jagat (īśa 1)

The īśāvāsyopaniṣad starts as follows:

īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvaṁ yatkiñca jagatyāṁ jagat || 1

All this should be covered by the Lord, whatsoever moves on the earth. (Panoli’s translation)

The word jagat is usually translated as “the world”, and bhāṣyakāra’s explanation, carācaram is usually translated along the lines of “everything moveable and immoveable”. This is a simple enough expression which didn’t warrant any additional explanation from ānandagiri.

However, understanding the word jagat and bhāṣyakāra’s explanation along the lines of the śānti-mantra adds another dimension to our understanding. This jagat is idam, and as we saw previously, idam is nāmarūpopādhi-viśiṣṭam. It is along these lines that we should understand carācaram.

The maṇiprabhā has this to say:

kārya-kāraṇātmakaṁ jagat carācara-lakṣaṇam

thus cara is kārya or the effect, and acara is kāraṇa or the cause. And this whole jagat, which bhāṣyakāra calls anṛtaṁ is a world of causes and effects, i.e. kārya-kāranātmakam. The prasāda commentary says the same thing using much simpler symbolic language where gacchati = kāraṇam and prāpnoti = kāryam.

yat jagat gacchati prāpnoti, idam …

and we can now string together all three commentaries to round out the picture.

caraṁ kāraṇaṁ gacchati, acaraṁ kāryaṁ prāpnoti iti jagat

It is always amazing to see the shades of meanings behind bhāṣyakāra’s words.

in śankara’s own words

For us, ādi śaṁkarācārya’s words are priceless. None the less, as we strive to learn the saṁskṛt language; as we slowly gain the ability to read his words in their original language – translations are invaluable. So, I previously spent some time looking for translations of his gītā-bhāṣya and upaniṣad-bhāṣyas.

As a student of saṁskṛt, it is painfully obvious that a translation in English can never capture the nuance of the original. It just isn’t possible. So, my requirement was an edition that had both the original bhāṣyam (in devanāgarī script) and the translation side-by-side. Who knew that there would be a dearth of such editions !

There are several great translations, but very few of them include the bhāṣyam. On the gītā, I know of the following editions.

• bhagavad gītā bhāṣya of śrī śaṅkarācārya, by A.G. Krishna Warrier
• gītā in śankara’s own words, by V. Panoli

On the upaniṣads, I know of one single edition – upanishad’s in śankara’s own words by V. Panoli, in 5 volumes:

• Volume 1 – īśa, kena, katha, māṇḍūkya
• Volume 2 – praśna, muṇḍaka, taittirīya, aitareya
• Volume 3 – chāndogya
• Volume 4 – bṛhadāraṇyaka

All of these editions are currently in-print, and available online through various book resellers. I prefer Warrier’s translation of the gītā to Panoli’s. On the upaniṣad’s though, there isn’t any choice. Panoli’s translations are reasonable, but I prefer the translations of authors like svāmī gambhīrānanda. It is a real shame that more English editions don’t include the bhāṣyam.

tredhā mārgaḥ (īśa 2)

The first two mantras of the īśopaniṣad are written in the pithy sūtra style, and are known as sūtra-bhūta-mantras. They capture the essence of the upaniṣadic teaching. Following his commentary on these two mantras, śaṅkarānanda makes the following comment in the ātma-purāṇam.

tredhā’yaṁ vihito mārgaḥ svarga-mokṣa-karo nṝṇām |
dakṣiṇascottarastadvat tṛtīyo brahma-vedanam |
ito’nyathā na ko’pyasti nṝṇāṁ mārgah sukhapradaḥ ||

There are only three paths for those who are desirous of mokṣa – i) the southern path, ii) the northern path, and iii) knowing brahman. This immediately seems to connect to the three-fold path of karma, upāsanā and jñāna and is clearly enumerated by the satprasava vyākhyā on the ātma-purāṇam:

prathamaḥ dakṣiṇaḥ iṣṭādiśālināṁ pitṛyānākhyaḥ |
dvitīya uttaro devayānākhya upāsakānām |
tṛtīyo brahmajñānākhyaḥ śuddhadhiyām ||

The jñāna and upāsanā paths are discussed in the first mantra of the īśāvāsya upaniṣad, and the karma path is discussed in the second mantra of the īśāvāsya upaniṣad.

A quick search brings about a reference to the chāndogya upaniṣad (5.10) which discusses the deva-yāna (dakṣiṇa) and pitṛ-yāna (uttara) paths. An excerpt of the mantra along with a few words from the maṇiprabhā commentary for clarification:

ye gṛhasthā araṇye upāste, te sarve arciṣam arcirabhimāninīṁ devatām abhisaṁbhavanti | sa eṣa deva-yānaḥ panthāḥ brahma gamayati ||

ye grāma iṣṭāpūrte dattam ityupāsate, te dhūmam abihsaṁbhavanti | … māsebhyah pitṛlokam, pitṛlokād ākāśam … dhūmo bhavati … ||

Thus, we come back to the standard three-fold vedantic yoga:

1. gṛhastha-mārga / karma-yoga / dakṣiṇa-mārga / pitṛ-yāna
2. vānaprastha-mārga / upāsanā-yoga / uttara-mārga / deva-yāna
3. sannyāsi-mārga / jñāna-yoga / brahma-vedanam 

An interesting connection to the devī-māhātmyam was pointed out in a post by Venkata Sriram. In this text, devī gives boons to the two seekers, the rājā suratha, and the vaiśya samādhi. An edited excerpt:

samādhi attains salvation and suratha is born again as manu. samādhi
achieves the deva-yāna or archirādi mārga which is called the “path of light”. And suratha achieves the dhūma or pitṛyāna mārga which is called the “path of darkness”.

pūrṇam adaḥ (īśa 1)

The śānti mantra which begins with “pūrṇam adaḥ, pūrṇam idam” is one of the most famous expressions in vedantic literature. Though bhāṣyakāra has not directly commented upon this verse, it is well-understood. The explanations of cinmayānanda and dayānanda sarasvatī are readily available on the internet.

pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam, pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate |
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya, pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate ||

In saṁskṛt literature, this explanation has been captured in the upaniṣan-maniprabhā commentary of amaradāsa at the beginning of the īśāvāsyopaniṣad. Here are some excerpts:

• adaḥ = nirupādhikaṁ parokṣaṁ tat-padārtha-rūpaṁ brahma
• idam = nāma-rūpopādhi-viśiṣṭaṁ vyavahārāpannaṁ tvaṁ-śabdārtha-rūpam
• nirupādhyātma-rūpeṇaiva pūrṇam
• viśeṣarūpaṁ brahma pūrṇāt udgacchati
• pūrṇasya kāryātmanaḥ brahmaṇaḥ pūrṇatvaṁ gṛhītvā, pūrṇam eva kevalaṁ brahma avaśiṣyate

In short

• adaḥ = tat, the unqualified brahman, the sākṣī
• idam = tvam, the qualified brahman, or all objects
• only the unqualified aspect of idam is truly pūrṇam
• the tvam aspect is born out of the tat sākṣī brahman
• when the tvam aspect is separated from the tat aspect, all that we have is the unqualified tat aspect (tvam has no independent existence from tat)

This is a seeming non-sequitur until we realize that all the nouns in this mantra must be qualified as either nirupādhika or sopādhika. Once we do this, a logical meaning is realized. Thankfully, the maṇiprabhā has captured the traditional understanding.

upaniṣad-bhāṣyam

We’ve previously looked at two major compilations of upaniṣadic commentaries – the anubhūti-prakāśa by vidyāraṇya and ātma-purāṇam by śaṅkarānanda. Today we’ll look at the 3 volume upaniṣad bhāṣyam set published by the Mahesh Research Institute. This is probably the most important reference book set available on the upaniṣads.

This set includes all 10 primary upaniṣads (īśa, kena, kaṭha, praśna, muṇḍaka, māṇḍūkya, taittirīya, aitareya, chāndogya, bṛhadāraṇyaka). All of them include the bhāṣyam by śaṅkarācārya and ṭīkā by ānandagiri. In addition, it includes a few additional important commentaries:

• kaṭha – ṭīkā by gopāla yati
• māṇḍūkya – kārikā by gauḍapāda, ṭīkā by anubhūti-svarūpa
• taittirīya – vārtikā by sureśvarācārya, vanamālā by acyuta-kṛṣṇānanda-tīrtha
• chāndogya – ṭippaṇī by narendra-purī yati, ṭīkā by abhinava-nārāyanendra-sarasvatī
• bṛhadāraṇyaka – dīpikā by vidyāraṇya muni

Note: sureśvarācārya has also written a bṛhadāraṇyaka vārtikā which is published separately.

śruti sāra samuddharaṇam

When looking at lists of traditional advaitic texts, I came across a reference to toṭakācārya’s śruti-sāra-samuddharaṇam and looked at a copy. There are only two texts ascribed to toṭakācārya – the famous spontaneous toṭakāṣṭakam, and the present text. I’m surprised that this text isn’t more popular. It is written in simple language in the delightful toṭaka meter.

sakalaṁ manasā kriyayā janitaṁ samavekṣya vināśitayā tu jagat |
niravidyata kaścid ato nikhilād avināśi kṛtena na labhyam iti || 2

visṛjānnamayādiṣu pañcasu tām aham asmi mameti matiṁ satatam |
dṛśirūpam anantam ṛtam viguṇam hṛdayastham avehi sadāham iti || 6 

This text consists of 179 verses and has been published along with saccidānanda-yogī’s short ṭīkā by the ānandāśrama-saṁskrita-granthāvalī (#103). It is also available from the Digital Library of India. 

śraddhā, bhakti, dhyāna (kaivalya 2)

The kaivala upaniṣad is a short work of 28 mantras. It’s simple style makes it a popular introductory work. For example, in the cinmayānanda study group syllabus, it is the second upaniṣad studied.

In the second mantra, brahmā tells the seeker, āśvalāyana, how to realize the self. Firstly through śraddhā, bhakti, and dhyāna.

śraddhā-bhakti-dhyāna-yogād avehi || 2

I found śankarānanda’s dīpikā interesting.

1. śraddhā = āstikya-buddhiḥ
2. bhaktiḥ = bhajanam, tadeka-tātparya-buddihḥ
3. dhyānam = vijātīya-pratyaya-śūnya-sajātīya-pratyaya-pravāhaḥ

upaniṣad-brahma-yogī takes dhyāna as a separate step, as the final culmination.

• yogaḥ = maduktārtha-paryavasāna-dhīḥ

Both of these yogīs take this to be a culminative process, starting with basic faith in the teaching, reflecting on it, and then putting it to the test through intense sādhanā. śaṁkarānanda’s three-fold division fits in quite nicely with śravaṇa, manana and nididhiyāsana respectively.

Eleven Atharvana Upanishads with dipikas

Recently, when looking for some of svāmi śaṅkarānanda’s works, I came across a reference to the book titled “Eleven Atharvana Upanishads with dipikas” by G.A.Jacob. Unfortunately, I was unable to find much information about it’s contents, but ordered a reprint anyway. Here are the contents for others who might be interested.

1. kṛṣṇa – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
2. kālāgni-rudra – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
3. vāsudeva – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
4. gopicandana – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
5. nārāyaṇa – with the dīpikās of nārāyaṇa and śaṅkarānanda
6. ātmabodha – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
7. garuḍa – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa
8. mahā – with the dīpikās of nārāyaṇa and śaṅkarānanda
9. varadatāpnīya – with the dīpikā of nārāyaṇa (on the pūrvatāpinī only)
10. āśrama – without dīpikā
11. skanda – without dīpikā

The book that I received was a photocopy of the original edition published by nirṇaya sāgar press. The reprint is by Kessinger Publishing, and is surprisingly readable.

ātma-purāṇam

Previously, we looked at the contents of svāmi-vidyāraṇya’s anubhūti-prakāśa. His guru, svāmi śaṅkarānanda has also commented on many upaniṣads. His works include the ātma-purānam (also known as the upaniśad-ratnam). This has been recently published in 4 volumes by the dakṣiṇāmūrti maṭha in kāśi (along with the satprasava vyākhyā and hindi translation), and is currently in-print. The first few verses (1-30) of the last (18th) chapter provide a summary of it’s contents. This covers all of the major upaniṣads except for the māṇḍūkya upaniṣad.

1. aitareya
2. kauṣītakī (indra & pratardana)
3. kauṣītakī (gārgya & ajātaśatru)
4. bṛhadāraṇyaka (aśvinīkumāra)
5. bṛhadāraṇyaka (ṛṣi & yājñavalkya)
6. bṛhadāraṇyaka (yājñavalkya & janaka)
7. bṛhadāraṇyaka (yājñavalkya & maitreyī)
8. śvetāśvatara
9. kaṭha (yama & naciketa)
10. taittirīya
11. āruṇika, garbha, amṛtanāda, haṁsa, kṣurikā, jābāla, brahma, paramahaṁsa, amritabindu, nārāyaṇa, mahā, ātmaprabodha, kaivalya
12. chāndogya (āruni & śvetaketu)
13. chāndogya (sanatkumāra &  nārada)
14. chāndogya (prajāpati & indra-virocana
15. kena
16. muṇḍaka (aṅgiras & śaunaka)
17. praśna (pippalāda & sukeśa)
18. atharvaśira, nṛsiṁha-pūrva-tāpanīya, nṛsimha-uttara-tāpanīya, īśāvāsya

anubhūti-prakāśa

svāmi vidāraṇya, the author of the popular pancadaśī, is one of the most famous names in vedāntic circles. Another one of his works, the anubhūti-prakāśa is a verse treatise on the upaniṣads. It consists of 20 chapters, and comments on the primary upaniṣads (excluding the īśa and māṇḍūkya).

1. aitareya, ṛg – 108 verses
2. taittirīya, kṛ yajus – 150 verses
3. chāndogya, sāma (6th chapter) – 140 verses
4. chāndogya, sāma (7th chapter) – 90 verses
5. chāndogya, sāma (8th chapter) – 100 verses
6. muṇḍaka, atharva – 100 verses
7. praśna, atharva – 100 verses
8. kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa, ṛg – 100 verses
9. kauṣītaki-brāhmaṇa, ṛg – 72 verses
10. maitrāyaṇi, sāma – 150 verses
11. kaṭha, kṛ yajus – 120 verses
12. śvetāśvatara, kṛ yajus – 120 verses
13. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajus (1st chapter) – 289 verses
14. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajus (2nd chapter, ajātaśatru) – 120 verses
15. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajusv (2nd chapter, maitreyī) – 103 verses
16. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajus (2nd chapter, madhu) – 50 verses
17. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajus (3rd chapter) – 310 verses
18. bṛhadāraṇyaka, śu yajus (4th chapter) – 324 verses
19. kena, atharva – 100 verses
20. nṛsiṁhottaratāpinī, atharva – 100 verses

There are many (108+) upaniṣads, and we often wonder about their relative importance. It is interesting to note that the anubhūti-prakāśa also has something to say about this.

aitareye taittirīye chāndogye ’tharvane ca yat |
tattvaṁ catur-veda-vidyā-prakāśe tat samīritam ||
anubhūti-prakāśo ‘tha kauṣitakyādi-nāmasu |
catur-vedāṅga-śākhāsu yat tattvaṁ tad udīryate || 8-1,2

The 20 chapters of the anuhbūti-prakāśa are published with its name in the colophon that follows each chapter. However, according to the verses above (and the śruti-saṁyojinī ṭīkā thereupon), this is actually a collection of two different works.

1. “vidyā-prakāśa” on the pradhāna-śākhās consists of chapters 1-7
2. “anubhūti-prakāśa” on the aṅga-śākhās consists of chapters 8-20

Thus, according to svāmī vidyāraṇya, we have a primary collection of the following five upaniṣads – (1) aitareya (2) taittirīya (3) chāndogya (4) muṇḍaka and (5) praśna.

Note: not everyone agrees with this two-fold division. Some see vidyā-prakāśa as an adjective to anubhūti-prakāśa. Though possible, this reading does seem a little forced.

na tvaṁ jātu nāsam (gītā 2.12)

As kṛṣṇa starts his upadeśa with the eleventh verse of the second chapter, a question arises. If advaita is the absolute truth, why doesn’t kṛṣṇa directly deliver the import of a mahāvākya which forms the underpinning of advaita. The answer is simple – that is exactly what he has done.

na tvevāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ (gītā 2.12)

authoritative source … yes
pithy saying … yes
seemingly stating the obvious … yes
seemingly contradictory … yes

It seems to have all the qualities of a mahāvākyam. After all, this verse establishes the sattvam / nityatvam which is one of the three descriptions of the same singular entity which is saccidānanda.

madhusūdana-sarasvatī uses this permanence to establish the śārīra-traya-viveka --

tatra sthūlaśarīrād ātmānaṁ vivektuṁ nityatvaṁ sādhayati (gūḍhārtha-dīpikā)

and this negation necessarily showing both tat and tvam as nirupādhi entities. In the words of ānandagiri --

nirupādhikasya tasya janmādi-rāhityam iti bhāvaḥ (ṭīkā)

śankarānanda sarasvatī takes this furthur to its tattvamasi conclusion, which is the only possibility once the nityatvam and nirupādhikatvam of both tat and tvam are established  --

kālatraye’pi sattā-pratipādana-dvarā, dehendriyādibhyo bhinnatvaṁ nityatvaṁ ca sūcayituṁ punaḥ tattvaṁpadārthayoḥ śodhanaṁ, śodhitayoḥ ekatvaṁ ca pratipādayati (tātparya-dīpikā)

svāmī śaṁkarānanda continues with a very long commentary on this verse. After listening to a mahāvākyam, many questions naturally arises, and he puts them to rest very naturally.

Objection – In daily life, there are many “I” entities, all of whom we interact with.

The notion of “I” with regards to someone else changes over time. A child we interact with grows through adulthood and old-age. They are outwardly not the same “I” entity, because the outward appearance has changed. And yet, experience tells us that “I” that changes over time with regards to myself is the same entity. Therefore, mere interaction with an entity in daily life doe not establish that an entity’s sameness of difference. Otherwise, I would establish that the child I interacted with yesterday is different from the old man I will interact with tomorrow. In the same way, plurality in external appearances cannot imply a plurality of the ātmā.

This is summarized as follows;

pratyaya-bhedena pratyayārthasya bhedaḥ iti pratyakṣam asiddham | vyakti-bhedāt ātmano’pi bhedaḥ ityanumānam ca na siddhyati ||

One entity is capable of manifesting and experiencing the world as several entities, just as a single “person” experiences the world, dream world and deep sleep.

deva-gandharva-manuṣyādi-bhedāḥ sarve jāgrat-svapnādi-dehavat ātmano bhogāyatanāni eva, na tu ātma-bheda-dyotakāḥ ||

Or, in daily life, we talk about “my head”, “my foot” and other body-parts, all of which are the same body.

yathā ekasminneva dehe avayava-bhedam upāśritya śiraḥ karah pādaḥ ityādi-vyavahārāḥ, tathā ātmaikatve’pi vyati-bhedam upāśritya, tvam-aham-ayam-ityādi-vyavahāraḥ siddhyati ||

Objection Then saṁsāra and mukti should be global concepts. If one “person” becomes free, everyone should become free. If one “person” is bound, everyone should remain bound.

Just as a single “person” is capable of having many, varied experiences due to the varied nature of karmā, so also, these various bodies (bhogāyatanāni) are capable of the varied experiences. Here, veda itself is pramāṇa “yat karma kurute, tad abhisaṁpadyate”. This is summarized as “phala-bhokṝṇām anekatvam”.

Though the ātmā is one alone, it is reflected in each body, as a result of which the intellect construct in each body has varied experiences. But, the sākṣī underlying all of these constructs is the same singular entity.

A singular intellect consciousness looks out through the eyes, and experiences a single object at a time, through its vastu-buddhi, but the presence of these various vastu-buddhis does not imply varied consciousness. Thus, division of the vṛttis does not imply division of the ātmā.

prakāśatvam

The phrase “saccidānanda” has become almost a cliché. The existence (sat) aspect, and ānanda (bliss) aspect are often explained. But, what does cit (consciousness) mean?

The dṛg-dṛśya-viveka talks about cit as bhānam --

asti bhāti priyaṁ rūpaṁ nāma cetyaṁśapañcakam | ādyaṁ trayaṁ brahmarūpaṁ jagadrūpaṁ tato dvayam || 20

and the vākya-sudhā commentary explicitly links this to cit, and prakāśa --

asti = vidyate, bhāti = prakāśate, priyaṁ = premāspadam … saccidānanda-rūpanāma-lakṣaṇa …

so we now see that cit = bhānam = prakāśatvam. The mānasollāsa on the dakṣiṇāmurti-stotram asks a pertinent question using the latter terminology. Where do astitvam and prakāśatvam have their basis?

asti prakāśata iti vyavahāraḥ pravartate | taccāstitvaṁ prakāśatvaṁ kasminnarthe pratiṣṭhitam || 1.4

and it also starts giving us some answers a little later on. Whatever illuminates the dream also illuminates the waking state --

svapne prakāśo bhāvānāṁ svaprakāśānna hītaraḥ | jāgratyapi tathaiveti niścinvanti vipaścitaḥ || 1.11

To provide a little more clarity, we can look at the commentary which explains this a little furthur:

svapne bhāvānāṁ dṛśyānām arthānām prakāśaḥ svaprakāśād adhiṣṭhānātmaprakāśāt na hi itaraḥ svatantraḥ | svasattāhīnasya svataḥ sphuraṇasya api abhāvāt ityarthaḥ ||

i.e. in a dream, what illumines the dream objects? Nothing other than the very consciousness that has projected into a dream state. The dream objects have no separate existence. The dream state has no separate consciousness.

Thus, the concept of consciousness, and illumination are strongly tied together. We have a tendency to take the notion of consciousness as illumination (prakāśatvam / bhānam) literally. After all, the vedas themselves use this illustration (atrāyaṁ puruṣaḥ svayaṁjyotiḥ), and this is often repeated by other vedantic texts like the aparokṣānubhūti (ātmā prakāśakaḥ svacchaḥ).

However, this should not be taken literally. In the aparokṣānubhūti, śaṁkarācārya clearly tries to clarify the situation --

ātmanastatprakāśatvaṁ yatpadārthāvabhāsanam | nāgnyādidīptivad dīptirbhavatyāndhyaṁ yato niśi || 22

Illumination is an illustration used to depict a means of knowledge, as it were. It is not a literal illumination like a fire. After all, the cit nature of the self allows us to experience all aspects of the world around us – including both daylight and darkness. If consciousness were of the nature of light, it would destroy the darkness altogether. Our experience tells us otherwise. We are able to experience darkness, and it is our consciousness that “illuminates” this experience. This is how the illumination aspect of the self must be understood.

The hastāmalakīya-bhāṣyam also throws some light on this:

raviḥ ādityaḥ yathā yena prakāreṇa prakāśatvena lokānāṁ ceṣṭāyāṁ spandane nimittaṁ hetuḥ, tathaiva adhiṣṭhātṛtvena yo nimittaṁ, so’ham ātmeti arthaḥ .. 1

mṛtyu and śoka (gītā 2.11)

The onset of death in those close to us brings about a temporary renunciation in all of us. This is called śmaśāna-vairāgya (renunciation of the cremation ground) and lasts for as long as the body burns on the funeral pyre. Unfortunately, this is not true renunciation, because it is not born of discrimination (viveka). As the aparokṣānubhūti points out --

brahmādisthāvarānteṣu vairāgyaṁ viṣayeṣvanu. yathaiva kākaviṣṭhāyāṁ vairāgyaṁ taddhi nirmalam .. (aparokśānubhūti)

vairāgya does not self-manifest, but is born following (anu) the cultivation of the discriminative intellect. What’s wrong with śmaśāna-vairāgya? After all, isn’t any kind of  vairāgya good? The very word vairāgya means one who is devoid (vi) of attachment and the like (rāga). Unfortunately, śmaśāna-vairāgya is born out of rāga itself. Attachment (rāga) and it’s opposite (vairāgya) cannot co-exist.

