GIta verse clarification (Was [tiruvengadam] Selected excerpts from MahA VidvAn Sri U.Ve. PerukkAraNai Swamy's ThiruppAvai Monograph: Part XXXIV- Twenty Eighth day : KARAVAIGAL PINN SENRU Dinam)

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaH

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear SrI Sudarsanan and other devotees,

 

Thanks for your nice note on the connecting link between

Bhagavad GIta and ThiruppAvai.

 

aDiyEn would like to add few remarks on a verse you cited.

 

> It just occurred in my mind to compare the " anbinAl UNRRANNAI

> siRu pEr azhaithtanavum " with the Arjuna's request.

 

[....]

 

> tasmat pranamya pranidhaya kayam

> prasadaye tvam aham isam idyam

> piteva putrasya sakheva sakhyuh

> priyah priyayarhasi deva sodhum 11.44

 

 

[....]

 

> You are the Supreme Lord, to be worshiped by every

> living being. Thus I fall down to offer You my

> respectful obeisance and ask Your mercy. As a

> father tolerates the impudence of his son, or a friend

> tolerates the impertinence of a friend, or a lover (wife or husband)

> tolerates the familiarity of her/his partner, please

> tolerate the wrongs I may have done You.

 

Lets look at this :

" ....pitEva putrasya sakhEva sakhyuH priyaH priyAyArhasi -

dEva sODhum " .

 

SrI Sa~nkarAchArya's commentary here is like what you have

written and followed by the likes of SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta

of ISKCON {the commentary which you had referred for writing} :

 

" ...Oh Lord! You should bear with me as a father does with his

son, a friend/comrade with comrade, a lover with the beloved " .

 

anvayam : dEva <Oh Lord!> arhasi <You should> sODhum <bear

with me> pitA iva putrasya <as a father with his

son> sakhA iva sakhyuH <as a friend with his

friend> priyaH priyAyAH < {as a} lover/husband with

his beloved/wife >.

 

There are certain defects in this interpretation :

 

1. " priyAyArhasi " in the verse has been split as

" priyAyAH " + " arhasi " . But, this is in violation of the

sandhi (conjugation) rules of Sanskrit Grammar. Such a

splitting will give only " priyAyA arhasi " {visarga lOpam}

and not " priyAyArhasi " which is in the actual verse.

 

2. There is no occurance of " iva " in the original like

" priyaH *iva* priyAyAH " as in " pitA iva putrasya " and

" sakhA iva sakhyuH " . That " iva " is an external insertion

by the commentator.

 

Hence, such an interpretation is not the intended message

from this verse when proper splitting of " priyAyArhasi " can

be made.

 

SrI MadhusUdana Saraswati in his gloss GUDArtha DIpikA makes

a comment that we have to consider these things as " metrical

licences " for the poet - Ofcourse, this to somehow justify

SrI Sa~nkarAchArya's commentary. Well, this is certainly a

weak stand - pretty obvious.

 

Bhagavad RAmAnuja makes an excellent interpretation here

(as always!) which will be more appropriate and befitting

to this verse/context.

 

" PriyAyArhasi " is split into " priyAya " + " arhasi " , which is

in accordance with the sandhi rules of Sanskrit Grammar.

 

Hence, it becomes " ...Oh Lord! You who are dear to me should bear

with me who is dear to you, as a father does with his son, a

friend/comrade with comrade " .

 

anvayam : dEva <Oh Lord!> priyaH <You who are dear to me>

arhasi <You should / It is proper to> sODhum <bear

with me> priyAya <who am dear to you> pitA iva

putrasya <as a father with his son> sakhA iva

sakhyuH <as a friend with his friend>.

 

What a beautiful bhAvam !!

 

Now, the import in this interpretation {which is missed in a way

in the earlier} has a stress on the mutual love existing between

Lord and his devotee Arjuna {You Who are dear to me and me who

am dear to you}. It is this love that makes a friend bear with

the offences of his/her friend and similarly a father with his

son. Otherwise, though the relationship is there as friend-friend

and father-son, one will not bear the offences of the other if

that love is not strong enough. If the other friend/son/lover

does not care/love these respective people, we can't say that

they will still bear their offenses always. Thus, Arjuna is

stressing that we mutually love each other and hence by prostrating

and invoking the mercy of Lord requests Him to kindly forgive his

offenses made out of either negligence or love. Well, the depth

of this interpretation can be elaborated more with other

Quotations and AzhwAr pAsurams and stotras like that of SwAmi

DESikan's.

 

To cite one from AnDAL as in the context of the pAsuram discussed

here which is most striking and appropriate :

" ..unthannODu uRavEl *namakku* i~ngu ozhikka ozhiyAdu... " .

