Bhagavad-gita 2.29 according to Sridhara Svami

[Guest guest]

> >[As the self, which is all-pervading and of the nature of eternal

> >knowledge and bliss, is supernatural, one is bewildered at seeing it,

> >being overcome by its incomprehensibility, like one seeing something

> >impossible like magic.]

>

> This commentary seems to be Swami Viresvaranada's commentary rather than

> Sridhara Swami's. This verse 2.29 is used a lot by the Mayavadis. Swami

> Vireswarananda seems to be one of them. He talks about the self as ALL

> PERVADING and that is why one is bewildered by seeing it etc. etc. This

> statement in parantheses seems to be Vireswarananda's comment not Sridhara

> Swami's.

 

Sridhara Svami's complete commentary to BG 2.29 is as follows:

 

1. kutas tarhi vidv€ˆso ‘pi loke ocanti €tm€jñ€n€d eva ity

€ayen€tmano durvijñeyat€m €ha |

 

2. €caryavad ity €di |

 

3. kacid enam €tm€naˆ €str€c€ryopade€bhy€ˆ payann €caryavat

payati,

 

4. sarva-gatasya nitya-jñ€n€nanda-svabh€vasy€tmano ‘laukikatv€d

aindra-j€likavad gha˜am€naˆ payann iva vismayena payati

asambh€van€bhibh™tatv€t |

 

5. tath€ €caryavad ev€nyo vadati ca Šoti c€nyaƒ kacit

punar-vipar…ta-bh€van€bhibh™taƒ rutv€pi naiva veda |

 

6. ca-abd€d uktv€ ‘pi d˜v€ ‘pi na samyag vedeti dra˜avyam ||29||

 

The passage which is quoted on top of this message, and which is said to be

an English translation of Sridhara Svami's Subodhini commentary on

Bhagavad-gita 2.29, corresponds very accurately with section 4. of the

Sanskrit above. In other words, what Swami Viresvarananda has presented as

Sridhara Svami's words, are indeed Sridhara Svami's own words.

 

It can happen to the best Vaisnava that he gets all alerted by words such as

"all-pervading", and then concludes that a text in which this word appears

could be a Mayavadi statement. Sridhara Svami, however, is simply using the

same word that Krsna attributed to the soul just five verses earlier,

"sarva-gatah". A word which is even in Srila Prabhupada's wbw translated as

"all-pervading". Srila Prabhupada then, because he was aware of the

implications, softened it up in his verse translation and gave the soul the

attribute "present everywhere", which can be taken as another way to say

"all-pervading", but it takes out the impersonal connotations.

 

The word-by-word synonyms for Sridhara Svami's commentary (section 4. from

above), are as follows:

 

sarva-gatasya -- of the all-pervading

 

nitya-jñ€na-ananda-svabh€vasya -- of him (the soul), whose very nature is

eternal knowledge and bliss

 

€tmanaƒ -- of the soul

 

alaukikatv€t -- on account of being non-material

 

aindra-j€likavat -- just like magic

 

gha˜am€nam -- still trying

 

payan -- seing

 

iva -- like

 

vismayena -- with wonder

 

payati -- he sees

 

asambh€van€ abhibh™tatv€t -- overwhelmed by the incomprehensibility

 

These synonyms should be sufficient to verify that the text presented by

Swami Viresvarananda is indeed Sridhara Svami's commentary, and, not only

that, but is translated fairly well.

 

> >ne realizing this [self, with

> >the help of the precepts of the Scriptures and the teacher],

>

> Again he comments on this. He says that one who realizes the soul from the

> guru or scriptures, he sees it as a wonder. But Prabhupada (who also

> studied Sridhara Swami's commentary) mentions that only the materialistic

> persons or mayavadis are wonderstruck or bewildered by the soul.

 

This passage is a fragment of section 3. from the Sanskrit quoted above.

Sridhara Svami is explaining some key words from the BG verse. He says that

"enam" means "€tm€nam", the soul. "Someone (kacit), seeing (payan) the

soul (€tm€nam), through the instructions of €stra and €c€rya

(€stra-€c€rya-upade€bhy€m), sees (payati) as wonderful (€caryavat)."

 

Sridhara Svami is actually explaining the words "payati" and "€caryavat",

which appear in the first line of the BG verse. The point is, how can a

person who "sees", or "realizes" the soul, be bewildered? So he explains

that "seeing" here means reading descriptions in books and hearing

descriptions from the €c€ryas. The person who is described in the verse

becomes bewildered because he tries to apply material standards to the

descriptions he heard. This is expressed by Sridhara Svami in section 4. as

shown above. There is nothing strange about this. Described is a person who

hears from teachers and from books, but because he is unable to comprehend,

he takes these descriptions to be like accounts of something magical,

(€caryavat).

 

> >ne realizing this [self, with

> >the help of the precepts of the Scriptures and the teacher],

>

> He just mentions two scriptures & the teacher. First of all is it any

> teacher? Secondly he does'nt mention God anywhere which seems that the

> all-pervading soul is ultimately everything or God.

 

Yes, he mentions exactly two, which is emphasized by the use of the dual

case ending "bhy€m". This would support the idea that we are here discussing

a person who is not yet completely or properly linked up with a spiritual

parampara. He simply occasionally heard here and there. He may have heard an

€c€rya describe the soul and he may have read about the soul in the €stras,

but he is not described as one who follows guru sadhu sastra, and of course,

as you mentioned, he has not seen the Personality of Godhead yet. God is not

mentioned, because most people who get to see God face to face stop being

bewildered.

 

Your servant

Ekanatha dasa

 

ps In his work with the Bhagavad-gita Srila Prabhupada mainly used

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's and Baladeva-vidyabhusana's commentaries. He

quotes Sridhara Svami only once in 8.16, and even then he doesn't quote the

Svami's words but only one verse quoted by the Svami.