A question on the Gita 13th Chapter

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All Sadhakas,

 

In the 13th chapter of the Bhagavadgita, there occurs the following

verse:

 

DhyAnena Atmani pashyanti kechid AtmAnam AtmanA |

Anye sAnkhyena yogena, karma yogena cha apare || 24||

 

 

The Commentary of our Acharya is:

Now, there are several paths to Self-knowledge, and they are

mentioned here as follows. By meditation some behold the Self in the

self by the self, others by Sankhya yoga, and others by Karma yoga.

 

Meditation (dhyana) consists in withdrawing by concentration hearing

and other senses into the manas away from sound and other sense-

objects, then withdrawing manas into the inner inteligence, and then

contemplating that inner intelligence. Hence the comparison, `the

crane meditates as it were; the earth meditates as it were… the

mountains meditate as it were (chandogya Upanishad 7.6.1). Dhyana

is a contiuous and unbroken thought like a line of flowing oil. By

meditation the Yogins behold the Self…. by the antahkarana refined

by dhyana. (These yogins, who are of the highest class of

aspirants – uttamaadhikaris – behold the Self, by meditation, to be

identical with the Paramatman. Anandagiri's gloss on the bhashya).

Sankhya consists in thinking thus: `these sattva, rajas and tamas,

are gunas, Atman is the witness of their acts, eternal, and distinct

from the gunas'. (Sankhya is knowledge got through intellectual

investigation (vichara). As leading to Yoga, it is spoken of as

Yoga itself. These are the aspirants of the middling class,

madhyamaadhikaris. Anandagiri). By sankhya yoga some behold the

Self in the self by the self. Karma yoga, ie., that karma or action

which is performed in the service of the Lord. Such a course of

action is yoga, only by a figure of speech, inasmuch as it leads to

yoga. Some behold the Self by this Yoga of action, which, causing

purity of the mind, sattva, gives rise to knowledge.

 

In the next verse we have:

Anye tu evam ajaanantaH shrutvaa anyebhyaH upaasate

Te'pi cha atitarantyeva mrutyum shrutiparaayanaaH

 

Yet others, not knowing thus, worship, having heard from others;

they, too, cross beyond death, adhering to what they heard.

 

The commentary:

But there are yet others, who, not able to know the Self described

above by any one of the several methods already pointed out, learn

from others, from acharyas or teachers who tell them, `Do thou thus

meditate upon this'; they then engage in worship, ie. They

contemplate the idea in full faith. Even they cross beyond death,

beyond samsara ….

 

The question:

>From the vyakhyanams available of Anandagiri, Nilakantha,

Madhusudana Saraswati, Bhashyotkarsha dipika, Sridhari and

Abhinavagupta we are able to learn this:

 

There are four types of adhikaris:

A. Those who take to dhyana of the Truth and obtain It.

B. Those who discriminate, vichara, of the Vedanta vakya and

obtain the Truth, through dhyana.

C. Those who take to Karma yoga, purify their intellect and

then take to dhyana and obtain the Truth.

D. Those who just hear from or guided by a compassionate

Master, and do as per his bidding and contemplate upon the Truth and

obtain It.

Now, it is clear from the above typefication that whatever path an

aspirant takes, finally the Truth is obtained through dhyana alone.

 

1.Why does Bhagavatpada say at the beginning that these are `upaaya

vikalpaaH', alternative paths to attain the Truth? Is it not that

there is just an adhikari taratamya and the starting point of each

person is different, he has to tread the mandatory path and obtain

the Truth? Is it not to be presumed that even the A aspirant has in

the past heard that there is some such thing called Moksha and that

there is a way to reach it and puts in the effort and gradually has

reached a state of A and from there he proceeds and gets It. So too

the others. From Nilakantha's commentary we understand that these

are not actually upaya vikalpas, but samucchaya, that is, these are

not alternatives but only conjoining of the upayas. For even the

dhyana type A has to understand that the gunas are different from

the Atman. That much of theoretical knowledge is essential for him

as well. The fourth type, D, does upasana. Is it not akin to

dhyana?

