Sri Sankaracharya begins
his commentary of the Gita only from the 10th verse of 2nd Chapter
Srimad
Bhagavad Gita
English Translation of
Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary
Swami Gambhirananda
भगवद्गीता/साङ्ख्ययोगः
द्वितीयोऽध्याय: साङ्ख्ययोगः
ॐ
श्रीपरमात्मने नमः
अथ द्वितीयोऽध्यायः
सञ्जय उवाच
तं तथा कृपयाविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम् ।
विषीदन्तमिदं वाक्यमुवाच मधुसूदनः ॥२- १॥
श्रीभगवानुवाच
कुतस्त्वा कश्मलमिदं विषमे समुपस्थितम् ।
अनार्यजुष्टमस्वर्ग्यमकीर्तिकरमर्जुन ॥२- २॥
क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैतत्त्वय्युपपद्यते ।
क्षुद्रं हृदयदौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठ परन्तप ॥२- ३॥
अर्जुन उवाच
कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च मधुसूदन ।
इषुभिः प्रति योत्स्यामि पूजार्हावरिसूदन ॥२- ४॥
गुरूनहत्वा हि महानुभावान् श्रेयो भोक्तुं भैक्ष्यमपीह लोके ।
हत्वार्थकामांस्तु गुरूनिहैव भुञ्जीय भोगान् रुधिरप्रदिग्धान् ॥२- ५॥
न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो यद्वा जयेम यदि वा नो जयेयुः ।
यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषाम- स्तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः ॥२- ६॥
कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः पृच्छामि त्वां धर्मसम्मूढचेताः ।
यच्छ्रेयः स्यान्निश्चितं ब्रूहि तन्मे शिष्यस्तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वां प्रपन्नम् ॥२- ७॥
न हि प्रपश्यामि ममापनुद्याद् यच्छोकमुच्छोषणमिन्द्रियाणाम् ।
अवाप्य भूमावसपत्नमृद्धं राज्यं सुराणामपि चाधिपत्यम् ॥२- ८॥
सञ्जय उवाच
एवमुक्त्वा हृषीकेशं गुडाकेशः परन्तप ।
न योत्स्य इति गोविन्दमुक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूव ह ॥२- ९॥
तमुवाच हृषीकेशः प्रहसन्निव भारत ।
सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये विषीदन्तमिदं वचः ॥२- १०॥
श्रीभगवानुवाच
अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे ।
गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्ति पण्डिताः ॥२- ११॥
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।
न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥२- १२॥
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा ।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति ॥२- १३॥
मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः ।
आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत ॥२- १४॥
यं हि न व्यथयन्त्येते पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभ ।
समदुःखसुखं धीरं सोऽमृतत्वाय कल्पते ॥२- १५॥
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः ।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥२- १६॥
Gita Is the Essence of The Vedas:
Having explained how Sri Krishna "as if" took birth to reestablish the law that is good for the world, Shankara now starts to give a prelude as to what is contained in Bhagavad Gita and why he decided to write a commentary on Bhagavad Gita.
Shankara says:
"तत्इदँगीताशास्त्रँसमस्तवेदार्थसारसङग्रहभूतँदुर्विज्ञेयार्थँ"
"This gita shastram is the essence of all Vedas, but its meaning is difficult to grasp."
There are some people who believe that one should study Gita all by themselves without the aid of a guru or without referring to these commentaries by the saints. The above statement of Shankara explains why such an endeavor is likely to not give good results. Even in Shankara's time he felt that the essential teaching of the Gita is not easy to grasp. Obviously its not going to be an easy task for a modern thinker to just pick up the book and gain a true insight without the aid of a commentary or without reaching out to a guru.
To Grasp the meaning of Bhagavad Gita is not easy, because there is a scope for some confusion: its easy for people to get distracted without the aid of a proper teacher. There is so much confusion because there are lot of scriptural texts and each one has its own way of presenting the Truth!
Its important to get an authoritative guide that summarizes the whole teaching and provides us exactly with what we need. But there is a problem here as well... Because of the diverse views, everyone tries to mould the meaning of the teachings of Gita to suite their own perspective. Instead of trying to understand what Gita is saying, people tend to get their own meaning out of it. This should not be done because Gita is a summarization of the upanishadic teachings. There are some verses that correspond directly with upanishadic verses and so one needs to be very careful not to give a meaning that would contradict what the upanishads are teaching! Thats why a Shankara is needed to explain to us the real meaning, because one has to make sure that the upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Gita teachings are in synchronization. When we read some of the modern interpreters we will be able to see how their teachings get contradicted at other places.
