Contemplation on Verses 2.17-2.18 in Bhagavad Gita
Contemplation on Verses 2.17-2.18 in Bhagavad Gita, in light of Sri Sankara Bhasyam
Avinaashi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam;
Vinaasham avyayasyaasya na kashchit kartum arhati.
2.17. Know That to be indestructible, by whom all this is pervaded. None can cause the destruction of That, the Imperishable.
COMMENTARY: The Self pervades all objects like ether. Even if the pot is broken, the ether that is within and without it cannot be destroyed. Similarly, if the bodies and all other objects perish, the eternal Self that pervades them cannot be destroyed; It is the living Truth.
Antavanta ime dehaa nityasyoktaah shareerinah;
Anaashino’prameyasya tasmaad yudhyaswa bhaarata.
2.18. These bodies of the embodied Self, which is eternal, indestructible and immeasurable, are said to have an end. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna!
Ref: Sri Swami Sivanandaji's translation & transliteration
http://www.dlshq.org/download/bgita.htm#_VPID_11
-------------------------------------------------------
_Naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate satah_; (2.16 - first 1/2 verse)
This Vedantic approach places great emphasis on "existence" as the substratum on which names and forms appear. We dont say Brahman exists - we say Brahman is Existence Itself.
Sri Sankara Bhasyam dwelt upon the importance underlying the Isness (or Existence)
When we recount or notice objects as existing - like Pot is, Cloth is etc... This Isness is verily the Brahman (the eternal backdrop against which names and forms appear - like Pot is there, the Pot is not there anymore etc).
That which is Real is Eternal and Changless ==> Brahman is Real. The appearances are unreal for the change in name and form and thier change is recognized against the backdrop of the changless reality - Brahman.
----------------------------------------------
Its Changeless, All pervading, Partless, Nirguna (attributeless).
Attributes indicate distinguishing aspects of an object possessed of those attributes, in comparison to other objects of same or different class.
If Brahman is different in itself then its made of parts, hence compound - hence prone to destruction (or change).
If Brahman's attributes are real, then those attribute make the Brahman limited by the mind in which the attributes are cognised - that is not acceptable either - since it shall make Brahman finite or limited.
So in conclusion - Brahman is attribute-less and part-less.
While saying so, Sri Bhagavathpaada makes the memorable quote
na kascid aatmaanam viaasayitum saknoti, isvarah api. Aatma hi brahma svaatmani ca kriyaavirodhaat
None, Not even Ishwara can destroy One Self. Atman is indeed Brahman. Any action with regard to one's Self (i.e. Self acting on itself) is self-contradictory.
The idea of this statement is that Ishwara is verily my Self or Atman.
This leads to the next verse, whose purpose as per Sri Bhagavathpaada is to explain "what is that which being unreal, has but an inconstant appearance"
Verse 18 is the response to the question.
-------------------------------------------
While discussing verse 18, Bhagavathpaada refers to the Self as Nityam and Avinasinam
Nityam - Eternal
Avinainam - Imperishable.
Imperishable can be viewed as Changeless.
(We already said Reality is Eternal and Changless. We use these two criterions even in our relative plane. I can discuss this offline)
While commenting further on verse 2.18, Swami says Self is self-determined.To none at all is the Self altogether unknown.
"_na hi aatmaa naama kasyacid aprasiddho bhavati_"
One's own Self never remains unknown to anybody.
In many ways, we see that to know Atman exists or is conscious - we do not need Pramanam. But to negate the superimpositions on Atman (due to avidya) we need Sastra Pramanam.
Sri Bhagavathpaada says - QUOTE - The Final means of right cognition, the Sastra acquired validity as regards the Self by setting aside the non-attributes of the Self superimposed on It and not by revealing what as altogether unknown. UNQUOTE
Bhagavathpaada quotes Brihadaaranyaka Upanisad 3.4.1 - I'm pasting herewith (translation)
QUOTE
Then Usasta, the son of Cakra, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct-the self that is within all.'
(Yajnavalkya replied) 'This is your self that is within all.'
UNQUOTE
----------------------------------------
In Verse 2.18 - Its important to reflect on when Sastram (primarily Sruti) is considered to be Pramanam for BrahmAtma Satyam.
Its a Pramanam to help us recognize our Svarupam - as Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma.
Once Self-Knowledge (i.e. as Self as It Really Is) is gained, even Sastram ceases to be a Pramanam (See Gita Bhasyam on 2.69). Until then Sastra is the primary Pramana.
Unlike other Pramana like a text in physics or Maths or Astrology - here purport of Sruti is Brahma Vidya, which is the antidote to the suffering and directly leads to Svarupa Prayabhijna (Instant recognition of one's Svarupam). So Sruti as Pramanam is special in the sense it removes ignorance regarding the Subject - the Self, whereas physics etc removes ignorance regarding Objects (or Objective phenomena, that too within a limited extent).
----------------------------------------
Note one important fact - Upanisad(Sruti/Vedanta Sastra) abolishes the very nature of all means of knowledge - how ?
By revealing the True Non-Dual Self as Brahman, it removes even the status of a "knower". The very idea or role or status of knower - exists only so long as there is something is to be known - namely Brahma Vidya.
Once Brahma Vidya dawns - even the status of knower is discarded. What remains is That Self which Abides in Its Swarupam.
In that sense Sri Sankara Bhagavathpaada, refer to the Sruti Sastram in his 2.18 commentary as _antyam pramanam_ - final authority.
Once the Brahma Vidya Dawns and Ignorance dispels the state is one of Eternal Freedom (in the sense Atman is now realized to be Nitya Mukta Swarupam)
"atra pitā’pitā bhavati, mātā’mātā, lokāḥ alokāḥ, devāadevāḥ, vedā avedāḥ....." - Bri - Up 4.3.22
Translation: In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect). - Swami Madhavanandaji's translation.
----
One last comment -
Sri Krishna asks Arjuna to "fight" not as an endorsement of warfare (as a principle or state craft) but simply because It's Arjuna's duty to do so, in the given circumstance.
Sri Bhagavathpaada says "fight is only a restatement of a given position and not an original injunction".
Then Swami refers to Katha Upanisad verse 2.18 and 2.19 (in his prelude to 2.19)... this is mainly because of their near verbatim similarity and identical teaching.
Ka. Up 2.18 ~ BG 2.20
Ka. Up 2.19 ~ BG 2.19
We shall see this next.
(This also shows how Sri Krishna took the Well Established Vedantic Method of Sruti Based Reasoning, to Dispel the basis for Arjuna's sorrow - namely helping him recognize the changeless amidst the changeful - help him in the process to overcome doubt and depression).
Comments
Post a Comment