My dream is coming true: regarding gita: thanks to SMS Chari

[Guest guest]

25 years back,when my grandfather was teaching Bhagawadgita as per Sri

Ramanujacharya, Shankaracharya and Madhvacharya, he had imparted to me very

deep thoughts regarding the greatness and appropriateness of our sampradaya.

At that time I had a dream that I should write a commentary based on such

rich insights to let the world know the greatness 0f Bhagavadgita and our

sampradaya. Soon I realized that I was incapable of doing that.

 

However, just few days back, SMS Chari came to San Diego and showed me the

draft of his new book:

 

The Philosophy Of The Bhagavad-gita

 

A Study Based on the Evaluation of

 

Comments of Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva

 

This is turning out to be an amazing work. Most of the books on Gita are

usually expositions of a single school of thought or an independent work of

the author. There is no book that deals with all the major schools and

compares them.

 

The book is written with such great effort and expertise that it will be

surely a masterpiece. The book is not finished yet. Draft of 18 chapters are

over. He has to write a synopsis of assessment of the entire gita

literature. He is doing that right now.

 

The content of this book is very unique. For example in the 12th chapter you

can find the question of arjuna: evam satata yukta ye bhaktastvam

paryupasate echapyaksharam avayaktam tesham ke yogavittamah" - here the

question is about who is better - the person who meditates on sri Krishna or

Akshara? what is this akshara? - it is nirguna bramhan as per

Shankaracharya and Prabhupada, it is Lakshmi as per Madhvacharya. It is

jeevan as per Ramanujacharya. why this difference of opinion?. who knows

12th chapter or gita correctly? How come Prabhupada, who is supposed to

follow Madhvacharya uses a sort of non-madhva bent here? how does

Ramanujacharya derive the jeeva meaning here? how can that position be

supported?. I am sure these issues will not matter to a person who is not

deeply interested or I should say is "troubled" if he does not know the

answers. No wonder hardly anyone speaks to SMS chari to find out more. I am

sure getting caught up in karma is a major distraction for even the true

seekers .

 

An interesting incident happened. SMS chari said that he found a great truth

after a lot of effort - ie. clear proof that jnanayoga is a necessary

prerequisite for bhaktiyoga, after a lot of research. I pointed out that

information in a small foot note by Uttamur viraraghavachar. SMS was

surprised and said that, if I had that Uttamoor viraraghavchar's edition

handy, I could have saved some 10 or 12 sleepless nights!. Such is the

greatness of Uttamoor viraraghavachar. Such a great work from Uttamoor

viraraghavachar is OUT OF PRINT!. The modern trend is "forget the difficult

shastras, who wants them. Just go to temples and enjoy the bliss of pujas.

This is a sorry state of affairs of visistadvaita. We should go to the

temples but not throw away shastras. In the next few generations it probably

will be even worse. The focus on the prasthana trayas is becoming soon

extinct.

 

SMS Chari has given me the draft of his book for further review. It is my

pleasure that such a responsibility has landed on such an undeserving person

like me.

 

I know that I never will be able to write such a book. However, the by this

great turn of events, I will never need to write such a book, since SMS

chari has done it in an inimitable way. he has done kalakshepam under

puttamkotai swamy, who was an expert on gita, madurantakam swamy etc.

 

If you need to reach SMS chari you can call him at 818-348-8182 from

tommorrow onwards. He is now traveling to Los Angeles from San Diego. I had

a chance to sit down with him and review chapters 2,6 and 12.

 

Krishna Kashyap

[Guest guest]

 

Krishna Kashyap [kkalale1]

Friday, March 29, 2002 4:23 AM

 

The content of this book is very unique. For example in the

12th chapter you

can find the question of arjuna: evam satata yukta ye bhaktastvam

paryupasate echapyaksharam avayaktam tesham ke yogavittamah" - here the

question is about who is better - the person who meditates on

sri Krishna or

Akshara? what is this akshara? - it is nirguna bramhan as per

Shankaracharya and Prabhupada, it is Lakshmi as per Madhvacharya. It is

jeevan as per Ramanujacharya. why this difference of opinion?. who knows

12th chapter or gita correctly? How come Prabhupada, who is supposed to

follow Madhvacharya uses a sort of non-madhva bent here? how does

Ramanujacharya derive the jeeva meaning here? how can that position be

supported?. I am sure these issues will not matter to a person

 

******

Dear Sri Krishna Kashyap and the list,

 

Since the book from Sri Chari is yet to be published (I enquired about it in

B'lore), I thought of asking a question on the point made above, here on the

list itself.

 

Given their respective systems, the interpretations of Sri Shankara and Sri

Madhvacharya are understandable. For Shankara, given the saguNa and nirguNa

dichotomy, his interpretation of Arjuna's question on those terms is

understandable. For Madhvacharya, Arjuna's question should involve a Being,

different from Krishna, whose worship is also moxa-giving. He quotes certain

shAkhAs of Samaveda to show the scriptural basis (that worship of Lakshmi is

said to yield moxa) and hence the relevance of Arjuna's question.

 

Since I don't know Sri Ramanuja's system well, interpretation in terms of Jiva

is puzzling. Actually, I checked up his bhAShya (available online at

http://www.gitasupersite.org and the English Translation by Swami Gambhirananda)

on this verse and the subsequent verses for answers to the questions I had:

 

1. Arjuna is asking about "upASana". Nowhere does one see or read 'upAsana of

the Jiva'.