One should have the earnestness to learn what the Gita teaches rather than a tendency to mould what it says to suite our own ideas! When earnestness is lacking one would tend to twist the teachings of Gita to one's own convictions and beliefs - even though such twisting would expose a lot of cracks in the arguments. This twisting is possible because the shastra's being a summarization, bringing out the essence of a much larger work, can be misunderstood or taken out of context.
Having explained how Sri Krishna "as if" took birth to reestablish the law that is good for the world, Shankara now starts to give a prelude as to what is contained in Bhagavad Gita and why he decided to write a commentary on Bhagavad Gita.
Shankara says:
"तत्इदँगीताशास्त्रँसमस्तवेदार्थसारसङग्रहभूतँदुर्विज्ञेयार्थँ"
"This gita shastram is the essence of all Vedas, but its meaning is difficult to grasp."
There are some people who believe that one should study Gita all by themselves without the aid of a guru or without referring to these commentaries by the saints. The above statement of Shankara explains why such an endeavor is likely to not give good results. Even in Shankara's time he felt that the essential teaching of the Gita is not easy to grasp. Obviously its not going to be an easy task for a modern thinker to just pick up the book and gain a true insight without the aid of a commentary or without reaching out to a guru.
To Grasp the meaning of Bhagavad Gita is not easy, because there is a scope for some confusion: its easy for people to get distracted without the aid of a proper teacher. There is so much confusion because there are lot of scriptural texts and each one has its own way of presenting the Truth!
Its important to get an authoritative guide that summarizes the whole teaching and provides us exactly with what we need. But there is a problem here as well... Because of the diverse views, everyone tries to mould the meaning of the teachings of Gita to suite their own perspective. Instead of trying to understand what Gita is saying, people tend to get their own meaning out of it. This should not be done because Gita is a summarization of the upanishadic teachings. There are some verses that correspond directly with upanishadic verses and so one needs to be very careful not to give a meaning that would contradict what the upanishads are teaching! Thats why a Shankara is needed to explain to us the real meaning, because one has to make sure that the upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Gita teachings are in synchronization. When we read some of the modern interpreters we will be able to see how their teachings get contradicted at other places.
One should have the earnestness to learn what the Gita teaches rather than a tendency to mould what it says to suite our own ideas! When earnestness is lacking one would tend to twist the teachings of Gita to one's own convictions and beliefs - even though such twisting would expose a lot of cracks in the arguments. This twisting is possible because the shastra's being a summarization, bringing out the essence of a much larger work, can be misunderstood or taken out of context.
1 Sri Sankaracharya begins his
commentary of the Gita only from the
10th verse of 2nd Chapter.
Chapter 21
2.10 O descendant of Bharata, to him
who was
sorrowing between the two armies,
Hrsikesa,
mocking as it were, said these words:
English Translation of Sri
Sankaracharya's Sanskrit
Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda
2.10 And here, the text commencing from
'But
seeing the army of the Pandavas' (1.2)
and ending
with '(he) verily became silent,
telling Him
(Govinda), "I shall not
fight"' is to be explained as
revealing the cause of the origin of
the defect in the
from of sorrow, delusion, etc.
[Delusion means
want of discrimination. Etc. stands for
the
secondary manifestations of sorrow and
delusion,
as also ignorance which is the root
cause of all
these.] which are the sources of the
cycles of births
and deaths of creatures. Thus indeed,
Ajuna's own
sorrow and delusion, cuased by the ideas
of
affection, parting, etc., originating
from the
erroneous belief, 'I belong to these;
they belong to
me', with regard to kingdom [See note
under verse
8.-Tr.], elders, sons, comrades,
well-wishers (1.26),
kinsmen (1.37), relatives (1.34) and
friends, have
been shown by him with the words, 'How
can I
(fight)...in battle (against) Bhisma'
(4), etc. It is
verily because his discriminating
insight was
overwhelmed by sorrow and delusion
that, even
though he had become engaged in battle
out of his
own accord as a duty of the Ksatriyas,
he desisted
from that war and chose to undertake
other's
duties like living on alms etc. 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 reward.] Such being the
case, the
cycle of births and deaths --
characterized by
passing through desireable and
undesirable births,
and meeting with happiness, sorrow, etc.
[From
virtuous deeds follow attainment of
heaven and
happiness. From unvirtuous, sinful
deeds follow
births as beasts and other lowly
beings, and
sorrow. From the performance of both
virtuous
and sinful deeds follows birth as a
human being,
with a mixture of happiness and
sorrow.] from the
accumulation of virtue and vice,
continues
unendingly. 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 that (knowledge of
the Self) for
favouring the whole world, Lord
Vasudeva,
making Arjuna the medium, said, 'You
grieve for
those who are not to be grieved for,'
etc. As to that
some (opponents) [According to A.G. the
opponent
is the Vrttikara who, in the opinion of
A.
Mahadeva Sastri, is none other than
Bodhayana
referred to in Sankaracarya's
commentary on B.S.
1.1.11-19.-Tr.] say: Certainly,
Liberation cannot be
attained merely from continuance in the
knowledge of the Self which is preceded
by
renunciation of all duties and is
independent of
any other factor. What then? The
well-ascertained
conclusion of the whole of the Gita is
that
Liberation is attained through
Knowledge
associated with rites and duties like
Agnihotra etc.
prescribed in the Vedas and the Smrtis.
And as an
indication of this point of view they
quote (the
verses): 'On the other hand, if you
will not fight
this righteous (battle)' (33); 'Your
right is for action
(rites and duties) alone' (47);
'Therefore you
undertake action (rites and duties)
itself' (4.15), etc.
Even this objection should not be
raised that Vedic
rites and duties lead to sin since they
involve
injury etc.'. Objection: How? Opponent:
The duties
of the Ksatriyas, charaterized by war,
do not lead
to sin when undertaken as one's duty,
even though
they are extremely cruel since they
involve
violence against elders, brothers, sons
and others.
And from the Lord's declaration that
when they
are not performed, 'then, forsaking
your own duty
and fame, you will incur sin' (33), it
stands out as
(His) clearly stated foregone
conclusion that one's
own duties prescribed in such texts as,
'(One shall
perform Agnihotra) as long as one
lives' etc., and
actions which involve crutely to
animals etc. are
not sinful. Vedantin: That is wrong
because of the
assertion of the distinction between
firm adherence
(nistha) to Knowledge and to action,
which are
based on two (different) convictions
(buddhi). The
nature of the Self, the supreme
Reality, determined
by the Lord in the text beginning with
'Those who
are not to be grieved for' (11) and
running to the
end of the verse, 'Even considering
your own duty'
(31), is called Sankhya. Sankhya-buddhi
[Sankhya
is that correct (samyak) knowledge of
the Vedas
which reveals (khyayate) the reality of
the Self, the
supreme Goal. The Reality under
discussion,
which is related to this sankhya by way
of having
been revealed by it, is Sankhya.]
(Conviction about
the Reality) is the conviction with
regard to That
(supreme Reality) arising from the
ascertainment
of the meaning of the context
[Ascertainment...of
the context, i.e., of the meaning of
the verses
starting from, 'Never is this One born,
and never
does It die,' etc. (20).] -- that the
Self is not an agent
because of the absence in It of the six
kinds of
changes, viz birth etc. [Birth,
continuance, growth,
transformation, decay and death.]
Sankhyas are
those men of Knowledge to whom that
(conviction)
becomes natural. Prior to the rise of
this Conviction
(Sankhya-buddhi), the ascertained [Ast.
and A.G.
omit this word 'ascertainment,
nirupana'-Tr.] of the
performance of the disciplines leading
to
Liberation -- which is based on a
discrimination
between virtue and vice, [And adoration
of God].
and which presupposes the Self's
difference from
the body etc. and Its agentship and
enjoyership -- is
called Yoga. The conviction with regard
to that
(Yoga) is Yoga-buddhi. The performers
of rites and
duties, for whom this (conviction) is
appropriate,
are called yogis. Accordingly, the two
distinct
Convictions have been pointed out by
the Lord in
the verse, 'This wisdom (buddhi) has
been
imparted to you from the standpoint of
Selfrealization
(Sankhya). But listen to this (wisdom)
from the standpoint of (Karma-) yoga'
(39). And of
these two, the Lord will separately
speak, with
reference to the Sankhyas, of the firm
adherence to
the Yoga of Knowledge. [Here Yoga and
Knowledge are identical. Yoga is that
through
which one gets connected, identified.
with
Brahman.] which is based on
Sankya-buddhi, in,
'Two kinds of adherences were spoken of
by Me in
the form of the Vedas, in the days of
yore.' [This
portion is ascending to G1.Pr. and
A.A.; Ast. omits
this and quotes exactly the first line
of 3.3. By
saying, 'in the form of the Vedas', the
Lord
indicates that the Vedas, which are
really the
knowledge inherent in God and issue out
of Him,
are identical with Himself.-Tr.]
similarly, in,
'through the Yoga of Action for the
yogis' (3.3), He
will separately speak of the firm
adherence to the
Yoga [Here also Karma and Yoga are
identical, and
lead to Liberation by bringing about
purity of heart
which is followed by steadfastness in
Knowledge.]
of Karma which is based on Yoga-buddhi
(Conviction about Yoga). Thus, the two
kinds of
steadfastness -- that based on the
conviction about
the nature of the Self, and that based
on the
conviction about rites and duties --
have been
distinctly spoken of by the Lord
Himself, who saw
that the coexistence of Knowledge and
rites and
duties is not possible in the same
person, they
being based on the convictions of
non-agentship
and agentship, unity and diversity
(respectively).