 

2. Why has Bhagavan chosen to enumerate four types while

actually the path is the same from the ultimate, sadhana stand

point? It has become clear from the earlier chapters that karma

yoga gives chittashuddhi and jnanayoga yogyata is obtained and

finally liberation is had. In the four types we see here, the

chittashuddhi aspect is definitely there and the final dhyana aspect

is also to be inferred in each case to attain consummation. Then

why mention `four' types at all?

 

Answers to these and further clarifications would be very helpful.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> In the 13th chapter of the Bhagavadgita, there occurs the following

> verse:

>

> dhyAnena Atmani pashyanti kechid AtmAnam AtmanA |

> anye sA~Nkhyena yogena, karma yogena cha apare || 24||

>

> 1.Why does Bhagavatpada say at the beginning that these are `upaaya

> vikalpaaH', alternative paths to attain the Truth? Is it not that

> there is just an adhikari taratamya and the starting point of each

> person is different, he has to tread the mandatory path and obtain

> the Truth? Is it not to be presumed that even the A aspirant has in

> the past heard that there is some such thing called Moksha and that

> there is a way to reach it and puts in the effort and gradually has

> reached a state of A and from there he proceeds and gets It. So too

> the others. From Nilakantha's commentary we understand that these

> are not actually upaya vikalpas, but samucchaya, that is, these are

> not alternatives but only conjoining of the upayas. For even the

> dhyana type A has to understand that the gunas are different from

> the Atman. That much of theoretical knowledge is essential for him

> as well. The fourth type, D, does upasana. Is it not akin to

> dhyana?

>

> 2. Why has Bhagavan chosen to enumerate four types while

> actually the path is the same from the ultimate, sadhana stand

> point? It has become clear from the earlier chapters that karma

> yoga gives chittashuddhi and jnanayoga yogyata is obtained and

> finally liberation is had. In the four types we see here, the

> chittashuddhi aspect is definitely there and the final dhyana aspect

> is also to be inferred in each case to attain consummation. Then

> why mention `four' types at all?

>

> Answers to these and further clarifications would be very helpful.

>

 

Namaste,

 

The only reason for my trying to respond to Subbu-ji's

thought-provoking question, is that I shall have a chance to learn

more by his further response(s).

 

I have a doubt about the `adhikaarii taaratamya' idea.

Those who pursue the paths given by Yajnavalkya, or Narada, or

Patanjali, or Vasishtha, certainly cannot be classified in terms of

gradations of aspirants (have I misunderstood Subbuji's point?)

Krishna says in Gita 9::29

 

 

samo.ahaM sarvabhuuteshhu na me dveshhyo.asti na priyaH .

ye bhajanti tu maaM bhaktyaa mayi te teshhu chaapyaham.h .. 9\-29..

 

29. The same am I to all beings, to Me there is none hateful nor dear;

but those who worship Me with devotion, are in Me and I am also in them.

 

In 7:16, he has declared:

 

chaturvidhaa bhajante maa.n janaaH sukR^itino.arjuna .

aarto jiGYaasurarthaarthii GYaanii cha bharatarshhabha ..

7\-16..______

16. Four kinds of virtuous men worship Me, O Arjuna, the dissatisfied,

the seeker of (systematised) knowledge, the seeker of wealth, and the

wise, O best among the Bharatas

 

Even in the chaaturvrNyaM classification, there is no

implied taaratamya.

 

Within the time-space framework, the intellect needs

some guide-posts, just as for reaching a destination, one can approach

it from the four major dirctions.

 

The destination has been succinctly described by Ramana

Maharshi in Upadeshasaram # 10:

 

hRRitsthale manaH svasthataa kriyaa |

bhakti-yoga-bodhaashcha nishchitam.h ||

 

"It has been ascertained that the goal of the Yoga of Action,

Devotion, Ashtanga Yoga, and Yoga of Knowledge, is the abidance of the

mind in the heart (one's own nature)"

(tr. Sw. Tejomayananda)

 

(This can be compared to Gita 6:25)

 

Finally, there is a subhaaShita:

 

kRRiShNo bhogii shukastyaagii nRRipau janaka raaghavau |

vasiShThaH karmakartaa cha teShaam muktisthitiH samaa ||

 

Krishna the enjoyer, Shuka the renunciate, Janaka and Rama the kings,

and Vasishtha the ritualist, their staus of liberation is identical.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

From Nilakantha's commentary we understand that these

> are not actually upaya vikalpas, but samucchaya, that is, these

are

> not alternatives but only conjoining of the upayas. For even the

> dhyana type A has to understand that the gunas are different from

> the Atman. That much of theoretical knowledge is essential for

him

> as well. The fourth type, D, does upasana. Is it not akin to

> dhyana?