 

2. Which scriptures refer to Jiva as 'axara'? Sri Ramanuja quotes some, while

commenting on 12.4, but ends all of them with "iti axaravidyAyAM tu

axarashabdanirdishTaM paraM eva brahma, bhUtayonidvAd.h eva".

 

3. Krishna says that those worshipping the 'axara' upAsana will reach Him only,

but with great difficulty. Now, all through the Gita, a jIva's status has been

indicated as an absolutely dependent being, as just an agent (nimitta mAtraM

bhava savyasAchi; in the earlier chapter itself). Following that, if Arjuna asks

a question regarding of which of Jiva upAsana vs Ishvara upAsana is better, it

would be unnecessary and redundant. Moreover, what exactly constitues the

'upAsana' of Jiva?

 

4. Krishna refers to the axara as 'sarvatraga', which IMO cannot be applied to

Jiva. Sri Ramanuja explains Jiva as 'sarvatraga' because it is present in all

the bodies. Now, it is not one Jiva that is present in all the bodies, but

different Jivas. In such a case, how is this interpretation valid?

 

These are very basic questions, which must have been thought of and answered by

the commentaries on the bhAShya (Are there any? in print? I don't know the

literary tradition of Sri Ramanuja and his followers well; hence these

questions!)

 

As regards Prabhupaada's claim of affinity to Madhva, it is questionable. I have

read the "BG As it is" and the latter's BhAshya and Tatparya on some verses; at

times, one even wonders whether the former actually knows or has read the

latter.

 

Regards,

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna K and others,

 

I will write about this in detail later due to work load. in short

 

1. as Marten gansten points out = 15th chapter clearly makes akshara as jiva

different from kshara and paramatman.

2. first 6 chapters refer to jivatma upasana and not paramatma upasana.

Intuitively any person perceives in this world two different things = I and

the world. similarly that person infers that others are different I's. Hence

upasana on jiva is quite fine. in fact the line of thought in the first 6

chapters makes more sense as jivatma upasana. again, detailed analysis is

needed. for example the chapter 2 - indicates dehi nityam avadhyoyam. etc.

hence stitha prajna as a contemplative person on soul is more intuitively

correct. there is no major paramatmopasana indicated in first 5 chapters.

 

3 sarvatraga - the portion ga in this indicates movement ie. has gone

everywhere. Hence understading this term as jiva tatva or jiva principle is

fine. for example, we speak = brain in every human being is the center of

nervous system or something like that, even though brain of each individual

is distinctly different from one another. it means brain tattva or brain

principle. even in the svetasvetara - valagra shata bhagasya ..... jeeva

bhagah sa vijneyah sa cha ananthyaya kalpate - indicates jiva's

dharmabhutajnana potentially can become all pervading in the moksha state.

Hence the sarvatraga can be taken differently also. there is this svarupa

issue which is anu but jiva principle has gone to infinite number of bodies

considering devas etc.

 

4. making lakshmi as akshara though wordwise valid since lakshmi is

imperishable like any jiva or even for that matter root prakriti principle

is fine. However in the context lakshmi upasana being hard is a difficult

sell and does not seem to the subject of gita at all. Moreover, akshara as

jiva is explained in several chapters 1-12 referring often to indriyas and

body indicating it as the jiva principle seems more valid in the context.

note that jiva upasana is done only by the help of Krishna as indicated in

macchitta, matparah etc. it is very obvious in our experience also that the

'I' principle is more immediately available for our experience than the God.

 

5. in advaita case, akshara is taken as nirguna bramhan which is not an

object of meditation at all even as per advaita. here there has to be some

text torturing to get the meaning straight as upasana on Krishna is greater

than upasana on akshara. Moreover saguna nirguna differentiation is not

directly indicated in gita. maya concept as unreal is also not at all

indicated. hence imposing such ideas on a mainly theistic work is an issue.

 

Dr. SMS chari has gone deeper into this issue in his book.

 

6. As Regards to Prabhupada, the line of thought that atma in the first 6

chapters refer to God seems to be taken from the Madhva sampradaya, even

though he does not take everything from that system. if you refer to

baladeva vidya bhusana's govinda bhasya, a chaitanya sampradaya work, it is

is clear that there is similarity with both Madhva and Ramanuja systems.

 

when I get a chance I will have present some deeper insights into this

issue.

 

Krishna Kashyap

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna K and others,

 

one point I forgot to make.

 

I dont think, we can take the role of Prabhupada and compare it to other

prior main acharyas. His role was to spread krishna consciousness to the

west and make sanskrit works such as gita and bhagavata appealing to the

english speaking public. I think, He has definitely achieved what he wanted

to do with 400 temples worldwide, a feat so difficult to match, whatever may

be the orientation of his writings. The chaitanya system having borrowed

from several vaishnava schools, as far as the information for commentaries

are concerned, is clear from the introduction of baladeva vidhya bhusana in

govinda bhasya.

 

Krishna Kashyap

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna K and others,

 

sms chari's book is not yet printed. it will be available to public only

after publication which may take a year or so since the publishers take a

long time. I am reading a draft which was given to me.

 

by the way I have read BNK sharma's son's book on Gita comparitive analysis.

 

Krishna Kashyap