As is this teaching about the
distinction (of the two
adherences), just so has it been
revealed in the
Satapatha Brahmana: 'Desiring this
world (the Self)
alone monks and Brahmanas renounce
their
homes' (cf. Br. 4.4.22). After thus
enjoining
renunciation of all rites and duties,
it is said in
continuation, 'What shall we acheive
through
childeren, we who have attained this
Self, this
world (result).' [The earlier quotation
implies an
injuction (vidhi) for renunciation, and
the second is
an arthavada, or an emphasis on that
injunction.
Arthavada: A sentence which usually
recommends
a vidhi, or precept, by stating the
good arising
from its proper observance, and the
evils arising
from its omission; and also by adducing
historical
instances in its support.-V.S.A] Again,
there itself it
is said that, before accepting a wife a
man is in his
natural state [The state of ignorance
owing to nonrealization
of Reality. Such a person is a
Brahmacarin, who goes to a teacher for
studying
the Vedas]. And (then) after his
enquiries into rites
and duties, [The Brahmacarin first
studies the
Vedas and then enquires into their
meaning.
Leaving his teacher's house after
completing his
course, he becomes a house holder.]
'he' for the
attainment of the three worlds [This
world, the
world of manes and heaven.-Tr.]
'desired' (see Br.
1.4.17) as their means a son and the
two kinds of
wealth consists of rites and duties
that lead to the
world of manes, and the divine wealth
of
acquisition of vidya (meditation) which
leads to
heaven. In this way it is shown that
rites and duties
enjoined by the Vedas etc. are meant
only for one
who is unenlightened and is possessed
of desire.
And in the text, 'After renouncing they
take to
mendicancy' (see Br. 4.4.22), the
injunction to
renounce is only for one who desires
the world
that is the Self, and who is devoid of
hankering (for
anything else). Now, if the intention
of the Lord
were the combination of Knowledge with
Vedic
rites and duties, then this utterance
(of the Lord)
(3.3) about the distinction would have
been
illogical. Nor would Arjuna's question,
'If it be
your opinion that wisdom (Knowledge) is
superior
to action (rites and duties)...,' etc.
(3.1) be proper. If
the Lord had not spoken earlier of the
impossibility
of the pursuit of Knowledge and rites
and duties
by the same person (at the same time),
then how
could Arjuna falsely impute to the Lord
-- by
saying, 'If it be your opinion that
wisdom is
superior to action....' -- (of having
spoken) what
was not heard by him, viz the higher
status of
Knowledge over rites and duties?
Moreover, if it be
that the combination of Knowledge with
rites and
duties was spoken of for all, then it
stands
enjoined, ipso facto, on Arjuna as
well. Therefore, if
instruction had been given for
practising both, then
how could the question about 'either of
the two'
arise as in, 'Tell me for certain one
of these (action
and renunciation) by which I may attain
the
highest Good' (3.2)? 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 arise no such
request as, 'Tell
me which one of these two is to be
taken as a
means to cure biliousness'! Again, if
it be imagined
that Arjuna put the question because of
his noncomprehension
of the distinct meaning of what the
Lord had said, even then the Lord ought
to have
answered in accordance with the
question: 'The
combination of Knowledge with rites and
duties
was spoken of by Me. Why are you
confused thus?'
On the other hand, it was not proper to
have
answered, 'Two kinds of steadfastness
were
spoken of by Me it the days of yore,'
in a way that
was inconsistent and at variance with
the question.
Nor even do all the statements about
distinction
etc. become logical if it were intended
that
Knowledge was to be combined with rites
and
duties enjoined by the Smrtis only.
Besides, the
accusation in the sentence, 'Why then
do you urge
me to horrible action' (3.1) becomes
illogical on the
part of Arjuna who knew that fighting
was a
Ksatriya's natural duty enjoined by the
Smrtis.
