svabhava

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

I was giving a close reading to various Gita verses on "svabhava" and it is

clear that there are two levels of it. One is changeable within one's life

for example "karpanya-dosopahata-svabhavah" and Krishna asks Arjuna how this

miserly svabhava came upon him. Sridhara Swami on 17.1-3 however, calls this

attitude level of svabhava a "secondary differentiation" of the gunas to

distinguish it [i think] from the a higher level of svabhava.

 

The higher primary level is the one that comes with birth (saha-jam 18.48).

That svabhava is intrinsic to the body and is an effect of one's prarabhda

karma or manifested destiny. One's duty is svabhava-niyatam (dictated by the

[primary] svabhava). Except for a few notable exceptions, one's prarabhda

karma does not change even though Vidya Devi has the power to do so. Baladeva

and most Vedanta commentators agree on this point. Therefore one's duty does

not change. In the most advanced stage, a jivanmukta [in the Vaishnava sense]

is able to do others work but even then he usually does not. And if many of

the various associates of Lord Caitanya are considered to be liberated souls

or at least jivanmuktas then there are so many examples of such who follow

their own duty.

 

Now, Vishakha devi dasi writes in her GBC presentation that duty is

determined "by work (karma) and quality (guna) and not birth (janma)." This

is fallacious and is exactly what Krishna is arguing against. One's duty is

dependent on one's primary svabhava and that in turn correlates with one's

condition of birth (saha-jam). Now there is the fourfold svabhava and the

stri-svabhava. What is actually condemned is linking one's duty to jaati

(which was only relevent in purer times and situations), but this distinction

between jaati and janma is completely missed in Womens Ministry literature.

 

Similarly, Srila Prabhupada's explanation of "kiba vipra..." has been

grossly misunderstood as meaning that svabhavika-sudras and women can be

diksa-gurus and brahmanas. What Lord Caitanya in his ecstasy over Ramananda

Raya's example was condemning was jaati, not prescribed action by one's

birth's svabhava. (Note-Ramananda Raya was a jaati-sudra but a

svabhavika-raja-rishi).

 

This dual level of svabhava is mentioned in Krsna Dharma's Mahabharata:

> >

> > *Vyasadeva to Dhrtarasthra proposing the King send

> > Duryodhana to serve

> > the Pandavas while they are in forest exile: "The

> > nature a man acquires

> > at birth stays with him throughout his life. It

> > seems impossible that

> > Duryodhana would ever be able to humble himself

> > before the Pandavas or

> > anyone else."

 

Duryodhana's pride is a secondary level svabhava, hence the use of the word

"seems."

 

Does all this make sense?

 

I am interested in doing a search on "svabhava" in the whole Mahabharata and

show that these are two main ways that it is used. Where is the searchable

site? Where is the main Mahabharata site?

 

 

GS