Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'
Venkatakrishna Sastry
Namaste
Help needed to understand Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'.
|।3.35।।अतः सुशकतया स्वधर्मभूतः कर्मयोगो विगुणः अपि अप्रमादगर्भः प्रकृतिसंसृष्टस्य दुःशकतयापरधर्मभूतात् ज्ञानयोगात् सगुणाद् अपि किञ्चित्कालम् अनुष्ठितात् सप्रमादात् श्रेयान्।स्वेन एव उपादातुं योग्यतया स्वधर्मभूते कर्मयोगे वर्तमानस्य एकस्मिन् जन्मनि अप्राप्तफलतया निधनम् अपि श्रेयः अनन्तरायहततया अनन्तरजन्मनि अपि अव्याकुलकर्मयोगारम्भसंभवात्। प्रकृतिसंसृष्टस्य स्वेन एव उपादातुम् अशक्यतया परधर्मभूतो ज्ञानयोगः प्रमादगर्भतया भयावहः।
Question: Is Karma yoga ' para-dharma' in relation to ' Jnana-yoga'? Am I missing some thing? Commentary of Sri Vednata deshika appeared to me a defensive reconciliation.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Krishna Kashyap
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5f30bb35.1c69fb81.ef846.7699%40mx.google.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSM%3Djrb0EQo_ix5MC0U%2BJkm3KNREBiEc3h6NE1xoxk7X20Q%40mail.gmail.com.
A K Kaul
Similarly, The first half (shloka) of 3-35 of the Gita has been repeated in 18/47 where the full shloka reads as
--
Krishna Kashyap
--
Krishna Kashyap
--
Krishna Kashyap
Krishna Kashyap
Madhav Deshpande
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMkGg_VLh9e6gzOb1HcRx46JVeHT%2B67UmMys8UwyC5qf2g%40mail.gmail.com.
Krishna Kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAB3-dzdYbe3theX32izk_0BjmG7ko2c%2BdJoHa_JfwPZKXh-Yiw%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatakrishna Sastry
Namaste Krishna Kashyap ji, Deshpande ji, Kaulji , Paturi ji
(Long response mail, as issue is complex; and original references are provided for convenience in the body of mail itself. This could have been made to a book or article; but then for whose benefit would it be beyond the audience on this forum.).
Deshpande ji: Thanks for the good refernce on Gita studies. The (year 1955) book seems to raise more questions than it helps to resolve. One such point is a need for explanation on page-4 : about the number of slokas in Gita ! and subtle clear pointer on ' Acharya Shankaras apparent meddling with Gita Text, to contain it to seven hundred from its purported total of 744 ?? A theme pursued by some other researcher and published as ' Discovery of New Gita slokas'. - http://vedavyasabharati.org/index.html?page=publications/pb_EBG . Expression of ' academic doubt' can go to any extent as an 'opinion from a scholar' , but the implications can be disatrous. This ' doubt-mistrust-blame game has caused severe credibility damage within the core circles of Gita study traditions'.
Paturi ji : Thanks for noting the deeper issue in raising this question.
The surprise was Gita taking the half verse of third chapter (Karma-yoga : 3-35) and repeating it in 18th chapter ( Jnana-Karma- Sannyasa yoga: 18-47) verbatim.
Does the repetition mean some thing as ' upa-krama and upasamhaara' ?
The translations, public and academic discourses seem to take as if Gita is free for all ! This hurts the ' classical teaching of all three acharyas' failing to connect chapter 3 and 18.
More so of acharya Shankara to whom is attributed the classical composition: 'bhajaga govindam,……..' bhagavad-gita kinchit adheetaa, .. , sakrudapi yasya murari samarchaa …..'
My difficulty was in understanding the Samskruth terms 'shreyaan' and 'para' as explaned in commentaries and translations, and tagging it on to 'Varna-ashrama Dahrma' to drive the wedge.
What is the right translation for term 'shreyaan'- appropriate by grammar to bring out the ' intended meanng of Gita' ?
Would 'shreyas' translate to ' better' by comparison and relation with what ? Jnana with Karma? Would it be 'worthy' as a recommendation ? in a particular format of social cultural practice?
would 'para' translate to 'different, separate, after an event as a sequence, aligned to some thing ( like tat-para, tat-paraayana), taat-parya)?