Therefore, it is not possible for
anyone to show that
in the scripture called the Gita there
is any
combination, even in the least, of
Knowledge of the
Self with rites and duties enjoined by
the Srutis or
the Smrtis. But in the case of a man
who had
engaged himself in rites and duties
because of
ignorance and defects like the
attachment, and then
got his mind purified through
sacrifices, charities
or austerities (see Br. 4.4.22), there
arises the
knowledge about the supreme Reality --
that all
this is but One, and Brahman is not an
agent (of
any action). With regard to him,
although there is a
cessation of rites and duties as also
of the need for
them, yet, what may, appear as his
diligent
continuance, just as before, in those
rites and duties
for setting an example before people --
that is no
action in which case it could have
stood combined
with Knowledge. Just as the actions of
Lord
Vasudeva, in the form of performance of
the duty
of a Ksatriya, do not get combined with
Knowledge for the sake of achieving the
human
goal (Liberation), similar is the case
with the man
of Knowledge because of the absence of
hankering
for results and agentship. Indeed, a
man who has
realized the Truth does not thingk 'I
am doing
(this)' nor does he hanker after its
result. Again, as
for instance, person hankering after
such desirable
things as heaven etc. may light up a
fire for
performing such rites as Agnihotra etc.
which are
the mans to attain desirable things;
[The Ast.
reading is:
Agnihotradi-karma-laksana-dharmaanusthanaya,
for the performance of duties in the
form of acts like Agnihotra etc.-Tr.]
then, while he
is still engaged in the performance of
Agnihotra
etc. as the means for the desirable
things, the desire
may get destroyed when the rite is
half-done. He
may nevertheless continue the
performance of
those very Agnihotra etc.; but those
performance of
those very Agnihotra etc.; but those
Agnihotra etc.
cannot be held to be for this personal
gain.
Accordingly does the Lord also show in
various
places that, 'even while perfroming
actions,' he
does not act, 'he does not become
tainted' (5.7). As
for the texts, '...as was performed
earlier by the
ancient ones' (4.15), 'For Janaka and
others strove
to attain Liberation through action
itself' (3.20),
they are to be understood analytically.
Objection:
How so? Vedantin: As to that, if Janaka
and others
of old remained engaged in activity
even though
they were knowers of Reality, they did
so for
preventing people from going astray,
while
remaining established in realization
verily through
the knowledge that 'the organs rest
(act) on the
objects of the organs' (3.28). The idea
is this that,
though the occasion for renunciation of
activity did
arise, they remained established in
realization
along with actions; they did not give
up their rites
and duties. On the other hand, if they
were not
knowers of Reality, then the
explanation should be
this; Through the discipline of
dedicating rites and
duties to God, Janaka and others
remained
established in perfection (samsiddhi)
either in the
form of purification of mind or rise of
Knowledge.
This very idea [The idea that rites and
duties
become the cause of Knowledge through
the
purification of the mind.] will be
expressed by the
Lord in, '(the yogis) undertake action
for the
purification of oneself (i.e. of the
heart, or the
mind)' (5.11). After having said, 'A
human being
achieves success by adoring Him through
his own
duties' [By performing one's own duty
as enjoined
by scriptures and dedicating their
results to God,
one's mind becomes purified. Then,
through Gods
grace one becomes fit for steadfastness
in
Knowledge. From that steadfatness
follows
Liberation. Therefore rites and duites
do not
directly lead to Liberation. (See
Common. under
5.12) (18.46), He will again speak of
the
steadfastness in Knowledge of a person
who has
attained success, in the text,
'(Understand...from
Me...that process by which) one who has
achieved
success attains Brahman' (18.50). So,
the definite
conclusion in the Gita is that
Liberation is attained
only from the knowledge of Reality, and
not from
its combination with action. And by
pointing out in
the relevant contexts the (aforesaid)
distinction, we
shall show how this conclusion stands.
That being
so, Lord Vasudeva found that for
Arjuna, whose
mind was thus confused about what ought
to be
done [The ast. and A.A., have an
additional word --
mithyajnanavatah, meaning 'who had
false
ignorance'.-Tr.] and who was sunk in a
great ocean
of sorrow, there could be no rescue
other than
through the knowledge of the Self. And
desiring to
rescue Arjuna from that, He said, '(You
grieve for)
those who are not to be grieved for,'
etc. by way of
introducing the knowledge of the Self.
[In this Gita
there are three distinct parts, each
part consisting
of six chapters. These three parts deal
with the
three words of the great Upanisadic
saying,
'Tattvamasi, thou art That', with a
view to finding
out their real meanings. The first six
chapters are
concerned with the word tvam (thou);
the
following six chapters determine the
meaning of
the word tat (that); and the last six
reveal the
essential identity of tvam and tat. The
disciplines
necessary for realization this identity
are stated in
the relevant places.]
2.11 The Blessed Lord said -- You
grieve for whose
who are not to be grieved for; and you
speak
words of wisdom! The learned do not
grieve for
the departed and those who have not
departed.
2.11 Bhisma, Drona and others are not
to be
grieved for, because they are of noble
character
and are eternal in their real nature.