>

> 2. Why has Bhagavan chosen to enumerate four types while

> actually the path is the same from the ultimate, sadhana stand

> point? It has become clear from the earlier chapters that karma

> yoga gives chittashuddhi and jnanayoga yogyata is obtained and

> finally liberation is had. In the four types we see here, the

> chittashuddhi aspect is definitely there and the final dhyana

aspect

> is also to be inferred in each case to attain consummation. Then

> why mention `four' types at all?

>

> Answers to these and further clarifications would be very helpful.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

>

 

Namaste, Subbu-ji

 

Though I have not read all the commentaries that you have stated,

from the way Kanchi Mahaswamigal is developing the advaita-sAdhanA,

I tend to agree with Nilakantha's cmmentary, the way you have quoted

it.

 

The shloka quoted by Sundar-ji is excellent. I have heard it from my

father, almost in the same context!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

>

>

> I have a doubt about the `adhikaarii taaratamya' idea.

> Those who pursue the paths given by Yajnavalkya, or Narada, or

> Patanjali, or Vasishtha, certainly cannot be classified in terms of

> gradations of aspirants (have I misunderstood Subbuji's point?)

 

Namaste Sir,

 

Thank you very much for this very nice response. The point i was

making is this:

 

The differences between aspirants is the one based on 'how close to

the Goal they are at present'. Thus type A is closest, Type B has

something more to do, and type C has much more to do to reach the

goal. This is the idea of the commentators and the Madhusudani

specifically commences the commentary by enumerating these four as

uttama, madhyama, manda and mandatara.

 

None can classify in the above way with the four Acharyas that you

have mentioned. But within each of the group of followers of these

Acharyas, there can be the four-fold classification.

 

Let us see how the original question gets resolved finally.

 

The subhaashita is very interesting.

My thanks to Prof ji for the response.

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

sunderji :

 

thank you for that wonderful Subhashita - i simply love them - they

are so potent - fiull of meaning and crisp - in two lines , they

reveal a world of Truth!

 

after reading all the different posts on jnana and bhakti , i am

reminded of the following verse from my favorite Saint Kabir

 

Ek Kahun To Hai Nahin, Do Kahun To Gaari

Hai Jaisa Taisa Rahe, Kahe Kabir Bichari

 

If I say one, It is not

If I say two, it will be a violation

Let 'It' be what 'It' is

says Kabir upon contemplation

(www,boloji.com)

 

Gosh!

 

i get a kick out of saying to my Lord and master Sri Krishna

paramatma ' i am thine ' rather than saying 'i sam thou' ! i belong

to lord Krishna - what a great feeling ! this is the highest bhava !

the most exalted emotion!

 

Love and knowledge - two birds on the same tree - both can reside in

the same person - bhakta resides in a jnani and a jnani resides in a

bhakta ! Why would a great jnani like Sri Ramana advocate 'giri'

valam ? Why would sri adi shankara bhagvadapada sing 'bhagvad gota

kinchi dadita ganga jala lava kanika pita ..... '(Let a man but read

from the Gita, Drink of the Ganges but a drop, Worship but once the

Lord Almighty, And he will set at rest forever, All his fear of the

King of Death.)

 

Yes ! There is only one 'Sun' in the firmament ! but , we in this

bharata varsha are very fortunate ! For this great land has given

rise to three glorius 'sons' ( suns ) - Adi shankara bhagvadapada ,

sri Ramanujacharya and sRI MADHAVACHARYA ! so much to choose from ,

so little time !

 

 

Harihi aum!