Why 'dharma' is getting interpreted in a specific lane, when it has multiple meanings, and social relevance is by ' dashakam dharma-lakshanam' given by Manu ?
Acharya shankara takes ' Jnana= Buddhi' in explaining Gita( 3-1). ।।3.1।। ज्यायसी श्रेयसी चेत् यदि कर्मणः सकाशात् ते तव मता अभिप्रेता बुद्धिः ज्ञानं हे जनार्दन। यदि बुद्धिकर्मणी समुच्चिते इष्टे तदा एकं श्रेयःसाधनमिति कर्मणो ज्यायसी बुद्धिः इति कर्मणः अतिरिक्तकरणं बुद्धेरनुपपन्नम् अर्जुनेन कृतं स्यात् न हि तदेव तस्मात् फलतोऽतिरिक्तं स्यात्। तथा च कर्मणः श्रेयस्करी भगवतोक्ता बुद्धिः अश्रेयस्करं च कर्म कुर्विति मां प्रतिपादयति तत् किं नु कारणमिति भगवत उपालम्भमिव कुर्वन् तत् किं कस्मात् कर्मणि घोरे क्रूरे हिंसालक्षणे मां नियोजयसि केशव इति च यदाह तच्च नोपपद्यते। अथ स्मार्तेनैव कर्मणा समुच्चयः सर्वेषां भगवता उक्तः अर्जुनेन च अवधारितश्चेत् तत्किं कर्मणि घोरे मां नियोजयसि (गीता 3.1) इत्यादि कथं युक्तं वचनम्।।किञ्च
Acharya shankara, in 18-1 says three types of karma are never to be given up : ।18.5।। --,यज्ञः दानं तपः इत्येतत् त्रिविधं कर्म न त्याज्यं न त्यक्तव्यम्? कार्यं करणीयम् एव तत्। कस्मात् यज्ञः दानं तपश्चैव पावनानि विशुद्धिकराणि मनीषिणां फलानभिसंधीनाम् इत्येतत्।। .
The mode of ' karma-yoga-practice' is explained from 18-47 onwards. The term ' Jnana-yajna' in (18-70) is significant, where Acharya shankara and Swami Desika use identical expressions ! : ।।18.70।। --,अध्येष्यते च पठिष्यति यः इमं धर्म्यं धर्मादनपेतं संवादरूपं ग्रन्थं आवयोः? तेन इदं कृतं स्यात्। ज्ञानयज्ञेन -- विधिजपोपांशुमानसानां यज्ञानां ज्ञानयज्ञः मानसत्वात् विशिष्टतमः इत्यतः तेन ज्ञानयज्ञेन गीताशास्त्रस्य अध्ययनं स्तूयते फलविधिरेव वा? देवतादिविषयज्ञानयज्ञफलतुल्यम् अस्य फलं भवतीति -- तेन अध्ययनेन अहम् इष्टः पूजितः स्यां भवेयम् इति मे मम मतिः निश्चयः।।अथ श्रोतुः इदं फलम् --,
Swamy Desika: ।।18.70।।एवमुपदेष्टुः फलमुक्तम् अथ शब्दतोऽर्थतश्च गुरुसकाशादध्येतुः फलमुच्यते -- अध्येष्यते इत्यादिना श्लोकद्वयेन।श्रृणुयात् इति परैरधीयमानपाठश्रवणमात्रं वा।अध्येष्यते इति -- नहि सर्वज्ञस्य भगवतो भविष्यद्भारतनिबन्धावेक्षणेन स्वसंवादाध्ययनभावित्वोक्तिः अपितु भूतावेक्षणेन। महाभारतं हि धृतराष्ट्राद्युत्पत्तेः प्रागेव भगवत्प्रसादलब्धदिव्यचक्षुषा भगवता व्यासेन निबद्धम्। अनुज्ञातं च शिष्येभ्यः तैश्चनारदो श्रावयद्देवानसितो देवलः पितृ़न्। गन्धर्वयक्षरक्षांसि श्रावयामास वै शुकः [म.भा.1।1।78] इति मानुषव्यतिरिक्तेषु लोकेषु प्रकाशितम्। मानुषे तु लोके जनमेजयपुरस्कारेण प्रकाशिष्यते। तदपेक्षयोक्तम् -- अध्येष्यते इति। उपनिषत्सारत्वादध्ययनोक्तिः। कथितं चाश्रमवर्णने कविभिःअनवरताधीतभगवद्गीतम् इति।श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद्यज्ञाज्ज्ञानयज्ञः परन्तप [4।33] इति यः प्रथमषट्के ज्ञानयज्ञोऽभिहितः? नासावत्र विवक्षितः अपितु भक्तियोगप्रकरणेज्ञानयज्ञेन चाप्यन्ये यजन्तो मामुपासते [9।