With regard to
them, asocyan, who are not to be
grieved for; tvam,
you; anvasocah, grieve, (thinking)
'They die
because of me; without them what shall
I do with
dominion and enjoyment?'; ca, and;
bhasase, you
speak; prajnavadan, words of wisdom,
words used
by men of wisdom, of intelligence. The
idea is,
'Like one mad, you show in yourself
this
foolishness and learning which are
contradictory.'
Because, panditah, the learned, the
knowers of the
Self -- panda means wisdon about the
Self; those
indeed who have this are panditah, one
the
authority of the Upanisadic text,
'...the knowers of
Brahman, having known all about
scholarship,...'
(Br. 3.5.1) ['Therefore the knowers of
Brahman,
having known all about scholorship,
should try to
live upon that strength which comes of
Knowledge; having known all about this
strength
as well as scholorship, he becomes
meditative;
having known all about both
meditativeness and
its opposite, he becomes a knower of
Brahman.'] -- ;
na anusocanti, do not grieve for;
gatasun, the
departed, whose life has become
extinct; agatasun
ca, and for those who have not
departed, whose
life has not left, the living. The
ideas is, 'Your are
sorrowing for those who are eternal in
the real
sense, and who are not to be grieved
for. Hence
your are a fool!.'
2.12 But certainly (it is) not (a fact)
that I did not
exist at any time; nor you, nor these
rulers of men.
And surely it is not that we all shall
cease to exist
after this.
2.12 Why are they not to be grieved
for? Because
they are eternal. How? Na tu eva, but
certainly it is
not (a fact); that jatu, at any time;
aham, I ; na asam,
did not exist; on the contrary, I did
exist. The idea
is that when the bodies were born or
died in the
past, I existed eternally. [Here Ast.
adds ghatadisu
viyadiva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.]
Similarly, na
tvam, nor is it that you did not exist;
but you surely
existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor
is it that these ;
jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not
exist. On the
other hand, they did exist. And
similarly, na eva, it
is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve,
all; na
bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah
param, after
this, even after the destruction of
this body. On the
contrary, we shall exist. The meaning
is that even
in all the three times (past, present
and future) we
are eternal in our nature as the Self.
The plural
number (in we) is used following the
diversity of
the bodies, but not in the sense of the
multiplicity
of the Self.
2.13 As are boyhood, youth and
decrepitude to an
embodied being in this (present) body,
similar is
the acquisition of another body. This
being so, an
intelligent person does not get
deluded.
2.13 As to that, to show how the Self
is eternal, the
Lord cites an illustration by
saying,'...of the
embodied,' etc. Yatha, as are, the
manner in which;
kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth,
middle
age; and jara, decrepitude, advance of
age;
dehinah, to an embodied being, to one
who
possesses a body (deha), to the Self
possessing a
body; asmin, in this, present; dehe,
body --. These
three states are mutually distinct. On
these, when
the first state gets destroyed the Self
does not get
destroyed; when the second state comes
into being
It is not born. What then? It is seen
that the Self,
which verily remains unchanged,
acquires the
second and third states. Tatha,
similar, indeed; is
Its, the unchanging Self's dehantarapraptih,
acquisition of another body, a body
different from
the present one. This is the meaning.
Tatra, this
being so; dhirah, an intelligent
person; na, does
not; muhyati, get deluded.
2.14 But the contacts of the organs
with the objects
are the producers of cold and heat,
happiness and
sorrow. They have a beginning and an
end, (and)
are transient. Bear them, O descendant
of Bharata.
2.14 'In the case of a man who knows
that the Self
is eternal, although there is no
possibility of
delusion concerning the destruction of
the Self, still
delusion, as of ordinary people, caused
by the
experience of cold, heat, happiness and
sorrow is
noticed in him. Delusion arises from
being
deprived of happiness, and sorrow
arises from
contact with pain etc.' apprehending
this kind of a
talk from Arjuna, the Lord said, 'But
the contacts of
the organs,' etc. Matra-sparsah, the
contacts of the
organs with objects; are
sita-usna-sukha-duhkhadah,
producers of cold, heat, happiness and
sorrow. Matrah means those by which are
marked
off (measured up) sounds etc., i.e. the
organs of
hearing etc. The sparsah, contacts, of
the organs
with sound etc. are matra-sparsah. Or,
sparsah
means those which are contacted, i.e.
objects, viz
sound etc. Matra-sparsah, the organs
and objects,
are the producers of cold, heat,
happiness and
sorrow. Cold sometimes produces
pleasure, and
sometimes pain. Similarly the nature of
heat, too, is
unpredictable. On the other hand,
happiness and
sorrow have definite natures since they
do not
change. Hence they are mentioned
separately from
cold and heat. Since they, the organs,
the contacts,
etc., agamapayinah, have a beginning
and an end,
are by nature subject to origination
and
destruction; therefore, they are
anityah, transient.
