[Advaita-l] gItA bhaashhya sudhaa bindavaH - 2

Ramakrishna Upadrasta uramakrishna at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 14:21:22 CDT 2010

namaste Shri Subbu-ji,

Thanks again for the comments.

2010/6/2 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <
> uramakrishna at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, the above sentence of the AchArya means that gItA is a vedanta
>> shaastra, a moxa shaastra, and not a mImAMsa-shaastra (which enjoins
>> one to do action) with its apUrva/vidhi/nishhedha categories. Now,
>> Arjuna had come to battle ready to fight and became sorrowful after
>> seeing his relations. The teaching of the gItA shaastra removed the
>> sorrow that was previously non-existent, with GYAna as the solution to
>> the shoka-moha of saMsaara. The Gita teaching did not create a new
>> situation which lead Arjuna to act. I think that is the point that
>> AchArya is making.

> However, the shastra also says that it is better for one to desire to get
> it.  Still it is just in an advisory position alone; not in any commanding
> position.  It is said that in the shastra 'vidhi', injunction is:  ajnAta
> jnApanam vidhiH - the instructing, reminding, of what is not known is called
> an injunction.  With this knowledge in hand, it is upto the aspirant to

Isn't this only the apUrva vidhi category? What about other kinds of
vidhis (niyama/parisaMkhya)? I think that AchArya is saying that what
bhagavaan is teaching to Arjuna is not just a non-apUrva-vidhi, but
also a non-niyama vidhi and non-parisaMkhya-vidhi too (Sorry for this
sentence!). In a sense, a mImAmsakaas would be happy to label
bhagavaan's teaching as arthavaada, and I think we vedantins would be
happy bear that tag!

Please correct me if I am wrong.

> desire, develop it, strengthen it and then proceed.  Only if mumukshA is
> teevra, the shastra says, the motivation to put the necessary efforts comes
> and success is obtained.  So, the ultimate decision is in the hands of the
> doer, his exercise of his will.

I think we are perhaps saying same thing: The teaching removed the
sorrow. The action that followed after is not directly caused by the
teaching. Arjuna had free will to act. He acted. The teaching did
though seeming to goad him into action, removed an impediment only.
(BTW, this argument could be used well against some non-advaitic
vedantic schools!)


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list