15] इति यो भगवदनुसन्धानविशेषरूपो ज्ञानयज्ञ उक्तः? स एवात्र शास्त्रसारभूतो विवक्षित इत्यभिप्रायेणाऽऽह -- अस्मिन् यो ज्ञानयज्ञ इति। विधिजपोपांशुमानसानां ज्ञानयज्ञो मानसत्वाद्विशिष्टः।एतदध्ययनमात्रेणेति -- अयमभिप्रायः -- योऽश्वमेधेन यजते। य उ चैनमेवं वेद [अ.मे.2]यं यं क्रतुमधीते तेनतेनास्येष्टं भवति [आर.2] इत्यादिषु यथा,तत्तत्क्रत्वध्ययनस्य तत्तुल्यफलता? तथात्रापि ज्ञानयज्ञवद्भगवत्प्रीतिजनकत्वं तद्गीताध्ययनस्य -- इति।
Krishna Kashyap ji Thanks for the details provided.
Thanks for having remembered Prof. Dr. N.S.Anantharangachar. I had the privelege of learning some things at his feet, some thing about Gita and vaishnava/ Sri Vaishnava sampradayas.
It is good that you invoked his statement : ' "Krishna is impartial. he has given equal amount of difficulty to all commentators of Bhagavadgita!".
In private meeting mode, despite my young age and his senior mature wisdom, we used to debate, as fiercely and honestly : Should we frame Vyasa or Krishna or both for our difficulties in understanding the tradition for faith endorsed practice and keeping the social identity ? !
An issue that never ended or got resolved. The intellectual issue never distrubed the social harmony and friendship; neither was there any hidden anger or animosity, beyond self-pity that I am not able to understand the wise- teaching from the teacher and the text. I was making an effort to learn intellectually. He was trying to unburden his knowledge by helpfully me grooming my thoughts by sampradaya.
The end note was always ' I prefer to stay with my comfort zone of faith and family, company- companionship- affiliation with people having the face marks and dress code and preferred mode of 'prasadam (pongal
or hayagreeva or obbattu:: all are acceptable, but I have my preference.).'
Why is this debate important to understand Jnana- Karma entaglement / reconciliation, grading, progressive assimilation ? Here is the crux of Sanatana Dharma Bharateeya Identity.
Where is the mother seed of problem? - In understanding the langauge and model of 'Samskrutham' used by Vyasa and Krishna to articulate their teachings.
What is our difficulty ? The tradition is divided by inaccuarate understanding of tradition and is self- leading to servitude or annihilation.
As 21 st century mortals, we don’t seem to have a direct access to Chandas/ Upanishad- as 'Veda-Bhashaa-Darshana'.
As 21 st century linguists, we feel proud , volitional to violate and free to exercise options to interpret the 'Bhashaa' of source text , needing ' Vedanga- Vyakarana' provided by Panini.