Hence, titiksasva, bear; tan, them --
cold, heart, etc.,
i.e. do not be happy or sorry with
regard to them.
2.15 O (Arjuna, who are) foremost among
men,
verily, the person whom these do not
torment, the
wise man to whom sorrow and happhiness
are the
same -- he is fit for Immortality.
2.15 What will happen to one who bears
cold and
heat? Listen: Verily, the
person...,'etc. (O Arjuna)
hi, verily; yam purusam, the person
whom; ete,
these, cold and heat mentioned above;
na, do not;
vyathayanti, torment, do not perturb;
dhiram, the
wise man; sama-duhkha-sukham, to whom
sorrow
and happiness are the same, who is free
from
happiness and sorrow when subjected to
pleasure
and pain, because of his realization of
the enternal
Self; sah, he, who is established in
the realization of
the enternal Self, who forbears the
opposites;
kalpate, becomes fit; amrtattvaya, for
Immortality,
for the state of Immortality, i.e. for
Liberation.
2.16 Of the unreal there is no being;
the real has no
nonexistence. But the nature of both
these, indeed,
has been realized by the seers of
Truth.
2.16 Since 'the unreal has no being,'
etc., for this
reason also it is proper to bear cold,
heat, etc.
without becoming sorrowful or deluded.
Asatah,
of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc.
together with their
causes; na vidyate, there is no;
bhavah, being,
existence, reality; because heat, cold,
etc. together
with their causes are not substantially
real when
tested by means of proof. For they are
changeful,
and whatever is changeful is
inconstant. As
configurations like pot etc. are unreal
since they are
not perceived to be different from
earth when
tested by the eyes, so also are all
changeful things
unreal because they are not perceived
to be
different from their (material) causes,
and also
because they are not perceived before
(their)
origination and after destruction.
Objection: If it be
that [Here Ast. has the additional
words 'karyasya
ghatadeh, the effect, viz pot etc.
(and)'.-Tr.] such
(material) causes as earth etc. as also
their causes
are unreal since they are not perceived
differently
from their causes, in that case, may it
not be urged
that owing to the nonexistence of those
(causes)
there will arise the contingency of
everything
becoming unreal [An entity cannot be
said to be
unreal merely because it is non-different
from its
cause. Were it to be asserted as being
unreal, then
the cause also should be unreal,
because there is no
entity which is not subject to the law
of cuase and
effect.]? Vedantin: No, for in all
cases there is the
experience of two awarenesses, viz the
awareness
of reality, and the awareness of
unreality. [In all
cases of perception two awarenesses are
involved:
one is invariable, and the other is
variable. Since
the variable is imagined on the
invariable,
therefore it is proved that there is
something which
is the substratum of all imagination,
and which is
neither a cause nor an effect.] That in
relation to
which the awareness does not change is
real; that
in relation to which it changes is
unreal. Thus,
since the distinction between the real
and the
unreal is dependent on awareness,
therefore in all
cases (of empirical experiences)
everyone has two
kinds of awarenesses with regard to the
same
substratum: (As for instance, the
experiences) 'The
pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The
elephant is real' -
- (which experiences) are not like
(that of) 'A blue
lotus'. [In the empirical experience,
'A blue lotus',
there are two awarenesses concerned
with two
entities, viz the substance (lotus) and
the quality
(blueness). In the case of the experience,
'The pot is
real', etc. the awarenesses are not
concerned with
substratum and qualities, but the
awareness of
pot,of cloth, etc. are superimposed on
the
awareness of 'reality', like that of
'water' in a
mirage.] This is how it happens
everywhere. [The
coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc.
are valid only
empirically -- according to the
non-dualists;
whereas the coexistence of 'blueness'
and 'lotus' is
real according to the dualists.] Of
these two
awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is
inconstant;
and thus has it been shown above. But
the
awareness of reality is not
(inconstant). Therefore
the object of the awareness of pot etc.
is unreal
because of inconstancy; but not so the
object of the
awareness of reality, because of its
constancy.
Objection: If it be argued that, since
the awareness
of pot also changes when the pot is
destroyed,
therefore the awareness of the pot's
reality is also
changeful? Vedantin: No, because in
cloth etc. the
awareness of reality is seen to
persist. That
awareness relates to the odjective (and
not to the
noun 'pot'). For this reason also it is
not destroyed.
[This last sentence has been cited in
the f.n. of A.A.-
Tr.] Objection: If it be argued that
like the
awareness of reality, the awareness of
a pot also
persists in other pots? Vedantin: No,
because that
(awareness of pot) is not present in
(the awareness
of) a cloth etc. Objection: May it not
be that even
the awareness of reality is not present
in relation to
a pot that has been destroyed?