 

By the word " namakku " (for us), AnDAL implies that the

relationship between the jIvAtma (Or a Prapanna in another

esoteric meaning) and the ParamAtma can't be broken off from

either sides; ie. We can't suddenly declare ourselves as

independent - We are always sEshas to ParamAtma ; Lord also can't

get rid of us, He being the SEshi {JIvAtma as apruthak-siddha

viSeshana ie.inseparable attribute to ParamAtma / SarIra-SarIri

BhAvam is conveyed}. This implies the mutual love between the

jIvAtmas and the paramAtma. The commentary to this pAsuram deals

extensively on this aspect.

 

The ThiruppAvai Jeeyar {Bhagavad RAmAnuja} must have got the

insight into this Bhagavad GIta Verse through AnDAL's anugraham

housed in this phrase from ThiruppAvai which is " vEdam

anaitthukkum vitthu " .

 

Actually, SwAmi DESikan's TAtparya-Candrika - gloss over

SrI RAmAnuja's GIta-BhAshyam is an outstanding masterpiece.

One will be for sure amazed on the depth of analysis and

arguments, adding very finer and important comments, and

the firm establishment of GIta-BhAshyam's interpretation as

being impeccable. All our pUrvAchAryas and competent scholars

unanimously agree that, but for this gloss by the

" Sarvatantra Swatantra " SwAmi DESikan, we can't understand

GIta-BhAshyam properly and appreciate its depth and accuracy.

For instance, SwAmi DESikan explains as to how prapatti {for

seeing the original four handed form of the Lord} is

being performed by Arjuna through this verse and the verse

before put together, and shows the five angas and angis conveyed

in various words of these verses.

 

Hope that you all enjoyed this wonderful interpretation of

our beloved BhAshyakArar. YatirAja's SrI-SUktis have deep

implications and are unparalleled in depth and charm apart

from being accurate in interpreting the SAstras. Though there

is no difference in siddhAnta wrt to the interpretation by

the advaitins and others for this verse, we need to understand

and appreciate the most careful, accurate and in-depth divine

writings of our pUrvAchAryas like Bhagavad RAmAnuja and Bhagavad

VEdAnta DESika, which give us the right understanding downto even

the minute level.

 

aDiyEn just took this oppurtunity as a vyAja{excuse} to

highlight the unparalleled treasures left for us by our

pUrvAchAryas.

 

The interpretation by advaitins is ofcourse good only - per se;

But the verse does not give room for such an interpretation.

It can be just told for some rAsikyam {which involves the lover

and the beloved as the relationship between the ParamAtma and

jIvAtma}, in the name of metrical licence etc, though the depth

of the bhAvam involved in the accurate interpretation will be

missing apart from violating Grammar. Probably, just for this

rAsikyam part, SrI PeriavAcchAn PiLLai commented this very same

verse present in the Gadya-Trayam {By Bhagavad RAmAnuja}, as the

way advaitins interpreted it, instead of commenting the way it is

there in Bhagavad RAmAnuja's GIta-BhAshyam.

 

AzhwAr,emperumAnar,dESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaH

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear devotees,

 

> aDiyEn earlier wrote :

 

> For instance, SwAmi DESikan explains as to how prapatti {for

> seeing the original four handed form of the Lord} is

> being performed by Arjuna through this verse and the verse

> before put together, and shows the five angas and angis conveyed

^^^^^^^^

> in various words of these verses.

 

Sorry for a typo : Its " angi " and not " angis " .

 

> The interpretation by advaitins is ofcourse good only - per se;

> But the verse does not give room for such an interpretation.

> It can be just told for some rAsikyam {which involves the lover

> and the beloved as the relationship between the ParamAtma and

> jIvAtma}, in the name of metrical licence etc, though the depth

> of the bhAvam involved in the accurate interpretation will be

> missing apart from violating Grammar.

 

Actually, the husband-wife relationship is included in

the friend-friend relationship itself. The mantra from

Vedas recited while taking the " Seven Steps " during

marriage conveys that the bridegroom and bride will

be as " friends " to lead the future life. According to

VEdas, Husband-Wife relationship is thus a special case of

friend-friend relationship while performing their prescribed

varNAshrama-dharma etc as per SAstras.

 

Hence, there is no need for resorting into labelling Arjuna

to have taken the poetic licence etc to fit in one's view for

employing certain rasa. Well, its already implied in the

correct interpretation ! This is an additional way of looking

into the interpretation by Bhagavad RAmAnuja.

 

AzhwAr,emperumAnar,dESikan thiruvaDigaLE SaraNam

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.