As 21 st century anthropologists and indologists, cultural historians and epic-based social entertainment enterpreneurs , we feel tolerant towards ' free for all, interpretation model of source text with preferred history- religion-philosophy- translation- practices ,spiced with select science disciplines to develop a socio-political argument and debate. Swami Vedanta Desika statement makes no sense in 21st century! It is a simple violation of History and Mythology - " ।।18.70।।एवमुपदेष्टुः फलमुक्तम् अथ शब्दतोऽर्थतश्च गुरुसकाशादध्येतुः फलमुच्यते -- अध्येष्यते इत्यादिना श्लोकद्वयेन।श्रृणुयात् इति परैरधीयमानपाठश्रवणमात्रं वा।अध्येष्यते इति -- नहि सर्वज्ञस्य भगवतो भविष्यद्भारतनिबन्धावेक्षणेन स्वसंवादाध्ययनभावित्वोक्तिः अपितु भूतावेक्षणेन। महाभारतं हि धृतराष्ट्राद्युत्पत्तेः प्रागेव भगवत्प्रसादलब्धदिव्यचक्षुषा भगवता व्यासेन निबद्धम्। अनुज्ञातं च शिष्येभ्यः तैश्चनारदो श्रावयद्देवानसितो देवलः पितृ़न्। गन्धर्वयक्षरक्षांसि श्रावयामास वै शुकः [म.भा.1।1।78] इति मानुषव्यतिरिक्तेषु लोकेषु प्रकाशितम्। मानुषे तु लोके जनमेजयपुरस्कारेण प्रकाशिष्यते। तदपेक्षयोक्तम् -- अध्येष्यते इति। उपनिषत्सारत्वादध्ययनोक्तिः। कथितं चाश्रमवर्णने कविभिःअनवरताधीतभगवद्गीतम् इति।श्रेयान् द्रव्यमयाद्यज्ञाज्ज्ञानयज्ञः परन्तप [4।33]
Why the clarity sought is important? The antagonistic positioning, relative grading of Jnana and Karma breaks the essence of indian model of practicing vedic tradtiton.
The wedging of differences between 'acharyas views to drive a social community divide is not the intention of Gita or acharyas.
This could at best be display of schoalrship and 'marketing personal preference guru brands for non-moksha gains'.
The Traditional view on Jnana-Karma samucchaya as bhakti-yoga for siddhi is reflected in the 'Karma-samkalpa', a living tradition, even today. The 'pooja-ritual-yajna- worship begins as 'Bhakti- yoga and Karma yoga put together', embedded with an element of ' Jnana' in side the mantras used' . The action ' ends' with 'karma-phala-tyaaga' expressed as ' Total surrender, with the statement made as Sri Krishnaarpanamastu, sri harih preyataam, vasudevaarpanamastu'.
Who is the authenticator of this tradition ? and Mother seed generator of this debate? Vyasa and Sri Krishna identity or indistinguishable feature.
'Vyasa' is the thread who organizes and connects Vision: Vedasand Upanishads (Darshana),
'Vyasa' provides Practice guidance Yoga-Sutra (Abhyasa Anushaasana),
'Vyasa'pens Philosophy and Text -vision reconciliation by Spiritual Logic (=brahma-Tarka) :Brahma sutra's ,
'Vyasa' Makes a social outreach and narrative of Vedas as Itihasa : Mahabharata in which Gita is the 'Heart' ,
'Vyasa' - the kathaakaar, the itihasa kartaa, the chiranjeevi, has provided the sacred narratives of devataas as Puranas : volumes and volumes for all shapes and shades of ' Gods and Goddesses', the imprint of which makes this part of nation India as grand child of Aryavarta : haratam as Punya-Bhoomi, Dharma-Kshetra, Deva-Bhoomi' , the impact of which has made people of ' India' as ' Hindus', the inheritors of history culture and identity of ' Bhaarateeya samksrutha bhashaa- samksruti- sanatana Dharma samskara sampradaya': following 'Dharma shaastra as identity providers of Jana-Jaati/ Social caste creed - congregation and community place of worship.'
And who is Vyasa, per tradition ? one who adorns the Vyasa-Peetha? He is none other than Sri Krishna !
According to ' Gita 10-13: (Arjuna's words) - आहुस्त्वामृषयः सर्वे देवर्षिर्नारदस्तथा। असितो देवलो व्यासः स्वयं चैव ब्रवीषि मे।।10.13।।
According to ' Gita 10-37: (Krishna's words): वृष्णीनां वासुदेवोऽस्मि पाण्डवानां धनंजयः। मुनीनामप्यहं व्यासः कवीनामुशना कविः।।10.37।।
Abrahamic view ridden colonial academia will never reconcile with Swami Desika on Mahabharata History before the Kurukshetra war ! or Gita position on ' Continuity of Divine' as above, where Krishna and Vyasa can be one person in two bodies and times. Yet the 'Avatar' is a socially acceptable debating issue.
There are Science model TV serials and block busters for entertainment on this theme: SENSE8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense8). Watch them on NETFLIX ! streaming. This is trilogy continuation from The Matrix. And academic debates connecting Vedanta and ' Key Maker'.
Kaul Ji : It is nice to connect 3.35 to 18.47. The stretch needs to go from 18-47 to 18.70 to see the implications. Lot more contemplation needed to understand the spiritual and social dimensions of Gita.
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
.
A K Kaul
......
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:21 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
karma yoga is svadharma
jnana yoga is paradharma
Please see details in the google docs below:
Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
<Question: Is Karma yoga ' para-dharma' in relation to ' Jnana-yoga'? Am I missing some thing? Commentary of Sri Vednata deshika appeared to me a defensive reconciliation.>
IMHO Bhagwan Krishna has Himself chided Arjuna in so many words about the dharma of the latter as a born Kshatriya in the following words in 2/31-34
स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि | धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयो नान्यत्क्षत्रियस्य विद्यते ||यदृच्छया चोपपन्नं स्वर्गद्वारम्पावृतं | सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः पार्थ लभन्ते युद्धमीदृशं ||अथ चेत्त्वमिमम् धर्म्यं सङ्ग्रामं न करिष्यसि | ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवप्स्यसि ||अकीर्तिं चापि भूतानि कथयिष्यन्ति ते अव्ययाम् | सम्भावितस्य चाकीर्तिर् मरणादतिरिच्यते ||
Similarly, The first half (shloka) of 3-35 of the Gita has been repeated in 18/47 where the full shloka reads as
श्रेयान् स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् | स्वभाव नियतं कर्म कुर्वन्नाप्नोत किल्विषं ||And the स्वभाव नियतं कर्म has been clarified by Bhagwan Krishna Himself in the shlokas 40 to 46 preceding the above final comment which read as:ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप| कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः ||शमो दमस्तपः शौचं क्षान्तिरार्जवमेव च | ज्ञानं विज्ञानमास्तिक्यं ब्रह्मकर्म स्वभावजं ||शौर्यं तेजो धृतिर्दाक्ष्यं युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम्| दानमीश्वरभावश्च क्षात्रं कर्म स्वभावजम् ||स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः | स्वकर्म निरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु ||यतः प्रवृत्तिर्भूतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम्| स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः||Regarding "Jnyana yoga" vis-a-vis "Karma-Yoga" Bhagwan Krishna has clarified it Himself in 4/35-38अपि चेदसि पापेभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः पापकृत्तमः | सर्वं ज्ञानप्लवेनैव वृजिनं संतरिष्यसि ||यथैन्धांसि समिद्धो अग्निर् भस्मसात् कुरुतेअर्जुन | ज्ञानाग्नि सर्व कर्माणि भस्म सात् कुरुते तथा ||न हि ज्ञानेन सदृशं पवित्रमिह विद्यते | तत् स्वयं योग संसिद्धः कालेनात्मनि विन्दते ||He has gone to the extent of saying......उदाराः सर्वेवैते ज्ञानी त्वात्मैव मे मतम् |
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:13 PM Venkatakrishna Sastry <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste
Help needed to understand Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'.
|।3.35।।अतः सुशकतया स्वधर्मभूतः कर्मयोगो विगुणः अपि अप्रमादगर्भः प्रकृतिसंसृष्टस्य दुःशकतयापरधर्मभूतात् ज्ञानयोगात् सगुणाद् अपि किञ्चित्कालम् अनुष्ठितात् सप्रमादात् श्रेयान्।स्वेन एव उपादातुं योग्यतया स्वधर्मभूते कर्मयोगे वर्तमानस्य एकस्मिन् जन्मनि अप्राप्तफलतया निधनम् अपि श्रेयः अनन्तरायहततया अनन्तरजन्मनि अपि अव्याकुलकर्मयोगारम्भसंभवात्। प्रकृतिसंसृष्टस्य स्वेन एव उपादातुम् अशक्यतया परधर्मभूतो ज्ञानयोगः प्रमादगर्भतया भयावहः।
Question: Is Karma yoga ' para-dharma' in relation to ' Jnana-yoga'? Am I missing some thing? Commentary of Sri Vednata deshika appeared to me a defensive reconciliation.
