva iti | ivashabdo lupto drashhTavyaH | na hi svanaasikaagrasaMprexaNamiha vidhitsitam.h | kiM tarhi ? chaxushho dR^ishhTisaMnipaataH | sa cha antaHkaraNasamaadhaanaapexo vivaxitaH | svanaasikaagrasaMprexaNameva chet.h vivaxitam.h\, manaH tatraiva samaadhiiyeta\, naatmani || 6.13 ||
##svaM naasikaagraM, at the tip of his own nose -- looking at it intently, as it were; ca, and anavalokyam, not looking; dishah, around, i.e., not glancing in various directions -- The words 'as it were' are to be understood because what is intended here is not an injunction for looking at the tip of one's own nose! What then? It is the fixing of the gaze of the eyes by withdrawing it from external objects; and that is enjoined with a view to concentrating the mind. (What is sought to be presented here as the primary objective is the concentration of mind. If the gaze be directed outward, then it will result in interrupting that concentration. Therefore the purpose is to first fix the gaze of the eyes within.) If the intention were merely the looking at the tip of the nose, then the mind would remain fixed there itself, not on the Self.##
29. ekasya devasya sarvaadhyaxabhuutachaitanyamaatrasya paramaarthataH sarvabhogaanabhisaMbandhinaH anyasya chetanaantarasya abhaave bhoktuH anyasya abhaavaat.h | kiMnimittaa iyaM sR^ishhTiH ityatra prashnaprativachane anupapanne\, ##'## ko addhaa veda ka iha pravochat.h | kutam aajaataa kuta iyaM visR^ishhTiH ##'## ityaadimantravarNebhyaH || 9. 10 ||
##Threre is no other conscious being apart from the one Deity -- who is the witness of all as the absolute Consciousness, and who in reality has no contact with any kind of enjoyment -- therefore there is no other enjoyer. Hence, in this context, the question, "For what purpose is this creation?", and its answer are baseless -- in accordance with the Vedic text, "Who know (It) truly, who can fully speak about this here? From where has this come? From where is this variegated creation? (3.54.5, 10.129.6)"##
30. j~naanadiipena vivekapratyayaruupeNa bhaktiprasaadasnehaabhishhiktena madbhaavanaabhiniveshavaateritena brahmacharyaadisaadhanasaMskaarava\- tpraj~naavartinaa viraktaantaHkaraNaadhaareNa vishhayavyaavR^ittachitta\- raagadveshhaakalushhitanivaataapavarakasthena nityapravR^ittaikaagryadhyaana\- janitasamyagdarshanabhaasvataa j~naanadiipenetyarthaH || 10.11 ||
##j~naanadiipena, with the lamp of Knowledge , in the form of discriminating comprehension; i.e., bhaasvataa, with the luminous lamp of Knowledge -- fed by the oil of divine grace resulting from devotion, fanned by the wind of intensity of meditation on Me, having the wick of the intellect imbued with the impressions arising from such disciplines as celibacy etc. in the receptacle of the detached mind, placed in the windless shelter of the mind withdrawn from objects and untainted by likes and dislikes, and made luminous by full Illumination resulting from the practise of constant concentration and meditation. [Who says there is no poetry in bhaashhya literature?]##
31. brahmaaNaM chaturmukham.h iisham.h iishitaaraM prajaanaaM kamalaasanasthaM pR^ithiviipadmamadhye merukarNikaasanasthamityarthaH || 11.15 ||
##Brahma, with four faces; iisham, the Ruler of creatures; kamalaasana-stham sitting on a lotus seat, i.e., sitting on Mount Meru which forms the pericarp of the lotus that is the earth;##
32. na hi iishvaradvayaM saMbhavati anekeshvaratve vyavahaaraanupapatteH || 11. 43 ||
##There is no possibility of two Gods. Because all dealings will come to naught if there be many Gods.##
33. yathaa agastyena braahmaNena samudraH piitaH iti idaaniiMtanaaH api braahmaNaaH braahmaNatvasaamaanyaat.h stuuyante . evaM karmaphalatyaagaat.h karmayogasya shreyaHsaadhanatvamabhihitam.h || 12.12 ||
##As for instance, by saying that the sea was drunk by Brahmin Agastya, the Brahmanas of the present day are also praised owing to the similarity of Brahminhood. In this way it has been said that karma-yoga becomes a means for Liberation, since it involves renunciation of the rewards of works.##
34. avidyaamaatraM saMsaaraH yathaadR^ishhTivishhayaH eva | na xetraj~nasya
kevalasya avidyaa tatkaaryaM cha | na cha mithyaaj~naanaM paramaarthavastu
duushhayituM samartham.h | na hi uushhaaradeshaM snehena pa~NkiikartuM shaknoti
mariichyudakam.h | tathaa avidyaa xetraj~nasya na kiMchit.h kartuM shaknoti |
ataH uktam.h idam-- ##'## xetraj~naM chaapi maaM viddhi ##'##\, ##'## aj~naanenaavR^itaM j~naanam.h ##'##
iti cha || 13.2 ||
##The mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance, and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of the field, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture. Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field. Hence has this been said, "And understand Me to be the knower of the field" [13.2], as also, "Knowledge remains covered by ignorance" [5.15]##
35. nanu sarvaxetreshhu eka eva iishvaraH\, na anyaH tadvyatiriktaH bhoktaa vidyate chet.h\, tataH iishvarasya saMsaaritvaM praaptam.h\; iishvaravyatirekeNa vaa saMsaariNaH anyasya abhaavaat.h saMsaaraabhaavaprasa~NgaH | tachcha ubhayamanishhTam.h bandhamoxataddhetushaastraanarthakyaprasa~Ngaat.h\, pratyaxaadipramaaNavirodhaachcha | pratyaxeNa taavat.h sukhaduHkhataddhetulaxaNaH saMsaaraH upalabhyate\; jagadvaiichitryopalabdheshcha dharmaadharmanimittaH saMsaaraH anumiiyate | sarvametat.h anupapannamaatmeshvaraikatve | na \; j~naanaaj~naanayoH anyatvenopapatteH ||13.2||
##Objection: Well, if it be that in all the fields there exists God alone, and none else other than Him, as the enjoyer, then God will become a mundane being; or due to the absense of any mundane creature other than God, there will arise the contingency of the negation of mundane existence. And both these are undesirable, since the scriptures dealing with bondage, Liberation and their causes will become useless, and also because they contradict such valid means of knowledge as direct perception.
In the first place, mundane existence which is characterized by happiness, sorrow and their cause is apprehended through direct perception. Besides, from the perception of variety in the world it can be inferred that mundane existence results from virtue and vice. All this becomes illogical if God and individual soul be one.
Reply: No, because this becomes justifiable owing to the difference between Knowledge and Ignorance.##
36. sarvajantuunaaM hi prasiddhaH dehaadishhu anaatmasu aatmabhaavaH nishchitaH avidyaakR^itaH\, yathaa sthaaNau purushhanishchayaH . na cha etaavataa purushhadharmaH sthaaNoH bhavati\, sthaaNudharmo vaa purushhasya . tathaa na chaitanyadharmo dehasya\, dehadharmo vaa chetanasya . sukhaduHkhamohaatmakatvaadiH aatmanaH na yuktaH\; avidyaakR^itatvaavisheshhat.h\, jaraamR^ityutvaat.h ||13.2||
##It is a well known fact in the case of all creatures that their self-identity with the body etc. which are not Self is definitely caused by ignorance. Just as, when a stump of tree is firmly regarded as a man, the qualities of a man do not thereby come to exist in the stump, nor do the qualities of the stump come to the person, similarly the property of consciousness does not come to the body, nor those of the body to the consciousness. It is not proper that the Self should be identified with happiness, sorrow, delusion etc., since they, like decreptitude and death, are equally the products of ignorance.##
36*. saMsaarasaMsaaritvaabhaave shaastraanarthakyaadidoshhaH syaaditi chet.h\, na \; sarvairabhyupagatatvaat.h | sarvaiH hi aatmavaadibhiH abhyupagataH doshhaH na ekena parihartavyaH bhavati | katham.h abhyupagataH iti \? muktaatmanaaM hi saMsaarasaMsaaritvavyavahaaraabhaavaH sarvaireva aatmaavaadibhiH ishhyate | na cha teshhaaM shaastraanarthakyaadidoshhapraaptiH abhyupagataa | tathaa naH xetraj~naanaam iishvaraikatve sati\, shaastraanarthakyaM bhavatu\; avidyaavishhaye cha arthavattvam.h -- yathaa dvaitavaadinaaM sarveshhaaM bandhaavasthaayaameva shaastraadyarthavattvaM\, na muktaavasthaayaaM\, evam.h ||13.2||
##Objection: Owing to the nonexistence of the world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the uselessness of the scriptures, etc.
Reply: No, snce this (defect) is admitted by all. A defect that is admitted by all who believe in the Self is not be explained by one alone!
Objection: How has this been admitted by all?
Reply: People of all schools of thought who believe in the Self admit that there is no wordly behaviour or the behaviour of a worldling in the liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e., in those various schools), it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect as the scriptures becoming useless etc. Similarly, in our case let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the scriptures etc. become useful in the state of bondage, not in the case of Liberation.
##
37. atha kimidaM saMsaariNaamiva ##'## ahamevam.h ##'##\, ##'## mamaivedam.h ##'## iti
paNDitaanaamapi \? shruNu\; idaM tat.h paaNDityam.h\, yat.h xetre eva
aatmadarshanam.h | yadi punaH xetraj~nam.h avikriyaM pashyeyuH\, tataH
na bhogaM karma vaa aakaaMxeyuH ##'## mama syaat.h ##'## iti | vikriyaiva bhogakarmaNii ||13.2||
##Objection: Then, what is this that even learned say like the worldly people, 'Thus amd I', 'This verily belongs to Me'?