Temporary fake vairāgya is not a new phenomenon. śaṅkarācārya himself calls true renunciation as nirmala-vairāgya. Thus, we have two kinds of renunciation – (1) the real deal, known as nirmala-vairāgya, or śuddha-vairāgya, and (2) the fake kind, known as aśuddha-vairāgya.

In the gītā, arjuna foresakes his duty. His decision is born out of pure attachment, and is an example of aśuddha-vairāgya. “na yotsya iti govindam uktvā tūṣṇīṁ babhūva ha” (gītā 2.9). What was the result? kṛṣṇa immediately starts delivering a lecture on viveka, the only true cause of lasting vairāgya.

nityam ātma-svarūpaṁ hi dṛśyaṁ tadviparītagam | evaṁ yo niścayaḥ samyag viveko vastunaḥ sa vai || (aparokṣānubhūti)

“Knowing the self to be ever-lasting, and everything else to be impermanent, is called discrimination.” This is the same message that kṛṣṇa delivers in the gītā proper as he starts his gītopadeśa.

aśocyān anvaśocastvaṁ prajñāvādāṁśca bhāṣase | gatāsūn agatāsūṁśca nānuśocanti paṇḍitāḥ || (2.11)

“You grieve for those who shouldn’t be grieved. The learned ones don’t grieve for the dead, or for the living” extolls kṛṣṇa. saṁkarānanda sarasvatī details the thinking process.

Do you grieve for the person, or for their soul ? Let’s assume the former. Do you grieve because they’ve led a unfulfilling life, or do your lament their death? It makes no sense to grieve their life. If there wasn’t anything to celebrate, you wouldn’t have formed an attachment to them. Further, nothing can be changed. Similarly, you can’t possibly lament their death, because all life is transitory. All beings have limited time on earth, and everyone is constantly marching towards their grave. Thus, if you use reason, you couldn’t possibly grieve for their body.

If you don’t grieve for the person, or the body, you must grieve for the soul. But this doesn’t make any sense either. Because, the soul is eternal – it is neither born, nor does it die. Since this is true, why in the world would you grieve for something that is eternal?

saṁkarānanda sums it up as follows:

na hi buddhimatāṁ nityaḥ padārthaḥ śocyo bhavati, nāpi anityaśca ..

The wise do not grieve for the ever-lasting (because they are ever-lasting), and they don’t grieve for the impermanent (because impermanence is their very nature).

He also divides beings into three categories:

1. mūḍha – The dumb one, who grieves for the living, and for the dead.
2. śāstrajña – The learned one, who only grieves for the living
3. paṇḍita – The intelligent one, who grieves neither for the living, nor for the dead

All of us should strive to climb the staircase, from mūḍhatvam to śāstrajñatvam to pāṇḍītyam.

kārpaṇya-doṣopahata-svabhāva (gītā 2.7)

Prior to the true beginning of the bhagavad-gītā (2.11), arjuna starts his concluding arguments, which show him immersed in the ocean of śoka (sorrow) and moha (delusion). He describes himself as follows:

kārpaṇyadoṣopahatasvabhāvaḥ (2.7)

Most modern commentators translate this along the lines of “My heart contaminated by the taint of helplessness”. However, there is much more to this. Based on śruti, kārpaṇya actually means ajñatvam, or anātmādhyāsavattvam, i.e. the superimposition of the non-self on the self. This is what leads to helplessness.

yo vā etad akṣaraṁ gārgi aviditvā asmāt lokāt praiti, sa kṛpaṇaḥ (bṛhadāraṇyaka 3.8.10)

śaṁkarānanda takes this furthur in the tātparya-bodhinī by cleverly splitting up the word svabhāva into sva +bhāva (sattā) --

kārpaṇyam ajñatvam ajñānam. tamaḥpradhānatvād vastusvarūpaṁ dūṣayati iti. tadeva doṣaḥ. tena upahataḥ tirohitaḥ svasya avikriyasya pratyagātmanaḥ bhāvaḥ sattā yasya saḥ.

i.e. the taint, or doṣa is ignorance itself. Because of this taint, the average person incorrectly superimposes and hence contaminates his own (sva) underlying ātmā, which is actually of the nature of true existence (bhāvaḥ). This is a truly inspired understanding.

īśā vāsyam (īśa 1)

In an earlier post on the first mantra of the īśāvāsyopaniṣad, the word vāsyam was described as an operational injunction, i.e. a practical technique that seekers can use to realize the vision of the self. In the upaniṣadratnam, śaṅkarānanda sarasvatī gives a few different mental pictures:

1. ghaṭādikaṁ yathā sarvam mṛdā hetusvarūpayā
2. rājñā ca vāsitaṁ yadvat svakīyaṁ nagarādikam
3. paṭena vāsitaṁ vā’pi nṝṇāṁ yadvat kalevaram
4. puṣpairvā vāsitaṁ yadvad nīramatra suśītalam
5. vāsanābhirvā yathā syād vāsitaṁ hi mano nṝṇām

One beauty of the ātma-purāṇam are these various shades of possible meanings, which are not found anywhere else. They are described below. īśvara pervades the world, just like:

1. just like clay (the material cause) pervades the pot (the effect)
2. just like the king willfully casts his gaze on all aspects of his kingdom (representing the intelligent cause)
3. just like a piece of cloth covers the outside of the body
4. just like the fragrance of flowers permeates the inside of a bowl full of odorless water
5. just as the mind is impelled with various vāsanās causing it to act

The problem with illustrations, is that they are mere illustrations, and have limitations. In this case, we are looking at a world through both the vyāvakārika and pāramārthika lenses. As a result, we need several illustrations. Indeed, īśvara very much pervades the universe (idam) in all 5 aspects described by svāmī śaṁkarānanda.