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5f323949.1c69fb81.41116.e87d%40mx.google.com.
Vishal Agarwal
A K Kaul
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/90921271.1551047.1597339557851%40mail.yahoo.com.
Achyut Karve
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGfmG5ozhr_GZkWmNeiLVeXZNW-ySW0aHo%2BzO8tP5VHZkFnvSQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Vishal Agarwal
Krishna Kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/221132226.2710628.1597586899360%40mail.yahoo.com.
A K Kaul
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/221132226.2710628.1597586899360%40mail.yahoo.com.
V Subrahmanian
Shri Vishal Agarwalji,Jai Shri Ram!
Thank you for the mail as well as the attachment.
In your earlier mail/attachment about the Gita-3/35, you have talked about Bhatta Bhaskara's commentary on the Gita.
A K Kaul
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2Znnf82iJvSuuL4_ZkbTm1SzHOdteTNAaPfZEmd%3DogkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Vishal Agarwal
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
V Subrahmanian
The Bhaskara whom I referred to is Bhaskara Bhatta, the Bhedabheda Vedanta teacher whose fragmentary Gita Bhashya, complete Brahmasutra Bhashya survive, and whose Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya is lost (except for fragments quoted in Narendra Puri's Tippana, that are reproduced by Anandagiri). Some scholars suggest that this teacher was from Kashmir, others suggest he was a Karnataka origin scholar. I think he was from somewhere in Western India and a follower of Madhyandiya Shakha (just my guess, on the basis of his tendency to quote Katyayana Sutras, Shatapatha etc). He lived sometime between Shankaracharya and Vachaspati Mishra. In an interesting fragment of his Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya (cited by Narendra Puri), he had accused Shankaracharya of wholesale copying the commentary of Dravidacharya. To which Narendra Puri argued that Bhashya had himself stolen passage after passage from Shankaracharya's commentary. Actually, we see the same often close correspondence between the Brahmasutra Bhashyas of Shankaracharya and Bhaskara.
Vishal Agarwal
|
|
Vishal Agarwal
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Madhav Deshpande
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/1201876954.3129478.1597673878141%40mail.yahoo.com.
A K Kaul
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/252959800.3117609.1597673551445%40mail.yahoo.com.
Krishna Kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGfmG5pc9wy-2saADBcH%3D8XLjf4u5JWbg9rO%3DEdWx6D7eLX66w%40mail.gmail.com.
A K Kaul
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnao1qhJKvwgU_kk5DYQX4r%3DywR5V6wtwsW-ddPzTjFQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Raghavendra
Imitation is not wrong.
It appears, Narendra Puri squared up the accusation. You accuse me, I accuse you, type.
Bhaskara imitates Shankara is a known fact. Sentences after sentences are mirrored in the bhashya of Bhaskara and it is there to see, Bhaskara accusing Shankara of stealing is wrong and it is plain and simple,
Accusing Bhaskara of stealing is also wrong and it is a strong word to use.
If Bhaskara has stolen texts of Shankara, in the same vein, Shankara can also be accused of the same crime.
Just see,
शाबर-भाष्य
अयमथ शब्दो … प्रागपि च वेदाध्यनात् … अथ शब्दो … हेत्वर्थः … धर्मः प्रसिद्धो वा स्यात् अप्रसिद्धो वा … स चेत् प्रसिद्धो, न जिज्ञासितव्यः … विप्रतिपन्ना बहुविधः … निःश्रेयसेन … प्रतिजानीमहे ...
शाङ्कर-भाष्य
अयमथ शब्दः … प्रागपि च धर्मजिज्ञासायाः … अथ शब्दो हेत्वर्थः … ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धम् अप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात् … यदि प्रसिद्धं न जिज्ञासितव्यं … बहवो विप्रतिपन्ना … निःश्रेयसात् प्रतिहन्येत ...
As it can be seen, some phrases are mirrored as it is, others suitably modified,
I cannot, even in my wild imagination, accuse Shankara of stealing texts from Shabara. There is imitation and that’s it and the full stop should end there.
There are mantras which are interspersed within the texts of the Brahmana, Aranyaka Upanishad texts. There are texts of the Upanishad interspersed within the texts of the Gita. Can the authors of the latter texts be accused of the same crime? No not at all. Period (.)
