doing what i always do best, i.e ctrl+c , ctrl +v
from Ramanuja bhasya on Srimad Bhagavat Gita,
chapter 2. 12 Link :
Select Ramanujacharya's english commentary or best original Sanskrit from select text on the left side
************************************************************
2.12 Indeed, I, the Lord of all, who is eternal, was never non-existent,
but existed always. It is not that these selves like you, who are subject to
My Lordship, did not exist; you have always existed. It is not that 'all of
us', I and you, shall cease to be 'in the future', i.e., beyond the present
time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt can be entertainted that I,
the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all
others) who are embodied selves, also should be considered eternal.
The foregoing implies that the difference between the Lord, the
sovereign over all, and the individual selves, as also the differences
among the individual selves themselves, are real. This has been declared
by the Lord Himself. For, different terms like 'I', 'you', 'these', 'all' and
'we' have been used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality in
order to remove the misunderstanding of Arjuna who is deluded by
ignorance.
[Now follows a refutation of the Upadhi theory of Bhaskara
and the Ignorance theory of the Advaitins which deny any ultimate
difference between the Lord and the Jivas.]
If we examine (Bhaskara's) theory of Upadhis (adjuncts), which states that the apparent differences among Jivas are due to adjuncts, it will have to be admitted that mention about differences is out of place when explaining the ultimate truth,
because the theory holds that there are no such differences in reality.
But that the differences mentioned by the Lord are natural, is taught by
the Sruti also:
'Eternal among eternals, sentient among sentients, the
one, who fulfils the desires of the many' (Sve. U. VI. 13, Ka. U. V. 13).
The meaning of the text is: Among the eternal sentient beings who are
countless, He, who is the Supreme Spirit, fulfils the desires of all.' As
regards the theory of the Advaitins that the perception of difference is
brought about by ignorance only and is not really real, the Supreme
Being --- whose vision must be true and who, therefore must have an
immediate cognition of the differencelss and immutable and eternal
consciousness as constituting the nature of the Atman in all authenticity,
and who must thereby be always free from all ignorance and its effects -
-- cannot possibly perceive the so-called difference arising from
ignornace.
It is, therefore, unimaginable that He engages himself in
activities such as teaching, which can proceed only from such a
perception of differences arising from ignorance. The argument that
the Supreme Being, though possessed of the understanding of nomduality,
can still have the awareness of such difference persisting even
after sublation, just as a piece of cloth may have been burnt up and yet
continues to have the appearance of cloth, and that such a continuance
of the subltated does not cause bondage --- such an argument is invalid
in the light of another analogy of a similar kind, namely, the perception of
the mirage, which, when understood to be what it is, does not make one
endeavour to fetch water therefrom. In the same way even if the
impression of difference negated by the non-dualistic illumination
persists, it cannot impel one to activities such as teaching; for the object
to whom the instruction is to be imparted is discovered to be unreal. The
idea is that just as the discovery of the non-existence of water in a
mirage stops all effort to get water from it, so also when all duality is
sublated by illumination, no activity like teaching disciples etc., can take
place. Nor can the Lord be conceived as having been previously
ignorant and as attaining knowledge of unity through the scirptures, and
as still being subject to the continuation of the stultified experiences.
Such a position would stand in contradiction to the Sruti and the Smrti:
'He, who is all-comprehender' (Mun. U., 1. 1. 9); all knower and supreme
and natural power of varied types are spoken of in Srutis, such as
knowledge, strength and action' (Sve. U. 6. 8); 'I know, Arjuna, all beings
of the past, present and future but no one knows Me,' etc. (Gita 7. 26).
And again, if the perception of difference and distinction are said to
persist even after the unitary Self has been decisively understood, the
question will arise --- to whom will the Lord and the succession of
teachers of the tradition impart the knowledge in accordance with their
understanding? The question needs an answer. The idea is that
knowledge of non-duality and perception of differences cannot co-exist.
If it be replied by Advaitins holding the Bimba-Pratibimba (the original
and reflections) theory that teachers give instructions to their own
reflections in the form of disciples such as Arjuna, it would amount to an
absurdity. For, no one who is not out of his senses would undertake to
give any instruction to his own reflections in mediums such as a precious
stone, the blade of a sword or a mirror, knowing, as he does, that they
are non-different from himself. The theory of the persistence of the
sublated is thus impossible to maintain, as the knowledge of the unitary
self destroys the beginningless ignorance in which differences falling
outside the self are supposed to be rooted. 'The persistence of the
sublated' does occur in cases such as the vision of the two moons,
where the cause of the vision is the result of some real defect in
eyesight, nor removable by the right understanding of the singleness of
the moon. Even though the perception of the two moons may continue,
the sublated cognition is rendered inconsequential on the strength of
strong contrary evidence. For, it will not lead to any activity appropriate
for a real experience. But in the present context (i.e. the Advaitic), the
conception of difference, whose object and cause are admittedly unreal,
is cancelled by the knowledge of reality. So the 'persistence of the
sublated' can in no way happen. Thus, if the Supreme Lord and the
present succession of preceptors have attained the understanding of
(Non-dual) reality, their perception of difference and work such as
teaching proceeding from that perception, are impossible. If, on the
other hand, the perception of difference persists because of the
continuance of ignorance and its cause, then these teachers are
themselves ignorant of the truth, and they will be incapable of teaching
the truth. Further, as the preceptor has attained the knowledge of the
unitary self and thereby the ignorance concerning Brahman and all the
effects of such ignorance are thus annihilated, there is no purpose in
instructing the disciple. It it is held that the preceptor and his knowledge
are just in the imagination of the disciple, the disciple and his knowledge
are similarly the product of the imagination of the preceptor, and as such
can not put an end to the ignorance in question. If it is maintained that
the disciple's knowledge destroys ignorance etc., because it contradicts
the antecedent state of non-enlightenment, the same can be asserted of
the preceptor's knowledge. The futility of such teachings is obvious.
Enough of these unsound doctrines which have all been refuted.
*****************************************************************
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->