Explanations required for the Acharya's Bhashya on 21st sloka IV Chapter

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

While going thru acharya's bhashya on the afore numbered verse i felt

some difficulty to understanda the follwoing explanation

 

By the expression an exclusive from of bodily work what is meant? is

it work to be acccomplised by the bodyonly or is it work whose sole

aim is the maintenanceof the body? What does the distinction between

these two interpretaions amount to? Listen: The first interpretation

will involve a contraditcion. Though even a prohibited bodily work is

done leading to results seen or unseen, no sin will be incurred

according to the lord. Further it will have to be maintained that any

course of work prescribed by the scriptures to be performed

physically, with seen or unseen ends in view, cannot entail sin. This

is a postion not maintained even by the opponent and therefore needs

no refutation The qualification in the expression, 'doing a bodily

form of work' and 'exclusive' implies that works, enjoined or

prohibited, righteous or unrighteous when performed by work or in

thought entails sin. In this case is involved the further

contradiction that an enjoined work, verbally or mentally performed,

entails sin. Even as regards the performance of a forbidden work, the

statement of the entailment of sin is futile, being too obvious to

require it.

 

Transaltion by A.M. Shastry Ramarkishna Math publication

 

The explanation for the second part of the statemnet ie bodily form of

work for maintainence of the body is quite clear.

 

It will be helpful if any of the member throw some light on this issue.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

>

> While going thru acharya's bhashya on the afore numbered verse i felt

> some difficulty to understanda the follwoing explanation

>

>

> Transaltion by A.M. Shastry Ramarkishna Math publication

>

> The explanation for the second part of the statemnet ie bodily form of

> work for maintainence of the body is quite clear.

>

> It will be helpful if any of the member throw some light on this

issue.

>

 

 

Will you kindly check the 'translation' and the publisher?

(Alladi Mahadev Sastry). This looks more like a paraphrase of the

translation, published all along by Samata Books (1st ed. 1897; 7th ed.

1977). The commentary extends for 2 pages, as in the original Bhashya,

and needs to be read in toto rather than excerpted.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>

> >

> > While going thru acharya's bhashya on the afore numbered verse i

felt

> > some difficulty to understanda the follwoing explanation

> >

> >

> > Transaltion by A.M. Shastry Ramarkishna Math publication

> >

> > The explanation for the second part of the statemnet ie bodily

form of

> > work for maintainence of the body is quite clear.

> >

> > It will be helpful if any of the member throw some light on this

> issue.

> >

>

>

> Will you kindly check the 'translation' and the publisher?

> (Alladi Mahadev Sastry). This looks more like a paraphrase of the

> translation, published all along by Samata Books (1st ed. 1897; 7th

ed.

> 1977). The commentary extends for 2 pages, as in the original

Bhashya,

> and needs to be read in toto rather than excerpted.

 

Yes. It is only a para which i had difficulty to understand. The

commentary runs for two pages. The doubt i have is in the final

topic of the bhashya.

 

Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Advaitins,

 

While going thru acharya's bhashya on the afore numbered verse i felt

some difficulty to understand the following explanation

 

By the expression an exclusive from of bodily work what is meant? is

it work to be acccomplised by the body only or is it work whose sole

aim is the maintenanceof the body? What does the distinction between

these two interpretaions amount to? Listen: The first interpretation

will involve a contraditcion. Though even a prohibited bodily work is

done leading to results seen or unseen, no sin will be incurred

according to the lord. Further it will have to be maintained that any

course of work prescribed by the scriptures to be performed

physically, with seen or unseen ends in view, cannot entail sin. This

is a postion not maintained even by the opponent and therefore needs

no refutation The qualification in the expression, 'doing a bodily

form of work' and 'exclusive' implies that works, enjoined or

prohibited, righteous or unrighteous when performed by work or in

thought entails sin. In this case is involved the further

contradiction that an enjoined work, verbally or mentally performed,

entails sin. Even as regards the performance of a forbidden work, the

statement of the entailment of sin is futile, being too obvious to

require it.

 

Transaltion by A.M. Shastry Ramarkishna Math publication

 

The explanation for the second part of the statemnet ie bodily form of

work for maintainence of the body is quite clear.

 

It will be helpful if any of the member throw some light on this

issue.