Reply: Listen. This is the learnedness which consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, they should realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and action are mere perversions.
##
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?
##
40. sarvo hi shabdaH arthaprakaashanaaya prayuktaH\, shruuyamaaNashcha shrotRRibhiH\, jaatikriyaaguNasaMbandhadvaareNa sa.nketagrahaNasavyapexaH arthaM pratyaayayati\; na anyathaa\, adR^ishhTatvaat.h | tat.h yathaa -- ##'##gauH##'## \, ##'##ashvaH##'## iti vaa jaatitaH\, ##'## pachati'\, ##'## paThati##'## iti vaa kriyaataH\, ##'## shuklaH####\, ##'## kR^ishhNaH ##'## iti vaa guNataH\, ##'##dhanii ##'##\, ##'## gomaan.h ##'## iti vaa saMbandhataH || 13.12 ||
##For every word used for expressing an object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus, action, quality and relation; not in other way, because that is not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, a horse, etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through action; white or black through quality; a rich person or an owner of cows through relation.##
41. kaH punaH ayaM saMsaaro naama\? sukhaduHkhasaMbhogaH saMsaaraH | purushhasya sukhaduHkhaanaaM saMbhoktR^itvaM saMsaaritvamiti || 13.20 ||
##What again is this that is called wordly existence? Worldly existence consists in the experience of happiness and sorrow; and the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow.##
42. yathaashaastraM xetraxetraj~nalaxaNabhedaparij~naanapuurvakaM praak.h darshitaruupaat.h xetraat.h mu~njaadiva ishhiikaaM yathoktalaxaNaM xetraj~naM pravibhajya ##'## na sattannaasaduchyate ##'## ityanena nirastasarvopaadhivisheshhaM j~neyaM brahmasvaruupeNa yaH pashyati\, xetraM cha maayaanirmitahasti\- svapradR^ishhTavastugandharvanagaraadivat.h ##'## asadeva sadiva avabhaasate ##'## iti evaM nishchitavij~naanaH yaH tasya yathoktasamyagdarshanavirodhaat.h apagachchhati mithyaaj~naanam.h ||13.26||
##After having known the distintion between and the characteristics of the field and the Knower of the field according to the scriptures, and having separated, like a stalk from Munjaa-grass, the above-described Knower of the field from the field whose characteristics have been shown earlier, he who realizes the Knowable (i.e., the Knower of the field) -- which, in accordance with 'That is neither called being nor non-being' (12), is devoid of all distinctions created by adjuncts created by adjuncts, -- as identical with Brahman; and he who has the firm realization that the field is surely unreal like an elephat created by magic, a thing seen in a dream, an imaginary city seen in the sky, etc. and it appears., and it appears as though real -- for him false knowledge becomes eradicated, since it is opposed to the right knowledge described above.##
43. etasmin.h paramaarthasaaMkhyadarshane sthitaanaaM j~naananishhThaanaaM paramahaMsaparivraajakaanaaM tiraskR^itaavidyaavyavahaaraaNaaM karmaadhikaaro naasti iti tatra tatra darshitaM bhagavataa || 13.31 ||
##It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks.##
44. yadyapi udaasiinaa bhavanti kechit.h svaabhipraayeNa\, tathaapi paraabhipraayeNa mitraaripaxayoriva bhavanti iti . ayaM tu tulyo mitraaripaxayoH ityaaha || 14.25 ||
##mitra-ari-paxayoh both towards the side of the friend and of the foe -- although from their own standpoint some may be unattached, still, in others' view they may appear to be siding either with friends or foes; hence it is said 'equally disposed both towards the side of the friend and of the foe'##
45. ##'## udaasiinavat.h ##'## ityaadi ##'## guNaatiitaH sa uchyate ##'## ityetadantam.h uktaM yaavat.h yatnasaadhyaM taavat.h saMnyaasinaH anushhTheyaM guNaatiitatvasaadhanaM mumuxoH\, sthiriibhuutaM tu svasaMvedyaM sat.h guNaatiitasya yateH laxaNaM bhavati iti || 14.26 ||
##The disciplines leading to the state of transcendence of the qualities, which have been stated (in the verses) beginning from 'he who, sitting like one indifferent,' and ending with 'he is said to have gone beyond qualities,' have to be practised by a monk, a seeker of Liberation, so long as they are to be achieved through effort. But when they become firmly ingrained, they become the indications, perceivable to himself, of a monk who has transcended the qualities.##
46. yathaa cha iishvarashaktyaa bhaktaanugrahaadiprayojanaaya brahma pratitishhThate pravartate\, saa shaktiH brahmaiva aham.h\, shaktishaktimatoH ananyatvaat.h ityabhipraayaH || 14.27 ||
##Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes forth, for the purpose of favoring the devotees etc. that power which is Brahman Itself, amd I. For a power and the possessor of that power are non-different.##
47. viraktasya hi saMsaaraat.h bhagavattatvaj~naane adhikaaraH\, na anyasyeti || 15.1 ||
##The competence for the knowledge of the nature of God is only his who has become detached from the world; not of any other.##
48. mamaiva paramaatmanaH naaraayaNasya\, aMshaH bhaagaH avayavaH ekadeshaH iti anarthaantaraM\, jiivaloke jiivaanaaM loke saMsaare jiivabhuutaH kartaa bhoktaa iti prasiddhaH sanaatanaH chiraMtanaH\; yathaa jalasuuryakaH suuryaaMshaH jalanimittaapaaye suuryameva gatvaa na nivartate cha tenaiva aatmanaa gachchhati\, evameva\; yathaa vaa ghaTaadyupaadhiparichchhinno ghaTaadyaakaashaH aakaashaaMshaH san.h ghaTaadinimittaapaaye aakaashaM praapya na nivartate ityevam | ataH upapannam.h uktam.h ##'## yadgatvaa na nivartante ##'## iti || 15.7 ||
##It is eva: verily aMshaH, a part, portion, limb, fragment -- these are all synonymous; mama, of mine, of the supreme Self; which jiiva-bhuutaH sanaatanaH becoming the eternal individual soul, well known as the enjoyer and the agent; jiiva-loke, in the region of living beings, i.e., in the world --
As the sun (reflected) in water is a part of the (actual) sun, and goes to the sun itself and does not return when the water, the cause of the reflection, is removed, so also even this part becomes similarly united with that very Self; of, as space enclosed in a pot., etc, delimited by such adjuncts as the pot etc. being a part of Space does not return after being united with Space when the cause (of limitation), viz pot etc. is destroyed. This being so, it has been rightly stated, 'by reaching which they do not return'
##
49. nanu niravayavasya paramaatmanaH kutaH avayavaH ekadeshaH aMshaH iti\? saavayavatve cha vinaashaprasa~NgaH avayavavibhaagaat.h | naishha doshhaH\, avidyaakR^itopaadhiparichchhinnaH ekadeshaH aMshaH eva kalpito yataH || 15.7 ||
##Objection: How can the partless supreme Self have any limb, fragment or part? If it has limbs, then there arises the contingency of Its becoming destroyed through the dismemberment of the limbs?
Reply: This fault does not arise, since Its fragment, which is delimited by an adjunct arising out of ignorance, is imagined to be a part, as it were.
