re Sankara's gita commentary

[Guest guest]

The following text from R. Venkataramani makes some interesting points that

Achintya-ites may like to address.

 

 

it is nice to read the erudite discussion that his holiness sivarama swami

had with the sankaracharya. it is saddening to hear that one who is a

sankaracharya is calling the name and form of sri govinda are temporary,

while adi sankara has asserted that the lord is eternal - satyam jnanam

anantam nityam (sri govindashtakam). sadguna brahman means it is eternal or

else it could not be called brahman. if krishna is maya, there is no need

for the adi sankara to worship him. no other acharya but sankara has

explicitly said (focussing on our lord sri krishna) "ekam devo devaki putra

eva" (there is no god but the son of sri govinda, the sone of devaki. there

is no sastra but the song of sri govinda, bhagavad gita. there is no

activity but serving sri govinda. there is no mantra but the chanting of

the names of sri govinda.

 

to some extent i realize, the great devotion that each one in this forum is

blessed with and request you to show your mercy that i become increasingly

attached to sri govinda and chant his names properly, which is the reason

for my joining this forum. however, permit me to defend sankara to prevent

his great philosophy of pure devotion and absolute knowledge from being

criticized because of potential flaws in the followers, which are present in

all traditions due to the influence of time.

 

the commentary of sri sankara is simple and direct on verse 14.27. that by

worshipping the lord one comes to the brahman platform is stated in 14.26.

according to sankara why this is so (given that generally forms are

considered to be illusory) is explained in 14.27. the lord (brahman) is

established in the self. use of brahman to refer to the lord is consistent

with vedanta sutras and upanishads. also as the lord is referring not only

to himself (in the form of krishna) but also his other personalities such as

rama he is using brahman to refer to himself. thus it is appropriate to

consider brahman (lord) is the subject both contextually & grammatically.

the rest of the verse talks about the quality of this brahman (lord) namely

eternality, ultimate bliss (raso vai sah), imperishability etc., which are

reasons for a mumukshu to worship the lord. that the lord gives this state

to the devotee indicates his mercy. i dont see what the flaw is in sankara's

commentary and why he should be blasted while he is asking us to worship the

lord.

 

philosophy is an intellectual level framework, the acharyas provide us with

to understand the incomprehensible absolute and impel us towards liberation.

the vaishnava philosophies and the acharyas are noble for that. devotees,

who dont intend to belittle sankara's achievements or his philosophy are

requested not to read further on. but if one propounds that his tradition

has the correct conclusion and is more ancient than sankara's, then let them

please defend their faith.

 

1. 14.27 should continue what was spoken in 14.26 or else there is a defect

of incoherance, which is not possible in the words of the lord. therefore,

14.27 should describe the lord or the brahman platform that was talked about

in the previous verse. 14.26 talks about a pure devotee attaining brahman.

as per gaudiyas, a pure devotee does not desire sayujya mukti. therefore how

can 14.27 talk about brahma jyoti ?

 

2. also, how can gaudiyas assign qualities such as ultimate happiness to

brahman having said that it is devoid of ananda ? one may say that is sukha

and not ananda that is referred to in the verse and so it is not a defect.

but then the pure devotees would not benefit from attaining such a platform.

 

3. the gaudiyas may defend saying that the verse 14.27 clarifies the

difference between brahman platform (goloka) referred to in 14.26 and the

brahma jyoti. but having not talked about brahma jyoti anywhere before in

the gita, there is no need for clarifying.

 

4. also how can we defend the statement by hh sivarama swami maharaja that

brahman is "disposable", when the lord says that brahman is eternal.

 

5. the different vaishnava acharyas have different interpretation of what is

referred to by brahman in verse 14.27 and therefore why is there is a

contention with sankara's alone ? each acharya purports based on his

realization.