In our eagerness to glorify infallibility and greatness of ancient thinkers, we cannot be prejudiced with the ones that have come later and who have imitated. Bhaskara came later and imitated and hence he is fallible, Shankara came earlier to him and hence infallible is stretching wild imagination too far and nothing else.
Narendra Puri should have known the same argument will hold good in the case of Shankara also, as Shankara came later to Shabara and imitated and hence Shankara is fallible and Shabara came earlier and hence he is infallible.
In conclusion, I would like to say this, the we are the heir apparent of the glorious tradition that has come down to us, we are a fortunate lot, let’s respect it, all said and done, the things that have to happen have happened 1000 to 1200 years ago, Neither Bhaskara becomes criminal just because Narendra Puri accuses him of stealing passages after passages from the writings of Shankara nor Shankara (be accused of the same criminality) just because Bhaskara alleged Shankara stealing from Dravidacharya.
Best regards,
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 19:38:27 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'
The Bhaskara whom I referred to is Bhaskara Bhatta, the Bhedabheda Vedanta teacher whose fragmentary Gita Bhashya, complete Brahmasutra Bhashya survive, and whose Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya is lost (except for fragments quoted in Narendra Puri's Tippana, that are reproduced by Anandagiri). Some scholars suggest that this teacher was from Kashmir, others suggest he was a Karnataka origin scholar. I think he was from somewhere in Western India and a follower of Madhyandiya Shakha (just my guess, on the basis of his tendency to quote Katyayana Sutras, Shatapatha etc). He lived sometime between Shankaracharya and Vachaspati Mishra. In an interesting fragment of his Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya (cited by Narendra Puri), he had accused Shankaracharya of wholesale copying the commentary of Dravidacharya. To which Narendra Puri argued that Bhashya had himself stolen passage after passage from Shankaracharya's commentary. Actually, we see the same often close correspondence between the Brahmasutra Bhashyas of Shankaracharya and Bhaskara.
The Bhatta Bhaskara you refer to is of course the famous commentator of Taittiriya Shakha and he is a different person. I am not sure where he was from but I have read that he was from the Andhra Pradesh region based on certain usages and examples that he gives in his Jnanayajna Bhashya.Vishal
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
V Subrahmanian
Raghavendra
'Sameness / Similarity, or agreement' among connoisseurs of thought, if appreciated, will not lead to a feeling of anger and/or bitterness. Agreed.
Failing to appreciate the above spirit led Narendra Puri rancour the way he did on a solemn occasion of writing commentary on a Upanishad (going by the observation below)
"In an interesting fragment of his Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya (cited by Narendra Puri), he had accused Shankaracharya of wholesale copying the commentary of Dravidacharya. To which Narendra Puri argued that Bhashya had himself stolen passage after passage from Shankaracharya's commentary".
Is that what we are saying? NO.
That was 'not germane' to the discussion. Imitation, or more precisely, emulating is 'not wrong'. Calling it as 'wholesale copying' and/or 'stealing' is 'wrong' was my firm view.
From Shankara to Ramanuja to Srikantha to Madhva, the conducted tour continuing right upto to our own times did not serve any purpose.
Why should anyone rancour seeing the ambition of others at excelling.