##
50. aadityaadishhu hi sattvaM atyantaprakaasham.h atyantabhaasvaram.h\; ataH tatraiva aavistaraM jyotiH iti tat.h vishishhyate\, na tu tatraiva tat.h adhikamiti | yathaa hi shloke tulye.api mukhasaMsthaane na kaashhThakuDyaadau mukham.h aavirbhavati\, aadarshaadau tu svachchhe svachchhatare cha taaratamyena aavirbhavati\; tadvat.h || 15.12 ||
##Since in the sun etc. the sattva is very much in evidence, is greatly brilliant, therefore there is an abundance of the light (of Consciousness) in them alone. And so it (sun etc.) is specially mentioned. But it is not that it (Consciousness) is abundant only there there. Indeed, as in the world, a face, though in the same position, is not reflected in wood, a wall etc., but in a mirror etc. it is reflected according to the degree in which there are more and more transparent, so is it here.##
51. guNasaMkhyaane kaapile shaastre tadapi guNasaMkhyaanashaastraM guNabhoktR^ivishhaye pramaaNameva | paramaarthabrahmaikatvavishhaye yadyapi virudhyate\, tathaapi te hi kaapilaaH guNaagauNavyaapaaraniruupaNe abhiyuktaaH iti tachchhaastramapi vaxyamaaNaarthastutyarthatvena upaadiiyate iti na virodhaH || 18.19 ||
##Even that philosophy teaching about the guNaas is certainly valid so far as it concerns the experiencer of the guNaas, though it is contradictory so far as the non-duality of the supreme Reality, Brahman, is concerned. Those followers of Kapila are acknowledged authorities in the ascertainment of the functions of the guNaas and their derivatives. Hence, that scripture, too, is being referred to by way of eulogy of the subject-matter going to be spoken of. Therefore, there is no contradiction.##
52. eteshhaaM jaativihitaanaaM karmaNaaM samyaganushhThitaanaaM svargapraaptiH phalaM svabhaavataH || 18.44 ||
##When rightly pursued, the natural result of these duties enjoined for the castes is the attainment of heaven.##
53. svabhaavaniyataM karma kurvaaNo vishhajaH iva kR^imiH kilbishhaM na aapnotiiti uktam.h || 18.48 ||
##It has been said that, as in the case of a worm born in poison, a person does not incur sin while performing his duties which have been dictated by his own nature;##
54. sahajasya karmaNaH svadharmaakhyasya parityaagena paradharmaanushhThaane.api doshhaat.h naiva muchyate\; bhayaavahashcha paradharmaH || 18.48 ||
##One does not get freed from evil by giving up the duty to which one is born -- called one's own duty -- even though (he may be) fulfilling somebody else's duty, Another's duty, too, is fraught with fear.##
55. ekasya abhaavaH\, dvayoH abhaavaH\, sarvasya abhaavaH\, praagabhaavaH\,
pradhvaMsaabhaavaH\, itaretaraabhaavaH\, atyantaabhaavaH iti laxaNato na kenachit.h
visheshho darshayituM shakyaH || 18.48 ||
##Through such descriptions (of abhaava, nonexistence) as nonexistence of one, nonexistence of two, nonexistence of all, antecendent nonexistence, nonexistence after destruction, mutual nonexistence and absolute nonexistence, nobody can show any distinction (as regards nonexistence itself).##
56. vidvaaMstu punaH vidyayaa avidyaayaaM nivR^ittaayaaM shaknotyeva asheshhataH karma parityaktum.h\, avidyaa.adhyaaropitasya sheshhaanupapatteH | na hi taimirikadR^ishhTayaa adhyaaropitasya dvichandraadeH timiraapagame.api sheshhaH avatishhThate ||18.48||
##[The unelightened person is incapable of totally renouncing actions even for a moment (3.5).] The enlightened person, on the other hand, can totally renounce actions when ignorance has been dispelled through Illumination; for it is illogical that there can (then) remain any trace of what has been superimposed through ignorance. Indeed, no trace remains of the two moons, etc. superimposed by the vision affected by (the disease called) Timira when the disease is cured.##
57. j~naanaatmanoshcha ubhayoH niraakaaratve kathaM tadbhaavanaanishhThaa iti\? na\: atyantanirmalatvaatisvachchhatvaatisuuxmatvopapatteH aatmanaH | budhdeshcha aatmavat.h nairmalyaadyupapatteH aatmachaitanyaakaaraabhaasatvopapattiH | buddhyaabhaasaM manaH\, tadaabhaasaani indriyaaNi\, indriyaabhaasashcha dehaH | ataH laukikaiH dehamaatre eva aatmadR^ishhTiH kriyate || 18.50 ||
##Since it can be established that the Self is supremely taintless, pure and subtle, and it can also be established that the intellect can have taintless etc. like the Self, therefore it stands to reason that the intellect can take a form resembling the consciousness of the Self. The mind becomes impressed with the semblance of the intellect; the organs becomes impressed with the semblance of the mind; and the body becomes impressed with the semblance of the organs. Hence it is that the idea of the body itself being the Self is held by ordinary people.##
58. kechittu paNDitaMmanyaaH ##'## niraakaaratvaat.h aatmavastu na upaiti buddhiH| ataH duHsaadhyaa samyagj~naananishhTaa ##'## ityaahuH | satyam.h\, evaM gurusaMpradaayarahitaanaam.h ashrutavedaantaanaam.h atyantabahi\- rvishhayaasaktabuddhiinaaM samyakpramaaNeshhu akR^itashramaaNaam.h | tadvipariitaanaaM tu laukikagraahakadvaitavastuni sadbhuddhiH nitaraaM duHsaMpaadyaa\, aatmachaitanyavyatirekeNa vastvantarasya anupalabdheH ||18.50||
##However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since it is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a traditional like of teachers; who have not heard the Upanishads; whose intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self.##
59. yathaa svadehasya parichchhedaaya na pramaaNaantaraapexaa\, tato.api aatmanaH antaratamatvaat.h tadavagatiM prati na pramaaNaantaraapexaa; || 18.50 ||
##Just as for knowing one's own body there is no need for any other (external) means of knowledge, so also there is no need of any other means of knowledge for the realization of the Self which is innermost (in relation to the body etc.)##
60. dhyaanayogaparaH nityaM nityagrahaNaM mantrajapaadyanyakartavyaabhaava\- pradarshanaartham.h || 18.52 ||
##dhyaana-yoga-parah -- nityam (ever) is used to indicate the absence of other duties like repetition of mantra (A formula of prayer sacred to any diety) etc.##
61. na hi puurvasamudraM jigamishhoH praatilomyena pratyaksamudrajigamishhuNaa samaanamaargatvaM saMbhavati | pratyagaatmavishhayapratyayasaMtaanakaraNaabhiniveshashcha j~naananishhThaa . saa cha pratyaksamudragamanavat.h karmaNaa sahabhaavitvena virudhyate | parvatasarshhapayoriva antaravaan.h virodhaH pramaaNavidaaM nishchitaH || 18.55 ||
##[Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, ] it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course!
And steadfastness in Knowledge consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed.##
62. akaaryatvaachcha niHshreyasasya karmasaadhanatvaanupapattiH | na hi nityaM vastuH karmaNaa j~naanena va kriyate || 18.66 ||
##[... The highest good cannot be attained through mere actions, nor by a combination of Knowledge and action. Besides,] since Liberation is not a product, thefore it is illogical that it should have action as its means. Indeed, an eternal entity cannot be produced by either action or Knowledge.##
63. na karmaNo.asti niHshreyasasaadhanatvam.h | na cha j~naanakarmaNoH samuchchitayoH | naapi j~naanasya kaivalyaphalasya karmasaahaayyaapexaa\, avidyaanivart0akatvena virodhaat.h . na hi tamaH tamasaH nivartakam.h . ataH kevalameva j~naanaM niHshreyasasaadhanam.h iti || 18.66 ||
##Action does not constitute the means to the highest good. Nor do Knowledge and action in combination. Further, Knowledge which has Liberation as its result can have no dependence on the assistance of action, because, being the remover of ignorance, it is opposed (to action). Verily, darkness cannot be dispeller of darkness. Therefore, Knowledge alone is the means to the highest good.##
64. avihitamapratishhiddhaM cha karma tatkaalaphalam.h\, na tu shaastrachoditaM pratishhiddhaM vaa tatkaalaphalaM bhavet.h || 18.66 ||
##Actions which have not been enjoined or prihibited (by the scriptures) produce immediate results. But those enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures do not produce immediate results.##
65. bhakteH punargrahaNaat.h bhaktimaatreNa kevalena shaastrasaMpradaane paatraM bhavatiiti gamyate || 18.68 ||
##By the repetition of (the word) bhakti (devotion) [in the word madbhakteshu] it is understood that one becomes fit for being taught (this) Scripture by virtue of devotion alone to Him.##
66. shishhyasya shaastraarthagrahaNaagrahaNavivekabubhutsyayaa pR^ichchhati | tadagrahaNe j~naate punaH graahayishhyaami upaayaantareNaapi iti prashhTuH abhipraayaH | yatnaantaraM cha aasthaaya shishhyasya kR^itaarthataa kartavyaa iti aachaaryadharmaH pradarshito bhavati || 18.72 ||
##In order to ascertain whether or not the disciple has comprehended the meaning of the Scripture, the Lord asks (the following question), the intention of the questioner being, "If it is known that it has not been comprehended, I shall again make him grasp it through other means." Hereby is shown the duty of the teacher that a student should be made to achieve his goal by taking the help of a different method.##
67. anena mohanaashaprashnaprativachanena sarvashaastraarthaj~naanaphalam.h etaavadeveti nishchitaM darshitaM bhavati\, yataH j~naanaat.h mohanaashaH aatmasmR^itilaabhashcheti || 18.73 ||
##By this question about the destruction of delusion and the answer to it, it becomes conclusively revealed that the fruit derived from understanding the import of the entire Scripture is this much alone -- which is the destruction of delusion arising from ignorance and the regaining of memory about the Self.##
68. yathaa cha saattvikaadipurushhaH sattvaadikaaryaaNi aatmaanaM prati prakaashya nivR^ittaani kaa~Nxati\, na tathaa guNaatiito nivR^ittaani kaa~Nxati ityarthaH | etat.h na parapratyaxaM li~Ngam.h | kiM tarhi\? svaatmapratyaxatvaat.h aatmavishhayameva etat.h laxaNam.h | na hi svaatmavishhayaM dveshhamaakaa~NxaaM vaa paraH pashyati || 14.22 ||
##Unlike a person having sattva etc. who longs for the effects of sattva etc. which withdraw themselves after becoming manifest to him, the person who has gone beyond the qualities na kaaNxati, does not long for them in that way, nivrittani, when the disappear. This is the idea.
This is not an indication that can be perceived by others. What then? Since this characteristic is perceivable to oneself, it is merely subjective. For dislike or longing, which is a subjective experience of a person, is not seen by another.##
69. xetraxetrayoH vishhayavishhayiNoH bhinnasvabhaavayoH itaretarataddharmaadhyaasa\- laxaNaH saMyogaH xetraxetraj~nasvaruupavivekaabhaavanibandhanaH\, rajjushuktikaadiinaaM tadvivekaj~naanaabhaavaat.h adhyaaropitasarparajataadisaMyogavat.h | saH ayaM adhyaasasvaruupaH xetraxetraj~nayoH saMyogaH mithyaaj~naanalaxaNaH || ##(## brahmasuutrabhaashhyasthaadhyaasabhaashhya gatavaakyaanukaari vaakyam ##)## || 13.26 ||
##[Objection: What is meant by this 'association of the field, and the Knower of the field'?
Reply: The answer is:] The association of the field and the Knower of the field -- which are the object and the subject, respectively, and are of different natures -- is in the form of superimposition of each of the other as also of their qualities, as a consequence of the absence of discrimination between the real natures of the field and the Knower of the field. This is like association of a rope, nacre, etc. with the superimposed snake, silver, etc. owing to the absence of discrimination between them. This association of the field and the Knower of the field in the form of superimposition is described as false knowledge.
##
70. mithyaatve.api upaayasya upeyasatyatayaa satyatvameva syaat.h\, yathaa arthavaadaanaaM vidhisheshhaaNaam.h\; loke.api balonmattaadiinaaM paya{}aadau paayayitavye chuuDaavardhanaadivachanam.h | prakaaraantarasthaanaaM cha saaxaadeva vaa praamaaNyaM siddham.h praagaatmaj~naanaat.h dehaabhimaananimittapratyaxaadipraamaaNyavat.h || 18.66 ||
##Although the means be unreal (in itself), still it may be meaningful in relation to the truth of the purpose it serves, as are the eulogistic sentences (arthavaada) occuring along with injunctions. Even in the world, when it becomes necessary to make a child or a lunatic drink milk etc. it is said that it will help growth of hair etc! Before the dawn of Knowledge, the (ritualistic) Vedic texts concerned with a different situation (The situation obtaining before the dawn of Self-knowledge) are also as valid in themselves as are direct perception etc. occuring due to Self-identification with the body etc.##
Read the rest of this entry >>
Monday, December 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Sayana's commentary on RV 10.71.4
This is a beautiful mantra. The devata for this sUkta is jn~Anam, the only such in Rig Veda and perhaps one of the only such in entire saMhita bhaaga of four vedas.
Here is Sayana's commentary:
Read the rest of this entry >>
Here is Sayana's commentary:
Read the rest of this entry >>
Monday, September 28, 2009
vijaya daSami SubhaakaaMxalu
May the divine mother, the shakti who manifests Herself in all beings as icchha-shakti, j~nAna-shakti and kriya-shakti bless us in all our endeavours.
Watch this following vedio to see how Kalidasa was blessed by the divine mother.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Watch this following vedio to see how Kalidasa was blessed by the divine mother.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Om namo venkatesaya
A picture of Shri Venkateshwara of Tirumala hills. This is the only time when photography was allowed in the holy garbha griha of the temple.
May the Infinite be praised!
Read the rest of this entry >>
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Speed of Light from Sayana bhAShya
Here is the actual reference from Sayana's bhashya on Rig Veda (Sayana's Commentary on Rig Veda).
The first two lines in the Commentary for 1.50.4 (in Sanskrit) for the mantras dedicated to Surya in this Sukta have the meaning (given below). These mantras are commonly recited by brahmins as part of a Soura Suktam (Hymns dedicated to the Solar Orb).
This post at Sanskrit-list as well as these archives helped.
Also read Atanu's take on the issue. Please read it carefully, as carefully as you read the above reference from Sayana's bhashya. It is important to understand both positions.
Also, before you associate the Solar orb to the visible sun around which planet earth revolves, read this dialogue on Sandhya Upaasana, when Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamiji (of the past century) clearly says that such an association is made with an incomplete understanding.
Read the rest of this entry >>
The first two lines in the Commentary for 1.50.4 (in Sanskrit) for the mantras dedicated to Surya in this Sukta have the meaning (given below). These mantras are commonly recited by brahmins as part of a Soura Suktam (Hymns dedicated to the Solar Orb).
This post at Sanskrit-list as well as these archives helped.
Regarding Speed of Light:
There are 2 quotes. I will try to reproduce as given in the book:
taraNirvishvadarshato jyotiShk^Ridasi sUrya | vishvamAbhAsi rochanam |
Oh Sun! (You) overwhelm all in speed, visible to all, source of light. (You) shine pervading the Universe.
tathA cha smaryata yojanAnAM sahasram dve dve shate dve cha yojane | ekena nimiShArdhena kramamANa namo&stu te ||
It is remembered (that) Salutations to Thee (sun), the traveller of 2.202 yojanas in half a nimiSha.
Source:
Rg-veda-samhitA, maNDalam 1, sUktam 50, mantraH 4 (6000 DCE) sAyanAchArya's commentary (14th century AD)
Also read Atanu's take on the issue. Please read it carefully, as carefully as you read the above reference from Sayana's bhashya. It is important to understand both positions.
Also, before you associate the Solar orb to the visible sun around which planet earth revolves, read this dialogue on Sandhya Upaasana, when Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamiji (of the past century) clearly says that such an association is made with an incomplete understanding.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
om shri gaNeshaaya namaH
Bow to Ganesha who removes all the obstacles in our progress. Bow to Shankara who could write such beautiful poems about the clearest form of absolute.
The essence of Ganesha story is the son of paarvathi and parameshvara stopping their meeting. Shiva removes the head and reattaches it on the request of paarvathi. Ganesha becomes a symbol of brahman.
The symbolism is very easy to see. The jIva, which thinks that Ishvara is different from prakRiti and makes an effort to stop them (and falsely siding with prakRiti), has to be removed of his ego. This is the meaning of the beheading. The jIva without ego is not interesting to prakRiti. She wants an ego, not necessarily the small i, which seemingly sides with her. But some I. But when Ishvara as guru gives an ego, it has to be the universal ego, the I, and never ever the i. That is symbolic of the size of the new head. Also, Ishvara only has to give jIva the parA-vidya. This alone makes the i turn into I. This makes the jIva as brahman. Ganesha becomes Ishvara.
Notes
1: prakRiti did not instruct the jIva to stop the Ishvara. She only instructed the jIva to be at the door (meaning at the boundary of jagat). The prakRiti obviously knows that she a part of Ishvara, symbolic of the artha-naarIshvara form.
2. It is the jIva that erroneously created a barrier between both of prakRiti and Ishvara. (dvaitins come under this category!!!). It is the jIva that falsely thought that prakRiti and Ishvara are different and tried to separate them. From when did this superimposition start? Refer Shankara's exclamation at the beginning of His BSB commentary when he rhetorically asks the reason why jIva had to think so, and concludes that the cause is the beginningless avidya.
Very simple right!
Read the rest of this entry >>
Friday, August 14, 2009
A shloka from Madhusudana Saraswathi's gUDArtha diipika
Introducing Chapter of 13 Gita, Madhusudana, in His gUDArtha-dIpika says
dhyanaabhyaasanavashiikR^itena manasaa tannirguNaM nishhkriyaM jyotiH kiMchanaM yogino yadi paraM pashyanti pashyantu te | asmaakaM tu tadeva locanachamatkaaraaya bhuuyaachchiraM kaalindiipulinodare kimapi yanniilaM maho dhaavati ||
ध्यनाà¤्यासनवशीकृतेन मनसा तन्निर्गुणं निष्क्रियं ज्योतिः किंचनं योगिनो यदि परं पश्यन्ति पश्यन्तु ते | अस्माकं तु तदेव लोचनचमत्काराय à¤ूयाच्चिरं कालिन्दीपुलिनोदरे किमपि यन्नीलं महो धावति ||
If the yogis, with their minds which have been brought under control through the practise of meditation, see some such transcendental light that is without qualities and action, let them see!
But, for filling our eyes with astonishment, let there be forever that indescribable Blue (Light) alone which runs about hither and thither on the sands of the kaaLindi (Yamuna)!
The following was posted on advaitin list:
Shri S.N.Sastri says:
Postscript: Also see this old post of mine.
Read the rest of this entry >>
dhyanaabhyaasanavashiikR^itena manasaa tannirguNaM nishhkriyaM jyotiH kiMchanaM yogino yadi paraM pashyanti pashyantu te | asmaakaM tu tadeva locanachamatkaaraaya bhuuyaachchiraM kaalindiipulinodare kimapi yanniilaM maho dhaavati ||
ध्यनाà¤्यासनवशीकृतेन मनसा तन्निर्गुणं निष्क्रियं ज्योतिः किंचनं योगिनो यदि परं पश्यन्ति पश्यन्तु ते | अस्माकं तु तदेव लोचनचमत्काराय à¤ूयाच्चिरं कालिन्दीपुलिनोदरे किमपि यन्नीलं महो धावति ||
If the yogis, with their minds which have been brought under control through the practise of meditation, see some such transcendental light that is without qualities and action, let them see!
But, for filling our eyes with astonishment, let there be forever that indescribable Blue (Light) alone which runs about hither and thither on the sands of the kaaLindi (Yamuna)!
The following was posted on advaitin list:
Concluding His commentary on 15th chapter of Gita, here is what Madhusudana Sarawathi has to say:
vaMshiivibhUshhitakaraannavaniiradaabhaatpiitaambaraadaruNabimbaphalaadharoshhTh
at.h
|
pUrNedusundaramukhaadaravindanetraatkR^iShNaatparaM kimapi tattvamahaM na jaane
||
I do not know any reality other than krishna whose hands are adorned with a flute, whose lustre is like that of a rain-cloud, who wears a yellow cloth, whose lips are reddish like the Bimba-fruit, whose face is beautiful like the full moon, and whose eyes are like lotuses.
sadaa sadaanandapade nimagnaM mano manobhaavamapaakaroti |
gataagataayaasamapaasya sadhaH paraaparaatiitamupaiti tatvam.h ||
The mind that is ever merged in the state of constant Bliss removes (all) mentations, (and) by eradicating the sorrows consequent on (repeated) births and deaths it attains at once the Reality transcending cause and effect.
shaivaH saurashcha gaaNeshaa vaishhNavaaH shaktipUjakaaH |
bhavanti yanmayaaH sarve sohamasmi paraH shivaH ||
I am that supreme Auspicious One in whom get identified all the followers of Shiva, of the Sun, of Ganesha, of Vishnu, and the worshippers of Shakti.
Shri S.N.Sastri says:
Madhusudana Sarasvati, who was a great devotee of Krishna and also a great advaitin, has, in the above shloka, first described Krishna and then identified him with the supreme brahman.
Another great devotee-poet, Narayana Bhattatiri, has, in the first shloka of his great work nArAyaNIyam, done the opposite. He has first described the supreme brahman and then identified it with Krishna, the Lord of GuruvAyUr. The shloka is given below:
sAndrAnandAvabodhAtmakam anupamitam kAladeshAvadhibhyAm
nirmuktam nityamuktam nigamashatasahasreNa nirbhAsyamAnam |
aspaShTam dRiShTamAtre punarurupuruSharthAtmakam brahma tattvam
tat tAvat bhAti sAkShAt gurupavanapure hanta bhAgyam janAnAm ||
Translation:--
Brahman, which is pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, which is without parallel, which is absolutely free from the limitations of time and space, which is always free from the control of mAyA, which is very well explained by innumerable statements in the upaniShads, but is yet not clearly grasped (by a mere study of the upaniShads), but the realization of whose identity with one's own self is what constitutes the highest puruShArtha, namely, liberation from the cycle of birth and death; that very Brahman is present in concrete form in the temple of GuruvAyUr (in the form of Lord Krishna). This is indeed a great good fortune for the people.
The above shloka contains the essence of all the upaniShads.
Postscript: Also see this old post of mine.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Some notes on Chapter 11 of Bhagavad Gita based on Advaitic Commentaries
Om vishvarUpAya namaH
Reading Chapter 11 of Gita raises a lot of questions in the seeker: "Who saw what and when and how?". The following is a summary of the Advaitic position as per my understanding of Shankara's and Madhusudana's commentaries.
The post has the complete translations by Swami Gambhirananda, of all the verses used in the text,
An initial version of this post appeared on advatin list. Here is the link. It is also suggested to read the entire thread.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Reading Chapter 11 of Gita raises a lot of questions in the seeker: "Who saw what and when and how?". The following is a summary of the Advaitic position as per my understanding of Shankara's and Madhusudana's commentaries.
The post has the complete translations by Swami Gambhirananda, of all the verses used in the text,
- Arjuna's Vision
- What did he see?
The description by Arjuna of what he saw in the chapter matches the words in Vedic purushha sUkta and the sUkta from taittarIya mahanArayaNa upanishhad, commonly known as Narayana Sukta. (Incidentally, the Rishhi for the Rig Vedic purushha sUkta (10.90) is nArAyaNa, with the devata being purushha!) - The vision of Arjuna had a beginning and end. Not the source:
Though it is commonly understood that the Lord shows His cosmic form to Arjuna, it does not mean that the cosmic form had a beginning in time or space or causality. The request by Arjuna made him see the eternal form of saguNa brahman or Ishvara. Ishvara is anAdi (beginningless in time and space) and exists without any other causal effect and is shaasvata as extolled by Arjuna himself. Ishvara is the primal cause of everything else and not caused by anything.
Thus, the granting of divine eyes (divya chakshu) by the Lord in 11.8 "I grant you the supernatural eye" (divya.n dadaami te chakshuH) is the beginning of Arjuna's vision and not of the Lord's Cosmic Form which is eternal. The Lord Himself says at the end of chapter 10: "I *remain sustaning* this whole creation in a special way with a part (of Myself)" (ekaaa.nshena sthito jagat.h 10.42), and it is the whole that Arjuna desired to see at the beginning of Chapter 11. The whole neither has a beginning nor an end. The vision of the whole, depending on the limitations of seeker, and his desires, has a beginning and end accordingly. These above two statements have close relationship with the limitations of nAma-rUpa (name and form) and the eternality, which is beyond nAma-rUpa. - The apparent cause of the cosmic form is Lord's maaya.
Further, Arjuna sees the form only because of Lord's yoga, with the word in this context meaning mAya or divine power, or 'the power of accomplishing the impossible' (meaning of aishvaram by Madhusudana). Twice does Lord Krishna explain to Arjuna how he (Arjuna) could see the Cosmic Form. In 11.8, He says "behold My divine Yoga" (pashya me yogamaishvaram.h) while in 11.47 He says: "This form ... has been shown to you by Me through the power of My own Yoga" (ruupaM paraM darshitamaatmayogaat.h). These two references point out that it is maaya is Ishvara's cosmic power that is the material cause for the Cosmic Form, while He (Ishvara) is the nimmita kaaraNa.
Lord Krishna briefly describes to Arjuna, in three verses 11.5-11.7 what Arjuna would see. In 11.8, He explains to him what made the cosmic form possible and then grants him the divine eyes. Here are the verses:
pashya me paartha ruupaaNi shatasho.atha sahasrashaH .
naanaavidhaani divyaani naanaavarNaakR^itiini cha .. 11.5..
O son of Prtha, behold My forms in (their) hundreds and in thousands, of different kinds, celestial, and of various colours and shapes.
pashyaadityaanvasuun.hrudraanashvinau marutastathaa .
bahuunyadR^ishhTapuurvaaNi pashyaashcharyaaNi bhaarata .. 11.6..
See the Adiyas, the Vasus, the Rudras, the two Asvins and the Maruts. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, behold also the many wonders not seen before.
ihaikastha.n jagatkR^itsnaM pashyaadya sacharaacharam.h .
mama dehe guDaakesha yachchaanyad.h drashhTumichchhasi .. 11.7..
See now, O gudakesa, O Gudakesa (Arjuna), the entire Universe together with the moving and the non-moving, concentrated at the same place here in My body, as also whatever else you would like to see.
na tu maa.n shakyase drashhTumanenaiva svachakshushhaa .
divya.n dadaami te chakshuH pashya me yogamaishvaram.h .. 11.8..
But you are not able to see Me merely with this eye of yours. I grant you the supernatural eye; behold My divine Yoga.
- If Arjuna's vision was limited, it was because of his desire:
In 11.7, Lord Krishna mysteriously says to (yachchaanyad.h drashhTumichchhasi) that "He would would show Arjuna what ever else he would like to see". From this, we understand that the vishvarUpa that Arjuna sees in this chapter is according to what Lord Krishna explains in the above three verses (11.5-7) and according to what he (Arjuna) had *already* desired in his mind to see. Shankara points out the above in his commentary for 11.7 and hints at it in 11.26.
This is the reason for Arjuna being shown only a limited future, that too only till the end of the war and its result. Though he was shown in 11.26-27, the death of the warriors of the opposite side, he was not shown the coronation of Yudhishtara, or other later events like cosmic dissolution as seen by Markandeya in Chapter 12 of Srimad Bhagavatham for example.
So, the other vishvarUpa-s seen by other devotees in mahAbhAratha/purANa-s are different from this particular vishvarUpa only in this aspect. The same vishvarUpa seen by different seekers, at different levels of Vedantic maturity (adhikAra) from different source texts may be fallacious reasoning. - Arjuna experiencing fear when he saw the vishvarUpa was because of the fear of second entity:
Primarily we know the advaitic answers to the fear that Arjuna saw in other beings (in 11.21, 11.23 or 11.36), or later experienced by himself (11.45). It is the following Upanishadic statements "Fear indeed arises from a second entity" (dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati Br. Up. 1.4.2) and "If he makes the slightest differentiation in It, there is fear for him. That (Brahman) becomes (the cause of) fear for knower (of differentiation) who does not reflect" (etasminnudaramantaraM kurute atha tasya bhayaM bhavati tatveva bhayaM vidushho.amanvaanasya tadapyeshha shloko bhavati Tai. Up. 2.7.1).
- What did he see?
- What did 'others' see? (Others means devata-s (members of higher worlds: indra, rudra-s and so on), the members of the three worlds, raakshasa-s and Sanjaya)
In 11.20, Arjuna says that the three worlds saw the Cosmic Form and are running away from it with fear.
dyaavaapR^ithivyoridamantara.n hi
vyaapta.n tvayaikena dishashcha sarvaaH .
dR^ishhTvaad.hbhutaM ruupamugra.n tavedaM
lokatrayaM pravyathitaM mahaatman.h .. 11.20..
Indeed, this intermediate space between heaven and earth as also all the directions are pervaded by You alone. O exalted One, the three worlds are struck with fear by seeing this strange, fearful form of Yours.
This is also supported by his words in verses 11.21-11.23 where Arjuna says that the members of the three worlds (lokatrayaM), along with devata-s (rudra-s, aaditya-s, vasu-s etc.), also saw the Cosmic Form.
amii hi tvaa.n surasaN^ghaa vishanti
kechidbhiitaaH praaJNjalayo gR^iNanti .
svastiityuktvaa maharshhisiddhasaN^ghaaH
stuvanti tvaa.n stutibhiH pushhkalaabhiH .. 11.21..
Those very groups of gods enter into You; struck with fear, some extol (You) with joined palms. Groups of great sages and perfected beings praise You with elaborate hymns,saying 'May it be well!'
rudraadityaa vasavo ye cha saadhyaa
vishveshvinau marutashchoshhmapaashcha .
gandharvayakshaasurasiddhasaN^ghaa
viikshante tvaa.n vismitaashchaiva sarve .. 11.22..
Those who are the Rudras, the Adityas, the Vasus and the Sadhyas [sadhyas: A particular class of celestial beings.-V.S.A.], the Visve (-devas), the two Asvins, the Maruts and the Usmapas, and hosts of Gandharvas, Yaksas, demons and Siddhas-all of those very ones gaze at You, being indeed struck with wonder.
ruupaM mahatte bahuvaktranetra.n
mahaabaaho bahubaahuurupaadam.h .
bahuudaraM bahuda.nshhTraakaraalaM
dR^ishhTvaa lokaaH pravyathitaastathaaham.h .. 11.23..
O mighty-armed One, seeing Your immense form with many mouths and eyes, having numerous arms, thighs and feet, with many bellies, and fearful with many teeth, the creatures are struck with terror, and so am I.
Further, Arjuna begins his well known prayer (verses 11.36-11.46) in verse 11.36 saying that raakshasa-s are running away from the Cosmic Form and the siddha-s are praising Him. So, even here, he says that raakshasa-s (ones who live in nether worlds) as well as devata-s saw the cosmic form.
sthaane hR^ishhiikesha tava prakiirtyaa
jagatprahR^ishhyatyanurajyate cha .
rakshaa.nsi bhiitaani disho dravanti
sarve namasyanti cha siddhasaN^ghaaH .. 11.36..
It is proper, O Hrsikesa, that the world becomes delighted and attracted by Your praise; that the Raksasas, stricken with fear, run in all directions; and that all the groups of the Siddhas bow down (toYou).
But, the above verses would raise the following question: why are others in the three worlds, including the lower forms like raakshasa-s (11.36) are able to see the Lord when Arjuna alone asked for it, and was gifted divya chakshu-s (divine eyes) as a gift from Lord Krishna specifically for that purpose? Also, how do the above verses go together with the following verses, where Lord Krishna says that "this vision has not been seen by anyone before (11.6)", "the form has not been seen by anyone before other than you (11.47)", "the form is not achievable through any human effort (like , veda-study, yaGYa, daana etc.) other than you (11.48)", "this form, which you have just seen is very difficult to see. Even deva-s are ever desirous of a vision of this form" and again "not through any human effort (veda study, tapa, daana etc.) can I be seen as you have seen me (11.53)". Here are the verses:
pashyaadityaanvasuun.hrudraanashvinau marutastathaa .
bahuunyadR^ishhTapuurvaaNi pashyaashcharyaaNi bhaarata .. 11.6..
See the Adiyas, the Vasus, the Rudras, the two Asvins and the Maruts. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, behold also the many wonders not seen before.
mayaa prasannena tavaarjunedaM
ruupaM paraM darshitamaatmayogaat.h .
tejomayaM vishvamanantamaadya.n
yanme tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapuurvam.h .. 11.47..
Out of grace, O Arjuna, this supreme, radiant, Cosmic, infinite, primeval form-which (form) of Mine has not been seen before by anyone other than you, has been shown to you by Me through the power of My own Yoga.
na veda yaGYaadhyayanairna daanaiH
na cha kriyaabhirna tapobhirugraiH .
eva.nruupaH shakya ahaM nR^iloke
drashhTuM tvadanyena kurupraviira .. 11.48..
Not by the study of the Vedas and sacrifices, not by gifts, not even by rituals, not by severe austerities can I, in this form, be perceived in the human world by anyone ['By anyone who has not received My grace']. other than you, O most valiant among the Kurus.
sudurdarshamidaM ruupaM dR^ishhTvaanasi yanmama .
devaa apyasya ruupasya nitya.n darshanakaaN^kshiNaH .. 11.52..
This form of Mine which you have seen is very difficult to see; even the gods are ever desirous of a vision of this form.
naahaM vedairna tapasaa na daanena na chejyayaa .
shakya eva.nvidho drashhTuM dR^ishhTavaanasi maa.n yathaa ..
11.53..
Not through the Vedas, not by austerity, not by gifts, nor even by sacrifice can I be seen in this form as you have seen Me.
Further, perplexing are the following statements from Advaitic Commentaries:
Shankara in His commentary for 11.6 notes that it is a form 'not seen before-by you or anyone else in the human world'.
Further, He says in His commentary for 11.52 that "The idea is that though they want to see, they have not seen in the way you have, nor will they see!" (devaaH api asya mama rUpasya nityaM sarvadA darshanakAMkshiNaH, darshanepsavopi na tvamiva drushhTavantaH, na drakshyanti cha iti abhipraayaH).
Clearly, the word nitya in 'nitya.n darshanakaaN^kshiNaH' in the above verse (11.52) has been interpreted by Shankara as meaning eternal or forever, thereby meaning that the gods are forever desirous of the form. Madhusudana also writes similarly.
Couple of questions arise (i) what was the need for the commentators to interpret the nitya as forever (meaning eternally impossible) and (ii) how can the commentary be interpreted along with their commentaries for 11.20-23 and 11.36-37, where it was interpreted that the other beings: celestial beings or members of the three worlds or and members of the nether wordls, saw the Cosmic form.
A simple interpretation is that the commentators read these verses (11.52-53) in a pedagogic sense, implying that they are a eulogy of bhakti, which has been extolled in 11.54-55 and thereby setting stage for the next chapter of Gita (12), which has usually been called as bhakti-yoga. Here are the verses:
bhaktyaa tvananyayaa shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna .
GYaatuM drashhTu.n cha tatvena praveshhTu.n cha para.ntapa .. 11.54..
But, O Arjuna, by single-minded devotion am I-in this form-able to be known and seen in reality, and also be entered into, O destroyer of foes.
Tu, but, O Arjuna; bhaktya, by devotion-. Of what kind? To this the Lord says: Ananyaya, by (that devotion which is ) single-minded. That is called single-minded devotion which does not turn to anything else other than the Lord, and owing to which nothing else but Vasudeva is perceived by all the organs. With that devotion, aham sakyah, am I able; evamvidhah, in this form-in the aspect of the Cosmic form; jnatum, to to known-from the scriptures; not merely to be known from the scriptures, but also drastum, to be seen , to be realized directly; tattvena, in reality; and also pravestum, to be entered into-for attaining Liberation; parantapa, O destroyer of foes.
matkarmakR^inmatparamo madbhaktaH saN^gavarjitaH .
nirvairaH sarvabhuuteshhu yaH sa maameti paaNDava .. 11.55..
O son of Pandu, he who works for Me, accepts Me as the supreme Goal, is devoted to Me, is devoid of attachment and free from enmity towards all beings-he attains Me.
Such an explanation would also go along with the eulogical terms with which Shankara has introduced 11.55 "essential purport of the whole scripture, the Gita, which is meant for Liberation, is being stated by summing it up so that it may be practised"
But a deeper meaning of Shankara's words in the commentary for 11.52 may have to do with Cosmic maaya using which Lord Krishna has shown the divine form. As written above, twice does Lord Krishna say that it is due to His maaya alone that He has been able to show the Cosmic Form. So, though Lord Krishna may have allowed for Arjuna to extoll him by saying that the Cosmic Form has been seen by others too, actually, from a pAramArthic point of view (Krishna's point of view), after the Cosmic Form has been withdrawn, it is just a magic-show or drama, for Lord Krishna, with He being the divine magician or actor!!! Ths spirit is much alike the verse 2 of Shri Dakshinamurthy stotram: "by whose magic this was transformed (manifested) in various forms, by His own will similar to a great-yogi's" (maayaaviiva vijR^imbhayatyapi mahaayogiiva yaH svechchhayaa). Hence, Shankara's and Madhusudana's commentaries for 11.52-53, along with their commentaries for the earlier verses 11.20-23 and 11.36 are completely justified and are true to the actual spirit of Advaita which Lord Krishna was teaching all along.
(ii) Sanjaya's vision: This is a very easy as explained by Sanjaya's account to Dhritarastra at the end of chapter 18 (18.77), where he clearly says that he is "rejoicing by repeatedly recollecting the extraordinary form of hari" (adbhuta-rUpam), which could only mean the Cosmic Form.
tachcha sa.nsmR^itya sa.nsmR^itya ruupamatyadbhutaM hareH .
vismayo me mahaanraajanhR^ishhyaami cha punaH punaH .. 18.77..
O king, repeatedly recollecting that greatly extraordinary form of Hari, I am struck with wonder. And I rejoice again and again.
And, rajan, O King; samsmrtya samsmrtya, repeatedly recollecting; tat, that; ati-adbhutam, greatly extraordinary; rupam, form, the Cosmic form; hareh, of Hari; mahan vismayah me, I am struck with great wonder. And hrsyami, I rejoice; punah punah, again and again.
- What are the various forms that Lord Krishna takes in Gita
First of all, we should note that Lord Krishna is aatma and truly beyond forms and anything that follows in this section is merely a textual interpretation.
Lord Krishna, who was initially in the normal human form (with normal for Lord Krishna, may not being the same as normal for humans) at the beginning
of the teaching, chapters 1-10 showed the cosmic form in Chapter 11 and resumed to His "divine form" (deva-rUpam) or "form with four hands" (chaturbhuja-rUpam), as requested by Arjuna in 11.46. The narrator Sanjayasays that the Lord took a "serene form" (saumya-rUpam) and later in 11.51, Arjuna says that he is pacified by seeing the human form 'maanusha rUpam'. So perhaps there was a quick transition from Cosmic Form to divine-form (or chaturbhuja-form) to human form. (I have used Swami Shri Vidyaprakashananda's suggestion in annotating the rUpam in 11.45 with the word deva, which is different from Swami Gambhirananda's translation below.)Here are the verses:
arjuna uvaacha .
adR^ishhTapuurva.n hR^ishhito.asmi dR^ishhTvaa
bhayena cha pravyathitaM mano me .
tadeva me darshaya deva ruupaM
prasiida devesha jagannivaasa .. 11.45..
