Bhagavatgita a detailed study chapter5-yoga of renunciation

[Guest guest]

18. vidhyaavinayasampanne braahmaNe gavi hasthini

 

Suni chaiva SvapaakE cha pandithaaH samadharSanaH

 

 

Those who have the brahmajnana perceive a learned and modest Brahmin, cow, elephant, dog and the dog-eater with equianimity.

 

What would be the perception of the sage who has realized the Self? What has been described in the next few slokas is reminiscent of what has been said in the second chapter about Sthithaprajna. The sages perceive the same Reality in a brahmin, learned but modest, in a cow and in an elephant and also in a dog and the one who eats dog's flesh. The listing here of the highest form of intellect to the lowest is to show that the sage has the same love towards all creatures and should not be taken literally as grading the creation in anyway.

 

A Brahmin who is not only learned but also modest about it because he knows that in brahmajnana there is no such thing as "I know," tops the list. Upanishad declares that one who says he knows, knows not and one who says he does nor know, knows. The more one reads and hears about Brahman, the more he realises that Brahman cannot be understood by scriptures alone but only through direct intuition which comes only through contemplation and then also only through the grace of the Lord as the Upanishad says, `yam eva esha vrNuthe thena labhyathe,' meaning that only he whom the Lord chooses will get the real knowledge. Whom will He choose? This is explained by the entire Gita.

 

Then among the animals, cow is the highest in order of evolution for its meekness and love and because it feeds the whole world, more than anything else was the love of Krishna towards it for which he was known as gopala.

 

Among other animals elephant is supposed to be most intelligent and mighty, having a wonderful memory power. Everybody from a child to an adult loves to watch an elephant and such is the glory of the animal. Moreover no other animal obtained the grace of the Lord like Gajendhra did.

 

The dog is the lowliest of the animals because it represents servility and dependence. Also it is the weakest animal. But even lower is he who eats its flesh because the dog-flesh is not acceptable for eating.

 

The sThithaprajna sees all these with the same attitude. He knows that it is only the body which is different but not the soul because he sees Brahman everywhere.

 

This Gita-sloka has been illustrated nicely by an incident in the life of Sankara. He was returning from his bath in Ganges with his sishyas. A man of the low caste specified as dog-eater in the above sloka with four dogs came in front and there was not enough space for Sankara and the man to pass, not touching each other. To keep in tact his austerity in not touching any one after bath before he finished his puja, Sankara told him to move away so that he can pass. The man asked Sankara to tell him whether he wanted the body to move away or the soul? Was it the body he was afraid of polluting by the contact or the soul? Because there is no difference between the soul of himself and that of Sankara. Then Sankara was stupefied and asked him who he was. Then Lord Siva appeared to Sankara, who realized that it was the Isvara Himself who came in the form of a low caste man with the four cedas as his dogs. Then Sankara sang the Maneeshaa panchakam, giving out the non-difference of souls, comprising of five beautiful slokas.

Now the question will be, was Sankara really deluded into believing that touching the man will pollute him? This does not seem appropriate for the eminent advocate of advaita and the exponent of various Vedanta works such as bajagovindam. No. Sankara was deluded for a moment no doubt but it was not his own delusion but was created by Lord Siva to make him compose the maneesha panchakam. Moreover Sankara might have acted as he did, not because he saw any difference between men but because he, being the acharya, must set an example to the disciples to follow the achaara as otherwise they would have done as they pleased and would be ruined because they lacked the wisdom of their acharya. It is for the similar reason the saints like Paramacharya of Kanchi, Ramana and Ramakrishna were following the ritualistic practices.