Vedantin: No,
because the noun is absent (there).
Since the
awareness of reality corresponds to the
adjective
(i.e. it is used adjectivelly),
therefore, when the
noun is missing there is no possibility
of its (that
awareness) being an adjective. So, to
what should it
relate? But, again, the awareness of
reality (does
not cease) with the absence of an
object.. [Even
when a pot is absent and the awareness
of reality
does not arise with regard to it, the
awareness of
reality persists in the region where
the pot had
existed. Some read nanu in place of na
tu ('But,
again'). In that case, the first
portion
(No,...since...adjective.
So,...relate?) is a statement
of the Vedantin, and the Objection
starts from nanu
punah sadbuddheh, etc. so, the next
Objection will
run thus: 'May it not be said that,
when nouns like
pot etc. are absent, the awareness of
existence has
no noun to qualify, and therefore it
becomes
impossible for it (the awareness of
existence) to
exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.]
Objection: May
it not be said that, when nouns like
pot etc. are
absent, (the awareness of existence has
no noun to
qualify and therefore) it becomes
impossible for it
to exist in the same substratum? [The
relationship
of an adjective and a noun is seen
between two real
entities. Therefore, if the relationship
between 'pot'
and 'reality' be the same as between a
noun and an
adjective, then both of them will be
real entities. So,
the coexistence of reality with a
non-pot does not
stand to reason.] Vedantin: No, because
in such
experiences as, 'This water exists',
(which arises on
seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed
that there is a
coexistence of two objects though one
of them is
non-existent. Therefore, asatah, of the
unreal, viz
body etc. and the dualities (heat,
cold, etc.),
together with their causes; na vidyate,
there is no;
bhavah, being. And similarly, satah, of
the real, of
the Self; na vidyate, there is no;
abhavah,
nonexistence, because It is constant
everywhere.
This is what we have said. Tu, but;
antah, the
nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature
of the
real and the unreal) that the Real is
verily real, and
the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh
api, of both
these indeed, of the Self and the
non-Self, of the
Real and the unreal, as explained
above; drstah,
has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih,
by the
seers of Truth. Tat is a pronoun
(Sarvanama, lit.
name of all) which can be used with
regard to all.
And all is Brahman. And Its name is
tat. The
abstraction of tat is tattva, the true
nature of
Brahman. Those who are apt to realize
this are
tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth.
Therefore, you too,
by adopting the vision of the men of
realization
and giving up sorrow and delusion,
forbear the
dualities, heat, cold, etc. -- some of
which are
definite in their nature, and others
inconstant --,
mentally being convinced that this
(phenomenal
world) is changeful, verily unreal and
appears
falsely like water in a mirage. This is
the idea.
What, again, is that reality which
remains verily as
the Real and surely for ever? This is
being
answered in, 'But know That', etc.
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
(Continued...)
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Bhagawan Sri Krishna Paramathma ji,
Parama Hamsa Parivrajaka Paramacharya Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavad Pada ji
and H H Sri Swamy Gambhirananda ji for
this devotional collection)
(The Blog is reverently for all the seekers of truth,
lovers of wisdom and to share the Hindu Dharma with others on the
spiritual path and also this is purely a non-commercial blog)
श्रीगुरुपादुकास्त्रोत्रम्
अनन्त संसार समुद्रतार ।
नौकायिताभ्यां स्थिर भक्तिदाभ्याम् ।
जाक्याब्धि संशोषण बाड़याभ्याम् ।
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
ऊँकार ह्रींकार रहस्ययुक्त
श्रींकार गुढ़ार्थ महाविभुत्या ।
ऊँकार मर्मं प्रतिपादिनीभ्यां
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
होत्राग्नि, हौत्राग्नि हविष्य होतृ
होमादि सर्वकृति भासमानम् ।
यद ब्रह्म तद वो धवितारिणीभ्यां,
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
नौकायिताभ्यां स्थिर भक्तिदाभ्याम् ।
जाक्याब्धि संशोषण बाड़याभ्याम् ।
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
ऊँकार ह्रींकार रहस्ययुक्त
श्रींकार गुढ़ार्थ महाविभुत्या ।
ऊँकार मर्मं प्रतिपादिनीभ्यां
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
होत्राग्नि, हौत्राग्नि हविष्य होतृ
होमादि सर्वकृति भासमानम् ।
यद ब्रह्म तद वो धवितारिणीभ्यां,
नमो नमः श्री गुरु पादुकाभ्याम्
0 comments:
Post a Comment