I am delighted by seeing something not seen heretofore, and my mind is stricken with fear. O Lord, show me that very form; O supreme God, O Abode of the Universe, be gracious!
kiriiTinaM gadina.n chakrahastaM
ichchhaami tvaa.n drashhTumahaM tathaiva .
tenaiva ruupeNa chaturbhujena
sahasrabaaho bhava vishvamuurte .. 11.46..
I want to see You just as before, wearing a crown, wielding a mace, and holding a disc in hand. O You with thousand arms, O You of Cosmic form, appear with that very form with four hands.
shriibhagavaanuvaacha .
maa te vyathaa maa cha vimuuDhabhaavo
dR^ishhTvaa ruupaM ghoramiidR^iN^.hmamedam.h .
vyapetabhiiH priitamanaaH punastva.n
tadeva me ruupamidaM prapashya .. 11.49..
May you have no fear, and may not there be bewilderment by seeing this form of Mine so terrible Becoming free from fear and gladdened in mind again, see this very earlier form of Mine.
sa.njaya uvaacha .
ityarjunaM vaasudevastathoktvaa
svakaM ruupaM darshayaamaasa bhuuyaH .
aashvaasayaamaasa cha bhiitamenaM
bhuutvaa punaH saumyavapurmahaatmaa .. 11.50..
Thus, having spoken to Arjuna in that manner, Vasudeva showed His own form again. And He, the exalted One, reassured this terrified one by again becoming serene in form.
arjuna uvaacha .
dR^ishhTvedaM maanushhaM ruupaM tava saumya.n janaardana .
idaaniimasmi sa.nvR^ittaH sachetaaH prakR^iti.n gataH .. 11.51..
O Janardana, having seen this serene human form of Yours, I have now become
calm in mind and restored to my own nature.
kiriiTinaM gadina.n chakrahastaM
ichchhaami tvaa.n drashhTumahaM tathaiva .
tenaiva ruupeNa chaturbhujena
sahasrabaaho bhava vishvamuurte .. 11.46..
I want to see You just as before, wearing a crown, wielding a mace, and holding a disc in hand. O You with thousand arms, O You of Cosmic form, appear with that very form with four hands.
Also, Arjuna in his prayer (11.36-46), when he asks for apology for referring to Lord Krishna as kRishhNa, yaadava and sakha, is recognizing that Lord Krishna is truly beyond forms, in the true spirit of 7.24 and 9.11. Here are the verses:
sakheti matvaa prasabhaM yaduktaM
he kR^ishhNa he yaadava he sakheti .
ajaanataa mahimaanaM tavedaM
mayaa pramaadaatpraNayena vaa.api .. 11.41..
Without knowing this greatness of Yours, whatever was said by me (to You) rashly, through inadvertence or even out of intimacy, thinking (You to be) a friend, addressing (You) as 'O krsna,' 'O Yadava,' 'O friend,' etc.-.
avyaktaM vyaktimaapannaM manyante maamabuddhayaH .
paraM bhaavamajaananto mamaavyayamanuttamam.h .. 7.24..
The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and
unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.
avajaananti maaM muuDhaa maanushhii.n tanumaashritam.h .
paraM bhaavamajaananto mama bhuutamaheshvaram.h .. 9.11..
Not knowing My supreme nature as the Lord of all beings, foolish people disregard Me who have taken a human body. - What form does the Ishvara take? Arjuna asked for a specific form of the Lord. Lord Krishna took that form. It shows that Ishvara, though formless, takes the form that the devotee requests Him. Here are the verses.
maa te vyathaa maa cha vimuuDhabhaavo
dR^ishhTvaa ruupaM ghoramiidR^iN^.hmamedam.h .
vyapetabhiiH priitamanaaH punastva.n
tadeva me ruupamidaM prapashya .. 11.49..
May you have no fear, and may not there be bewilderment by seeing this form of Mine so terrible Becoming free from fear and gladdened in mind again, see this very earlier form of Mine.
An initial version of this post appeared on advatin list. Here is the link. It is also suggested to read the entire thread.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Vyasa ashtottarshata-namavalii
Vyasa ashtottarshata-namavalii, thanks to Shri Sunder-ji (who is a moderator of Advaitin group and respected member of online Sanskrit community) is available at the following links:
ITX file
PDF file. Read the rest of this entry >>
ITX file
PDF file. Read the rest of this entry >>
Thursday, June 18, 2009
On propagating the Vedas
The Veda-pUrva-bhAga is the forest in which the trees have bloomed, of which the flowers are the Upanishads.
Upanishads are like the final flowers whose fragrances are ready for any sincere seeker to take. The essence of these flowers has been sprinkled in purANa-s too, by the revered Veda Vyasa. There are no limits on who can smell the flower or the taste the essence of the flower. They should have that particular sense. That is it.
Giving back to the system (the vaidic system) may be interpreted as going out of the place one has smelled the flowers and running around in ecstasy letting people know where the flowers can be found. Some other people interpret the giving back to the system as choosing to remain in the forest, and taking care that the system that has lead to the flowers bloom is intact.
This constant gardening is mostly a thankless job and is error prone and leads to fear of staying within the realm of dharma, as the veda-pUrva-bhAga is full of kArmic injunctions which should be carefully dealt with. This fear manifests in anger towards anything that seems to obstruct the path. The constant watching of actions at the manas, vaak and karma so that there is no dharma-glaani occurs is a difficult task indeed. (Is this the reason why some of our ancestors were known to be very anger prone? Was it the anger which was fueled by the dharma-glaani, or was it the one fueled by kaama, as gIta says many times?)
There may be a selfish reason too: they get to smell more flowers than the ones who go out with limited flowers. Occasionally they need to take care of the serpents that are the the forest, but that is part of the job.
The people who run around about the fragrance often (often indeed!) meet people who do not have the taste for the flowers. These latter varieties of people are perhaps ones who lost the particular sense, and they may argue about the futility of the fragrance/taste itself (they could be like the characters in the "Country of Blind Men" by H.G. Wells).
This poses some questions:
How many are ready for the gardening of the forest? Who ready for this difficult task? How long can one keep smelling the flowers?
Alternately how long can one garden the forest? Doesn't one "give back" something to the forest? What if the forest is infinite? Shouldn't the fragrance be propagated by living it, instead of working on improving it?
Read the rest of this entry >>
Upanishads are like the final flowers whose fragrances are ready for any sincere seeker to take. The essence of these flowers has been sprinkled in purANa-s too, by the revered Veda Vyasa. There are no limits on who can smell the flower or the taste the essence of the flower. They should have that particular sense. That is it.
Giving back to the system (the vaidic system) may be interpreted as going out of the place one has smelled the flowers and running around in ecstasy letting people know where the flowers can be found. Some other people interpret the giving back to the system as choosing to remain in the forest, and taking care that the system that has lead to the flowers bloom is intact.
This constant gardening is mostly a thankless job and is error prone and leads to fear of staying within the realm of dharma, as the veda-pUrva-bhAga is full of kArmic injunctions which should be carefully dealt with. This fear manifests in anger towards anything that seems to obstruct the path. The constant watching of actions at the manas, vaak and karma so that there is no dharma-glaani occurs is a difficult task indeed. (Is this the reason why some of our ancestors were known to be very anger prone? Was it the anger which was fueled by the dharma-glaani, or was it the one fueled by kaama, as gIta says many times?)
There may be a selfish reason too: they get to smell more flowers than the ones who go out with limited flowers. Occasionally they need to take care of the serpents that are the the forest, but that is part of the job.
The people who run around about the fragrance often (often indeed!) meet people who do not have the taste for the flowers. These latter varieties of people are perhaps ones who lost the particular sense, and they may argue about the futility of the fragrance/taste itself (they could be like the characters in the "Country of Blind Men" by H.G. Wells).
This poses some questions:
How many are ready for the gardening of the forest? Who ready for this difficult task? How long can one keep smelling the flowers?
Alternately how long can one garden the forest? Doesn't one "give back" something to the forest? What if the forest is infinite? Shouldn't the fragrance be propagated by living it, instead of working on improving it?
Read the rest of this entry >>
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Protecting sanAtana dharma
In general, the second aashrama (namely grihasthaas) have the main responsibility of protecting dharma as they follow the jaImini mImaMsa sUtrAs, which begins with athAto-dharma-jiGYAsA followed by chodana-lakshaNaH-artho-dharmaH. This should be contrasted with the fourth aashrama, the sannyaasins, who have renounced everything for the sake of brahma-jiGYAsa, following the bAdarAyaNa sUtrAs, which begins with athato-brahma-jiGYAsA.
It is sad that in the current days, when virus [1] of conversion is spreading, the protection of dharma has fallen on the shoulders of sannyAsins. It is not that they are doing poor job out of it. In fact they are excelling in what they are doing. But it is a travesty that the current kaala (kali-kaala!!!) is of that nature that everyone else, other than the individuals belonging to the fourth aashrama, has turned into an artha kaami and kaama kaami leaving alone dharma.
[1] It should actually be fungus, rather than virus. virus has a raajasik nature, while fungus has a taamasik nature. People who convert others and people who are converted are full of taamasik nature. Read the rest of this entry >>
It is sad that in the current days, when virus [1] of conversion is spreading, the protection of dharma has fallen on the shoulders of sannyAsins. It is not that they are doing poor job out of it. In fact they are excelling in what they are doing. But it is a travesty that the current kaala (kali-kaala!!!) is of that nature that everyone else, other than the individuals belonging to the fourth aashrama, has turned into an artha kaami and kaama kaami leaving alone dharma.