Best regards,
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:39:04 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Vishal Agarwal
V Subrahmanian
On Monday, August 17, 2020, 10:38:18 AM CDT, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:Other than the 10 major Upanishads, Bhagvatapada quotes Kaushitaki, Mahanarayana, Shvetashvatara, Jabala (9 times of which 5 are traceable), Kathashruti (in Brhad Up Bhashya), Kaivalya (by name, in his intro to Aitareya Upanishad Bhashya), Nr Ut Tapaniya (only citation is 'Brahmaivedam Sarvam'), Paippalada Brahmasukta (Samhita Upanishad), Shatyayani Shruti (identified by Ramanuja who cites identical words) - similar quotation is found in Jaiminiya Brahmana book I, a brief discussion between Badhva and Bashkalin (non traceable), a passage 'akashvat sarvagatashcha nityashcha' (non traceable, a slightly variant 'akashvat sarvagatascha sukshmascha is found in Shandilya Upanishad where it appears to be a quotation too), Paingi Rahasya Brahmana (we find more details about this in Shrutaprakashika of Sudarshanasuri while he critiques Bhagvatpada) interpretation of 'dvaa suparnaaa...'). IMHO, the surviving 'vritti' on Baskhala Mantra Upanishad might also be his commentary.Amongst Brahmanas, he cites Aitareya, Tandya, Shatpatha (both recensions), Taittiriya, Kaushitaki, Shadvimsha, Paingi (one quotation), Shatyayani, Bhallavi (one quotation on Karmakanda, Sureshvara in his Sambandha Varttika gives a different Adhyatmic citation from this Shakha). He refers to Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana (or rather, the Shatyayana Aranyaka); presumes an Upanishad Mantra Amnaya of Atharvaveda; a Samachara grantha of Atharvanikas (presumably their lost Dharmasutra). He also cites Kathaka Samhita and Maitrayani Samhita (once each), and the Brahmasukta mantra from Atharvaveda Paippalada Samhita.Earlier Vedantic teachers pre-supposed by him (according to his subcommentators) are Brahmadatta, Bhartriprapancha, Dravidacharya, Brahmanandi, Vrttikara, Sundara Pandya in addition to Gaudapada of course.Amongst Smritis, he quotes Gita, Manu, Gautama, Vashishtha, Apastamba, Baudhayana. He refers to Devala Dharmasutra. A possible citation from Daksha Smriti.Among Puranas, verses quoted by him are traceable to Vishnu, Vayu, Linga, Shiva per printed editions.An unknown Yogashastra is quoted by him in commentaries on Sutras as well as Gita in addition to Yogasutras.According to Ratnaprabha, he has referred to the views of Ravanabhashya on Vaisheshikasutras while criticizing that Darshana in Brahmasutra Bhashya.For Samkhya, he quotes the Karika. Pandit Udayavira Shashtra also refers to a Samkhyasutra citation. The Purvapaksha of Samkhyas in his Shariraka Bhashya is often, in my opinion, the Siddhanta Paksha stated in the Yuktidipika.Other works quoted by him include Bhashikasutra, Nirukta, Ashtadhyayi, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc.
स वा एष भूतानीन्द्रियाणि विराजं देवताः कोशांश्च सृष्ट्वा प्रविश्यामूढो मूढ इव व्यवहरन्नास्ते माययैव तस्मादद्वय एवायमात्मा सन्मात्रो नित्यः शुद्धो बुद्धः सत्यो मुक्तो निरञ्जनो विभुरद्वयानन्दः परः प्रत्यगेकरसः प्रमाणैरेतैरवगतः सत्तामात्रं हीदं सर्वं सदेव पुरस्तात्सिद्धं हि ब्रह्म[Incidentally, Sayanacharya, in his commentary to the Purusha Suktam, at the passage 'सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरः नामानि कृत्वा अभिवदन् यदास्ते..' cites the above mantra.]
3. The Upanishad uses this set of epithets to both Brahman and the jiva:
होचुः स होवाच तद्वा एतद्ब्रह्माद्वयं ब्रह्मत्वान्नित्यं शुद्धं बुद्धं मुक्तं सत्यं सूक्ष्मं परिपूर्णमद्वयं सदानन्दचिन्मात्रमात्मैवाव्यवहार्यं केन च तत्तदेतदात्मानमोमित्यपश्यन्तः पश्यत तदेतत्सत्यमात्मा ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मात्मैवात्र ह्येव न विचिकित्स्यमित्यों सत्यं तदेतत्पण्डिता एव पश्यन्ति.
Regards
Manish Gupta
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te0vFm-eu5%2BfxY1AWkkUFGRHzL%3DOrS_22mbM%2BwAFVYTckg%40mail.gmail.com.
Raghavendra
नित्यः शुद्धो बुद्धः सत्यो मुक्तो निरञ्जनो विभुरद्वयानन्दः परः प्रत्यगेकरसःFrom: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:18:51 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'
V Subrahmanian
In नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्वभावः, the term *मुक्त* poses a problem on either side - जीव and ब्रह्मन्.
Raghavendra
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 16:12:31 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Gita commentary on Gita 3-35: Commentary of Ramanuja , on ' Karma-yoga'
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.