Who is a guru? (gītā 2.5)

Who is a guru? arjuna describes a guru as a mahānubhāva, a person marked by greatness.

gūrūn ahatvā hi mahānubhāvān 2.5

and the commentaries further describe the experiences that gurus should possess.

mahān anubhāvaḥ śrutādhyayana-tapa-ācārādi-nibandhanaḥ prabhāvaḥ yeṣāṁ tān .. (gūḍhārthadīpikā)

mahān anargalo’nubhāvaḥ dharma-brahma-viṣayako bodho yeṣāṁ, tān mahānubhāvān .. (tātparya-bodhinī)

They have studied the scriptures, performed tapas, and practice what they preach. They have had the complete unfettered experience of dharma and the self.

It isn’t overly useful to use guru-lakṣaṇa to test a guru, since we get what our pūrva-karma-saṁskāra dictates. On the other hand, we can use these lakṣaṇas to guide our daily life, i.e. we can perform śrutādhyayana, tapas, and lead a life of virtuous conduct.

The commentator madhusūdana-sarasvatī sees an additional opportunity to eulogize the guru, and plays some sanskrit games. He optionally reads himahānubhāvān as a single word.

himaṁ jāḍyam apahanti iti himahā ādityo’ginrvā, tasyaiva anubhāvaḥ sāmarthyaṁ yeṣāṁ tān .. (gūḍhārthadīpikā)

gurus are himahās, the destroyers of cold, or insentience. Just as the sun, or fire can destroy the cold, a guru can destroy the ignorance of the self.

In the same verse, arjuna goes on to call the guru an arthakāma --

hatvā'rthakāmāṁstu gurūn (2.5)

and svāmi śaṁkarānanda elucides this as someone who instructs his disciples in dharma and the puruṣārthas, which culminate with mokṣa --

arthān dharmādipuruṣārthān śiṣyebhyaḥ kāmayanti bodhayanti iti arthakāmāḥ, tān (tātparya-bodhinī)

All of us can and should strive to be mahānubhāva. Due to the guru-śiṣya relationship, on the other hand, it is the guru alone who is the himahānubhāva, or the arthakāma.

The human dilemma

We are afflicted beings. The truly fortunate find a sadguru, who is capable of dispelling our ignorance. But we expect the guru to dispel our ignorance, with no effort of our own. We expect him to work miracles in spite of our stubbornness.

In the gītā, arjuna approaches none other than bhagavān srī kṛṣṇa himself, and spells out his ignorance. In return, in the first few verses of the second chapter, bhagavān starts his upadeśa. What is the result? arjuna continues to defend his poor judgement.

bhagavad-vacanam etat śrutvā, … duḥkham asahamānaḥ san, uktam eva arthaṁ viśeṣayitum arjuna uvāca . (tātparya-bodhinī)

arjuna may have heard what kṛṣṇa had to say, but he did not truly listen. He simply continues with his tirade. Quite representative of the seeker, mired in saṁsāra, isn’t he? And he isn’t the average seeker. arjuna after all means suddha-svabhāvaḥ, or the pure one. Not surprising, given that his own pūrva-karma entitled him to kṛṣṇa as his guru.

madhusūdana (gītā 2.10)

In the gītā, bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇa speaks his first words in the second verse of the second chapter. In the previous verse, vyāsa has introduced this with “viṣīdantam idaṁ vākyam uvāca madhusūdanaḥ”. Of all the synonyms of viṣṇu, vyāsa has chosen the epithet madhusūdana. Why ? ānandagiri quotes the viṣṇusahasranāma bhāṣya by ādi śaṅkarācārya (name #73) --

madhunāmānam asuraṁ sūditavān iti madhusūdanaḥ .

madhusūdana is the one who destroyed (sūdana) the demon named madhu. A slightly more philosophical explanation is given in the gūḍhārtha-dīpikā --

madhusūdana iti svayaṁ duṣṭa-nigraha-kartā .

madhusūdana is that person who destroys all evil. This is fitting because arjuna is described as the despondent one (viṣīdan), and it is this unfitting behaviour that kṛṣṇa seeks to destroy. However, the root sūd does not solely mean destruction. It also means purification. After all, destruction and purification are two sides of the same coin. With this in mind, we can look at the tātparya-bodhinī, which proffers a few different explanations:

(1) madhvākhyam asuraṁ sūdayati iti madhusūdanaḥ, (2) sarveṣāṁ dehe madhuvad iṣṭatvāt madhuḥ ahaṁkāraḥ, tam ātmaprakāśanena sūdayatīti madhusūdanaḥ, (3) madhuḥ svarūpānandaḥ, taṁ svāparokṣavatāṁ sūdayati sphorayati iti madhusūdanaḥ

svāmi śaṅkarānanda first gives the standard explanation – he is the destroyer of the demon named madhu. But, who is this madhu ? madhu is any sweet entity, like honey, which is symbolic of desire. madhu represents our ego (ahaṁkāra), which is the very cause of desire. So, madhusūdana is the person who destroys that ego, through the knowledge of the self. Finally, after showing the destructive aspect, svāmī shows us the constructive aspect of purification. madhu is a sweet entity, representing the true, pure ānanda (bliss). madhusūdana is the person who shows us that true nature of the self, through direct experience.

Not only are these explanations beautiful, they are appropriate to the context. In this drama, kṛṣṇa’s purpose is to destroy the evil despondency, arising out of ego, and bringing about a direct experience of the self, which is of the nature of true ānanda.

gītā – chapter 1

After a short commenary at the very outset, śankarācārya remains silent until the 11th verse of the 2nd chapter of the bhagavad gītā. These introductory verses set the backstory, and are not crucial to the teachings of the gītā proper. We usually rely on the explanations given by ānandagiri for these verses.

There is another commentary, called the gītā-tātparya-bodhinī by svāmī śaṅkarānanda (the preceptor of svāmī vidyāraṇya). It is often called “a commentary for sannyāsins”, and is not widely read. I happened to borrow a copy and read through the first chapter.

I found his commentary on the first chapter refreshing. I prefer his commentary on these verses to those by ānandagiri, or madhusūdāna sarasvatī. It contains just the right about of detail, and is written in a simple yet elegant style.

Where his views diverge slightly from other commentators, I prefer his reading. For example, let us take the second verse of the gītā, where duryodhana looks at the opposing pāṇḍava army and goes to his preceptor, droṇa.

dṛṣṭvā tu pāṇḍavānīkaṁ vyūḍhaṁ duryodhanastadā | ācāryaṁ upasaṁgamya rājā vacanam abravīt ||

Commentators including ānandagiri and madhusūdana sarasvatī explain that this verse shows a lack of fear by the pāṇḍavās; on the other hand, it shows duryodhana’s fear. This is often repeated, but the explanation seems forced. The tātparyabodhinī has a straightforward explanation, in line with duryodhana’s character --

śaurya-bala-pauruṣa-utsāha-udrekaṁ saṁpādayitum icchayā idaṁ vacanam abravīt ||

i.e. duryodhana described the opposing army in order to incite and infuse his troops with  enthusiasm on the eve of the war. This is the logical action expected of an army chieftain.

īśā vāsyam idaṁ sarvam (īśa 1)

The phrase “īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam” is famous in upaniṣadic lore. Not only because it heads the  īśāvāsyopaniṣad, but also because the īśāvāsyopaniṣad itself is traditionally enumerated at the head of the 10 major upaniṣads. The phrase is pregnant with meaning, and is truly a mahāvākyam.

 

Recently, Dr. Kuntimaddi sadānanda posted some comments (edited below) based on the teachings of Svāmī tejomayānanda on the advaita-academy site –

 

īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam – The statement is normally translated as: This universe is pervaded or clothed by the Lord. Svāmī tejomayānandā-jī unraveled its deeper meaning. He said, vāsyam actually is an instructional statement of the teacher to the student – just as the instructions– śrotavyaḥ, mantavyaḥ, nididhyāsitavyaḥ. Obviously, it is an instructional statement by a teacher to his student who is seeking brahma vidyā …

 

This is a wonderful exposition, but I was also a little saddened about the state of vedāntic education, where surface meanings have become deeper meanings. śaṅkarācārya himselfs translates the word “vāsyam” as “ācchādanīyam”, or "should be enveloped", which is clearly an instruction with the same force as śrotavyaḥ, mantavyaḥ, nidhidhyāsitavyaḥ. I was curious, and consulted simple introductory commentaries. First, the maṇiprabhā by amaradāsa –

 

idaṁ sarvaṁ nikhilaṁ vāsyam ācchādanīyaṁ, vyāptam iti yāvat ..

 

And then the upaniṣat-prasāda, which is an even shorter commentary. It says –

 

īśā īśvareṇa antaryāmyātmanā vāsyam ācchādanīyam . īśa eva idaṁ sarvam iti bhāvanayā tirobhāvanīyaṁ, tattadbuddhiḥ tyājyā iti bhāvaḥ ..

 

The same essence is clearly brought out by all of these commentators. Swami tejomayānanda has nicely brought out this import in English, and Dr. sadānanda has graced us by posting on it. But, I am left to wonder about a world where basic saṁskṛtam skills are present in all spiritual seekers.