[1] It should actually be fungus, rather than virus. virus has a raajasik nature, while fungus has a taamasik nature. People who convert others and people who are converted are full of taamasik nature. Read the rest of this entry >>
Friday, June 12, 2009
Advaita and Vedanta before Shankara
Who were the Advaitins before Adi Shankara? gauDapAda's kArika is a commentary on mAnDUkya. What about other Upanishads? Kena is said to have two commentaries by Adi Shankara, one of which is said to have referred to an earlier commentary. What was it?
What about the authors of ashTAvakra-gIta, avadhUta-gIta and yoga-vAsishhTa?
Why does Swami Madhavananda says that "Kumarila Bhatta did his best to do an GYAna-interpretation of the brahmaNAs?
In general, what was the Vedantic tradition (as in Upanishadic) before gauDapAda, govindapAda and shankara?
Read the rest of this entry >>
What about the authors of ashTAvakra-gIta, avadhUta-gIta and yoga-vAsishhTa?
Why does Swami Madhavananda says that "Kumarila Bhatta did his best to do an GYAna-interpretation of the brahmaNAs?
In general, what was the Vedantic tradition (as in Upanishadic) before gauDapAda, govindapAda and shankara?
Read the rest of this entry >>
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Ramana, Vedas and His Dialogues
What did bhagavaan Ramana mean when he referred to as the scriptures? Did He mean the scriptural words of all the world, which could be interpreted as advaitic, or did He mean the Vedas (essentially Vedanta)? More precisely, when He used the word "scriptures" in His works (see the next question), what were the precise words He used? (Remember that He spoke only the vernacular languages).
Are the Dialogues of the Ramana proper reference material, or are secondary material to His original works (like naan-yaar, ullanDu-naarpaandu) and translations (like Vivekachudamani, Shri Dakshinamurthy Stotram)?
Read the rest of this entry >>
Are the Dialogues of the Ramana proper reference material, or are secondary material to His original works (like naan-yaar, ullanDu-naarpaandu) and translations (like Vivekachudamani, Shri Dakshinamurthy Stotram)?
Read the rest of this entry >>
Saturday, May 30, 2009
sampradAya, jIvanmukas and abhrahamic religions
The basic promise of a tradition (sampradAya) is by the measurable results that it provides, under different times and places, some of them even testing the tradition to its limit.
All the sampradAyas of sanAtana-dharma excel in such a test. On the whole, it has produced a great lineage of aacharyas and gurus who have not only shown their jIvanmuktitva, but also answered the questions their particular times have raised.
In this test, the notable failures are the abrahamic religions. One of them says that a particular prophet is the son of god with rest of the followers being sinners. The sinners can never reach to the level of son of God. Implicitly, the highest status as defined by the religion itself is inachievable by the religion itself. The other religion even goes on to define this more precisely. It says that there can be no more prophets. Even after stopping to laugh at the preposition, when one understand it, it means that an individual, who is a follower of that cult can never ever raise to the highest level of prophethood, as offered by the religion itself!
These kind of religions, if were kept in a religion-market would be aptly dismissed as a snake-oil-salesmen, as neither can one verify whether a bygone individual is a true son of god, or whether he has actually seen god, which confirms his prophethood. Oh wait, these are abrahmic religions, which means you could never reach to the level of brahman in them!
What kind of bogus!
Read the rest of this entry >>
All the sampradAyas of sanAtana-dharma excel in such a test. On the whole, it has produced a great lineage of aacharyas and gurus who have not only shown their jIvanmuktitva, but also answered the questions their particular times have raised.
In this test, the notable failures are the abrahamic religions. One of them says that a particular prophet is the son of god with rest of the followers being sinners. The sinners can never reach to the level of son of God. Implicitly, the highest status as defined by the religion itself is inachievable by the religion itself. The other religion even goes on to define this more precisely. It says that there can be no more prophets. Even after stopping to laugh at the preposition, when one understand it, it means that an individual, who is a follower of that cult can never ever raise to the highest level of prophethood, as offered by the religion itself!
These kind of religions, if were kept in a religion-market would be aptly dismissed as a snake-oil-salesmen, as neither can one verify whether a bygone individual is a true son of god, or whether he has actually seen god, which confirms his prophethood. Oh wait, these are abrahmic religions, which means you could never reach to the level of brahman in them!
What kind of bogus!
Read the rest of this entry >>
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Effective Communication: individual and organization
What are the basic premises that an organization or an individual has to satisfy to get his message to the listeners? Is it just charm or substance?
At individual level, the substance is improved by "communication skills", which are in turn improved by a yogic system (yama-niyama and so on).
What helps an organization? Can yama-niyama help an organization like BJP? How can it tackle the hostile media?
In general, what is the yoga that helps the collective intellect to of a country like India, so that it can effectively keep in "control" the media, so that it does not lead the collective intellect astray. This "control" has to be done while giving it freedom.
Read the rest of this entry >>
At individual level, the substance is improved by "communication skills", which are in turn improved by a yogic system (yama-niyama and so on).
What helps an organization? Can yama-niyama help an organization like BJP? How can it tackle the hostile media?
In general, what is the yoga that helps the collective intellect to of a country like India, so that it can effectively keep in "control" the media, so that it does not lead the collective intellect astray. This "control" has to be done while giving it freedom.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Gita Quiz
In the past, I had linked to a Gita Quiz posted on advaitin list by Prof. VK. Here is a link to a Gita Quiz from Chinmaya Mission.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Read the rest of this entry >>
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Some links on Jagannatha Pandita Raya
Here are a few links on Jagannatha Pandita Raya, a world renown poet who was perhaps a contemporary of Akbar as well as of Appayya Dikshita.
by Prasad B.S.V (The same appears at the following link).
by santhemant
Read the rest of this entry >>
by Prasad B.S.V (The same appears at the following link).
by santhemant
Read the rest of this entry >>
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The cry of the jiva: a poem
A young black man walked into the train,
was dressed as young people do,
the train was not that full,
as it was a holiday.
He walked in,
the doors closed,
said the automatic announcer:
"les portes se ferment" (or doors are closing),
or something like that.
The train started moving.
He did not sit down.
Then it happened.
He started crying.
This was not a usual sobbing
by hiding the tears behind the eyes
and turning away from onlookers.
This was crying,
loud crying,
pure and simple.
Just as kids do,
when they want something,
and not too unlike lovers kissing each other passionately,
as they usually do in this part of this world,
without care and abandon.
He did not stop crying,
the crying just got louder.
People, did not care,
even if they did, they turned their
eyes away.
French callousness, as opponents as
people on the other side of the channel,
(or the ocean) may say.
I do not simply know if they were gifted
to turn their ears off too!
The crying continued,
then it sparked in me.
It was no usual crying.
It was the Jiva crying.
The reason being separation from its source!
The Jiva was crying due to fear
because it had forgotten its source.
Not due to the source's fault that it had happened.
Not due to the Jiva's fault that it had happened.
It had happened to to a false-superimposition.
What caused the it?
A wise man said: beginning-less ignorance.
How to end it?
Just watch it.
It will go away,
simply because it never was.
The jiva will merge in the source,
if it wants to,
the moment it wants to.
The Jiva was always the source,
the source was never the Jiva.
the source always was the source.
Before source,
after source
in between the source.
What a maya!
Om Shanthi!
Read the rest of this entry >>
was dressed as young people do,
the train was not that full,
as it was a holiday.
He walked in,
the doors closed,
said the automatic announcer:
"les portes se ferment" (or doors are closing),
or something like that.
The train started moving.
He did not sit down.
Then it happened.
He started crying.
This was not a usual sobbing
by hiding the tears behind the eyes
and turning away from onlookers.
This was crying,
loud crying,
pure and simple.
Just as kids do,
when they want something,
and not too unlike lovers kissing each other passionately,
as they usually do in this part of this world,
without care and abandon.
He did not stop crying,
the crying just got louder.
People, did not care,
even if they did, they turned their
eyes away.
French callousness, as opponents as
people on the other side of the channel,
(or the ocean) may say.
I do not simply know if they were gifted
to turn their ears off too!
The crying continued,
then it sparked in me.
It was no usual crying.
It was the Jiva crying.
The reason being separation from its source!
The Jiva was crying due to fear
because it had forgotten its source.
Not due to the source's fault that it had happened.
Not due to the Jiva's fault that it had happened.
It had happened to to a false-superimposition.
What caused the it?
A wise man said: beginning-less ignorance.
How to end it?
Just watch it.
It will go away,
simply because it never was.
The jiva will merge in the source,
if it wants to,
the moment it wants to.
The Jiva was always the source,
the source was never the Jiva.
the source always was the source.
Before source,
after source
in between the source.
What a maya!
Om Shanthi!
Read the rest of this entry >>
Saturday, March 28, 2009
yoga and vedanta from Advaita-L
Here are some links on yoga and vedanta, mainly from April 2005 archives.
yama and niyama by Shri. VS
What is tapas? 2
The ones given in 17th chapter do not count, as they are the practice
Yoga and Vedanta: part 9 (Which has the links to other posts,
My praNAms to the author (Shri VS-ji) and his guru parampara.
Also see this link by Shri Chittaranjan-ji.
Also refer to the previously linked paper by Shri Michael Comans.
Postscript See this post on advaitin.
Read the rest of this entry >>
yama and niyama by Shri. VS
What is tapas? 2
The ones given in 17th chapter do not count, as they are the practice
Yoga and Vedanta: part 9 (Which has the links to other posts,
My praNAms to the author (Shri VS-ji) and his guru parampara.
Also see this link by Shri Chittaranjan-ji.
Also refer to the previously linked paper by Shri Michael Comans.
Postscript See this post on advaitin.
Read the rest of this entry >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