 

Namaste Sri Vinayaka ji:

 

As you have stated that:

The explanation for the second part of the statemnet ie bodily form of

work for maintenance of the body is quite clear,

 

let me attempt to clarify the portion that appears to be requiring

clarification:

 

In the verse, the Lord, speaking of the attitude of the Jnani, said:

 

Free from desire, with the mind and the self(body) controlled, having

relinquished all possessions doing merely bodily action, he (Jnani)

incurs no sin. (Gita IV.21)

 

The point of discussion centres on the phrase: 'bodily action'

and 'sin'. As to what is finally meant by bodily action: action for

the bare sustenance of the body, is clear. The 'sin' (kilbiSham) is

explained by the Acharya as '(a) evil-effect-producing 'paapam' and

(b)good-effect producing dharma. Even dharma is a sin, in the case

of him who seeks liberation, inasmuch as it causes bondage.

 

As you are clear with the second interpretation: action for the bare

sustenance of the body, the first interpretation namely: 'action done

by the body alone' is dropped as irrelevant for the obtaining the

meaning of this verse. Before dropping this interpretation, the

Acharya engages in a little discussion as to why such an

interpretation is untenable. The Acharya brings out the

contradiction that would result if the first interpretation is

admitted. These 'contradictions'(doShas) are three in number, as per

the Acharya's discussion:

 

1. If 'shaariiram kevalam karma' would mean 'actions done by the body

only', it would imply that a person doing a prohibited act with the

body will not incur sin. (This is because, the Lord has said in this

verse 'he will not incur sin, doing actions that can be done by the

body'. This contradicts the shastra which teaches 'a prohibited

action will earn sin for the performer'. So, it would amount to the

Lord's teaching something that is against the shastra. This is the

first contradiction if the first interpretation: : 'action done by

the body alone' is admitted.

 

2. Again, if a lawful action is done by the body, no sin is

incurred. This is quite well known and requires no emphatic denial

in the form 'he incurs no sin'. So, the Lord would not be denying

(emphasising) something that is obvious. This is the second

contradiction if the first interpretation: : 'action done by the body

alone' is admitted.

 

3. There are words like: kevalam = 'mere, alone' and 'doing bodily

action'. Now, we know that apart from the body, the other two organs

of action are the speech and the mind. If the first

interpretation: : 'action done by the body alone' is taken, it would

imply that lawful or unlawful action done by speech and mind would

result in sin. How is this implied? Because the Lord has

declared 'doing merely bodily actions, he does not incur sin', the

sin accruing by actions through speech and mind is implied. This is

also against the shastra as a lawful act done by speech or mind does

not incur sin; it produces merit. Again, to say that an unlawful act

done by speech or mind incurs sin is a useless statement as everybody

knows this. A reiteration of what is already known is useless.

 

Thus, in view of these contradictions, it would be wrong to take the

first interpretation: : 'action done by the body alone' and the

proper meaning of the verse would be had only by taking the second

interpretation: action done for the bare maintenance of the body.

 

In conclusion, Br.Vinayaka ji, if you find the three contradictions a

little difficult to understand, there is not much loss. By merely

accepting the second, final interpretation, one can proceed smoothly

with the understanding. The discussion of the contradiction was

taken up by the Acharya only because the wording of the verse is open

to such an interpretation. Someone who is too inclined towards

semantics would raise a question like that and it is only to satisfy

such a questioner the discussion was taken up.

 

Thanks and pranams

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>

> Thus, in view of these contradictions, it would be wrong to take the

> first interpretation: : 'action done by the body alone' and the

> proper meaning of the verse would be had only by taking the second

> interpretation: action done for the bare maintenance of the body.

>

> In conclusion, Br.Vinayaka ji, if you find the three contradictions a

> little difficult to understand, there is not much loss. By merely

> accepting the second, final interpretation, one can proceed smoothly

> with the understanding. The discussion of the contradiction was

> taken up by the Acharya only because the wording of the verse is open

> to such an interpretation. Someone who is too inclined towards

> semantics would raise a question like that and it is only to satisfy

> such a questioner the discussion was taken up.

>

> Thanks and pranams

> subbu

 

 

Dear Subbuji,

 

Thank you very much. Your explanationtery points helped me to

understand the true import of the acharya's commentery. Sometimes if

the opponets view points are too difficult to understand i generally

do not like to skip it because with the understanding of the possible

objections the real meaning of the slokas as upheld by the achrya can

be grasped and then i can accept it with conviction as there is no

room for doubt.

 

It is Sri Shankaracharya who took out the geeta from the mahabharata.

Before his commentery we dont know wether somebody commented on it or

not. But the beauty of the acharya's commentery is he himself supposes

all possible views of the opponet and refutes! Of course in some

places he says that some interpret the meaning of the solka thus etc

which indicates that there may be few commenteries prior to his work.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka