Bhagavad Gita - QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (denoted by KT)

QA : What-are-some-advaita-slokas-from Bhagavad Gita?

QA : Is-original-text-of-bhagavad-gita written in standard sanskrit?

One of the several verses in BG, which is subject to lot of discussion is

nAsato vidyate [.a] bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || II-16||}

There are two ways to split "vidyate[.a]bhAvo" one with avagraha (which makes it vidyate + abhavaH) and one without (which makes it vidyate + bhavaH).

While the Bhashya handles the former, Tatparya handles the latter.

Meaning (with avagraha):

The mUla prakR^iti which is material cause of the universe does not have perishability or destruction (abhAva). Likewise there is no abhAva for parabrahma. The wise have clearly noted the traditional rendering from teacher to taught as a pramANa that makes it decisive (nirNAyaka) in both the instances.

Bhashya of Acharya:

'nitya AtmA' ityuktam.h | kimAtmaiva nitya Ahosvidanyadapi? anyadapi |

tat.h kim.h? ityata Aha -"nAsata" iti | asataH kAraNasya sato brahmaNashcha abhAvo na vidyate |

"prakR^itiH purushhashchaiva nityau kAlashcha sattama" - iti vachanAchchhrIvishhNupurANe |

pR^ithak.h "vidyata" ityAdarArthaH | asataH kAraNatvaM cha -

"sadasad.hrUpayA chAsau guNamayyA.aguNo vibhuH" iti shrIbhAgavate |

"asataH sadajAyata" iti cha | avyakteshcha | 'sampradAyashchaitat.h

siddham.h' ityAha - "ubhayorapi" iti "anto" nirNayaH || 16||

It has been told in the earlier verses (like "natvevAhaM...") that the jIvAtmA is eternal. Is Atma alone nitya or else there are others which are nitya? It is answered that there are others. That is explained in this verse "nAsataH...".

asataH = mUlaprakR^iti which is material cause

sataH = Brahma (Paramatma)

Both do not have abhAva.

prakR^iti, purushha (Paramatma) and kAla (time) are eternal - this is told in Sri Vishnupurana.

Thus there is evidence for the statement "there is no abhava for prakR^iti and Paramatma."

If it is asked why is it told "asataH abhAvaH na vidyate" and "sataH abhAvaH na vidyate" as two separate sentences instead of one sentence "asataH sataH cha abhAvaH na vidyate", the reason is to indicate there are other anAdi items that have no abhAva (like kAla).

How can the meaning "material cause" or prakR^iti be given to "asat.h"? In the Bhagavata sentence "sadasad.hrUpayA...", implies that meaning only. Also in the upanishadic sentence "asataH sadajAyata", the meaning "material cause" or prakR^iti is given to "asat.h". PrakR^iti is called "asat.h", because it is not comprehendible to external senses.

antaH = nirNaya

The second half of the verse says that the traditional rendering from teacher to taught as a pramANa that makes it decisive in both the instances.

====

Meaning (without avagraha):

Just as there cannot be joy from bad deeds, there can be no sorrow from good deeds. The wise have clearly noted the traditional rendering from teacher to taught as a pramANa that makes it decisive (nirNAyaka) in both the instances.

Tatparya of Acharya:

nacha yuddhAt.h paralokaduHkhamiti shokaH | asatkarmaNaH sakAshAt.h

bhAvonAstiH ; satkarmaNaH sakAshAt.h abhAvo.api nAstIti niyatatvaAt.h |

"sadbhAvavAchinaH shabdAH sarve te sukhavAchakAH | abhAvavAchinaH shabdAH

sarve te duHkhavAchakAH" iti shabdanirNaye | "sadbhAve sAdhubhAve cha

sadityetat.h prayujyate | prashaste karmaNi tathA sachchhabdaH pArtha

yujyate" (17-26) iti vaxyamANatvAt.h | "asanneva sa bhavati asad.h brahmeti

veda chet.h" ityAdeshcha |

It must not be thought that by doing the war, there will be sorrow in the next world. It is because "just as there cannot be joy fom bad deeds, there can be no sorrow from good deeds." It is told in "shabdanirNaya" - all the words/sounds of "sadbhAva" convey the meaning "happiness". all the words/sounds of "abhAva" convey the meaning "sorrow".

It was told in earlier instances that "sadbhAva" means "sAdhubhAva" (good deed or happy thought).

It has been told "He who thinks that Paramatma is asat (has sorrow) will end up in sorrow (will become asat.h)."

Brief summary in the line of Bhashya and tAtparya of our Acharya along with the meanings as per some other schools may be of some interest to compare the notes.

nAsato vidyate(.a)bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || 2-16 ||

The natural question is how many possible interpretations are there, which of them are right and which of them are wrong and why. What is the context?

Padaccheda:

na + asataH + vidyate + (a)bhAvaH (##)+ na + abhAvaH + vidyate + sataH |

ubhayoH + api + dR^ishhTaH + antah + tu + anayoH + tattva darshibhiH ||

## In Bhashya, Acharya uses "abhAvaH" and in tAtparya "bhAvaH" and gives two different interpretations, both of which

1. fit the context

2. are consistent with rest of the scriptures

3. have supporting quotes.

The other schools use "bhAvaH" only. There are some baseless accusations that our AchArya used "abhAvaH", while "bhAvaH" is correct. Such accusers did not bother to look at tAtparya.

Anvaya and meaning:

According to Bhashya:

asataH = kAraNasya = prakR^iteH = of mUlaprakR^iti; abhAvaH = prAgabhAvaH pradhvaMsashcha = non-existence (both antecedent and subsequent);

na vidyate = na asti = does not occur;

sataH = brahmaNaH

cha = of the Supreme Lord;

abhAvaH = dvirUpo.abhAvaH = non-existence of both kinds;

na vidyate = does not occur;

anayoH = of these;

ubhayoH = two;

api = also;

antah = nirNayaH = conclusion;

tattva darshibhiH = knowers of truth;

dR^ishhTaH = seen (known); tu = eva;

There is no antecedent or subsequent non-existence of the material cause of the universe, mUla prakR^iti. There is no antecedent or subsequent non-existence of the Lord, the efficient cause of the universe (implying that both are anAdi nitya-s). The conclusion of these two aspects have been reached by knowers of truth (through both the methods of Agama pramANa and guru-shishhya sAmpradAya in the form of upadesha).

In an earlier verse ( na tvevAhaM ...2-12), it has been mentioned that just as the Lord is anAdinitya, likewise all jIvAs are anAdinitya. If a question is raised about the Lordship of Krishna and a wish is made to show another anAdi nitya entity, the answer lies in this verse.

According to tAtparya:

asataH = asatkarmaNaH = from unrighteous acts;

bhAvaH = good or happiness;

na vidyate = na asti = does not occur;

sataH = satkarmaNaH = from righteous acts;

abhAvaH = bad or misery;

na vidyate = does not occur;

No happiness (good) results from unrighteous acts, (just as) no misery (bad) results from righteousness acts.

Of both these (facts) the conclusion (truth) as handed down is actually observed by those who have seen the truth. As Arjuna talked at length about the evils that come out of that war, Krishna having said that war is good for being against the enemies of Vishnu and their supporters, further assures that no evil can come out of the war and justifies this from this verse. Only good can come out of this good act of war.

According to Advaita:

asataH = avidyamAnasya = for non-existing entity;

bhAvaH = creation;

na vidyate = na asti = does not occur;

sataH = vidyamAnasya = for an existing entity;

abhAvaH = destruction;

na vidyate = does not occur;

There is no creation for a non-existing entity and there is no destruction for an existing entity. But this is against the evidence of direct perception. We see that a pot that does not exist can be created and an existing pot can have destruction. Some may argue that the matter/mud has been transformed and as such there is no creation. Even then the the transformation is a kind of creation as it created the shape of the pot. Here the mud is material cause and the pot maker is an efficient cause.

According to VishishhTa-advaita:

asataH = for the body and the like; bhAvaH = eternality;

na vidyate = na asti = does not occur; sataH = for jIva;

abhAvaH = non-eternality; na vidyate = does not occur;

There is no externality for the body and there is no non-eternality for the jIva. But the eternality of jIva has already been told and the non-eternality of the body will be told later in "antavanta ime dehAH...".

This kind of meaning makes this verse redundant and purportless.

Bhagavadgita - XIV 26-27

These two verses are interpreted very differently by various schools.

mAM cha yo.avyabhichAreNa bhaktiyogena sevate |

sa guNAnsamatItyaitAn.h brahmabhUyAya kalpate || XIV-26||

[Lord Krishna says] One who serves me with unswerving devotional process, will overcome the bondage of the three gunas and their abhimAni devatas (Sri, Bhu and Durga) and becomes eligible to the grace of the Lord in the same manner as Laxmi.

Here the word "Brahma" is given the meaning prakR^iti or Laxmi.

Acharya says in his Bhashya:

brahmavat.h prakR^itivat.h bhagavatpriyatvaM brahmabhUyam.h | na tu

tAvatpriyatvam.h | kintu priyatvamAtram.h | "baddhA vA.apitu muktA vA

na ramAva.t priyA hareH" iti pAdme | bhUyAya bhAvAya ||

"brahmavat.h" means "like Laxmi". "brahmabhUyaM" means "bhagavatpriyatvaM" (becoming dear to the Lord). "becoming dear to the Lord like Laxmi" does not mean "as much dear to the Lord as Laxmi", but just "a mukta becomes dear to the Lord like Laxmi". It is said in PadmapurANa "No one in bondage or in liberation can be as dear to Hari as Laxmi". "bhUya" means "bhAva or dharma or quality. What is meant is "A Vishnu devotee crosses the three forms of Laxmi (Sri, Bhu and Durga) and reaches Laxmi's mUlarUpa and by her grace reaches Vishnu.

Acharya gives a simile here "yathA dvArapAlamatItya rAjAnaM gachchhati" iti. "just as, one who crosses the door-keeper and reaches the king".

brahmaNo hi pratishhThAhamamR^itasyAvyayasya cha |

shAshvatasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikAntikasya cha || XIV-27||

I am the supporter of nitya mukta Laxmi, the indestructible liberated souls, shAshvata dharma (j~nAnottara nishhkAma dharma that grants undiminishing fruits), moxa sukha which is not tainted by sorrow.

[Thus those who reach nityAviyogini Laxmi, eventually reach me also by her grace].

Note: In this verse also the word "Brahma" means Laxmi only. Otherwise

it will not make sense to say "I am supporter of brahma". So here Brahma does not mean "parabrahma".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

These two verses are interpreted very differently by various schools.

mAM cha yo.avyabhichAreNa bhaktiyogena sevate |

sa guNAnsamatItyaitAn.h brahmabhUyAya kalpate || XIV-26||

Here the word "Brahma" is given the meaning prakR^iti or Laxmi.

Acharya says in his Bhashya:

brahmavat.h prakR^itivat.h bhagavatpriyatvaM brahmabhUyam.h | na tu tAvatpriyatvam.h | kintu priyatvamAtram.h | "baddhA vA.apitu muktA vA na ramAva.t priyA hareH" iti pAdme | bhUyAya bhAvAya ||

What is meant is "A Vishnu devotee crosses the three forms of Laxmi (Sri, Bhu and Durga) and reaches Laxmi's mUlarUpa and by her grace reaches Vishnu.

Acharya gives a simile here "yathA dvArapAlamatItya rAjAnaM gachchhati" iti.

"just as, one who crosses the door-keeper and reaches the king".

brahmaNo hi pratishhThAhamamR^itasyAvyayasya cha |

shAshvatasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikAntikasya cha || XIV-27||

I am the supporter of nityamukta Laxmi, the indestructible liberated souls, shAshvata dharma (j~nAnottara nishhkAma dharma that grants undiminishing fruits), moxa sukha which is not tainted by sorrow.

[Thus those who reach nityAviyogini Laxmi, eventually reach me also by her grace].

Note: In this verse also the word "Brahma" means Laxmi only. Otherwise it will not make sense to say "I am supporter of brahma". So here Brahma does not mean "parabrahma".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karma yoga and jnana yoga

What is the difference between sannyasa ashrama for a karma yogi and sannyasa ashrama for a jnana yogi?

KT : Word of caution: Based on the nature of the mail, the following are my personal opinions and understanding.

I don't understand the question. My basic doubt was the following. Since I now understand that a jnana yogi adopts sannyasa ashrama directly without going through grhastha life,

KT: Why so? All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. Those adopting sannyasa ashrama have chosen the path of jnana yoga (assuming that the j~nAna that they possess is in the right direction). On the other hand there can be gR^ihastas, who also have chosen j~nAnayoga (like the sage vashishhTa).

is the converse also true? ie, does a yogi who does not adopt the grhastha life but directly takes to sannyasa called a jnana yogi?

KT: As mentioned above, all we can say is that they chose that path. Their progress depends on the correctness of their j~nAna.

Ashrama is stage of life, whereas "yoga" is "upAya" or "j~nAnopAya" (or the methodology).

Also, what happens when a karma yogi goes through grhastha ashrama and then takes sannyasa ashrama later?

Note that the stage of life and the methodology are two different things. Dharma is based on varNa as well as Ashrama. Thus a gR^ihasta, who chose karma yoga (meaning karma portion is more, but there is mandate of underlying j~nAna and bhakti, which are important) is a karma yogi. If he takes to sannyasa ashrama later, he means to go on j~nAna yoga.

In what way are his duties different from a jnana yogi who was always in sannyasa ashrama?

KT: In no way different. The duties of a sannyAsi (who was a gR^ihasta earlier) are same as the duties of one, who was always in sannyasa ashrama.

If the duties are not different, then can we say that the karma yogi has now become a jnana yogi?

KT: In this case, yes. How ever imagine a gR^ihasta (who is a j~nAna yogi, like a R^ishhi or a saint), who takes up sannyAsa. Here it only means that he wanted to pursue his j~nAnayoga as a sannyAsi, as per the God's will.

[If so, this would also imply that jnana yoga => life in sannyasa ashrama

KT: No, as in the case of many dAsas, Rishis, et al, who are j~nAna yogis, but not sannyAsis.

and karma yoga => life in grhastha ashrama]

KT: A word of caution: A combination of all three are needed. Karma is needed in all the stages. Remember

"kurvanneveha karmANi jijIvishhechchhatam.h samAH |

evaM tvayi nAnyatheto.asti na karma lipyate nare || 2||"

(IshAvAsya). For meaning see

http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/shruti/isha/ibtcomm_tot.pdf

Thus even for aparoxaj~nAnis, karma is mandatory.

One must do karma(or prescribed duties) entire life, with the anusandhAna or understanding that it is God's worship, and there by acquire j~nAna (right knowledge about God), expressing bhakti, with the sole goal of reaching God, by God's grace.

The triad (karma, j~nAna, bhakti) is meant for sAdhana, sampAdana and samprakaTana or action, acquisition and accent. As mentioned in some of the prior mails, j~nAna and bhakti always coexist. Karma is always needed to acquire j~nAna and to express bhakti.

On the other hand there can be gR^ihastas, who also have chosen j~nAnayoga (like the sage vashishhTa).

I am sorry - I do not understand how VashishhTa's life was different from say Kashyapa or Atri's. Are they also jnana yogis?

KT: I wrote "like the sage VashishhTa", which is just an example. My intention was, by no means, to give an exhautive list of all gR^ihastas, who are j~nAnayogis. If I had mentioned "like the sage vashishhTa, Kashyapa and Atri", then also a question can pop up "How their lives are different from Yaj~navalkya and Gautama?". To counter a point, one example is enough.

Note that the stage of life and the methodology are two different things. Dharma is based on varNa as well as Ashrama. Thus a gR^ihasta, who chose karma yoga (meaning karma portion is more, but there is mandate of underlying j~nAna and bhakti, which are imporatnt ) is a karma yogi. If he takes to sannyasa ashrama later, he means to go on j~nAna yoga.

Is it possible for a person in sannyasa-ashrama to be called a karma yogi? [Just as you mentioned an example of a jnana yogi in grhastha ashrama, are there also examples of karma yogis in sannyasa ashrama - this would truly show that ashrama and yoga are independent].

KT: I gave the analogy that all the squares are rectangles, but not the other way.To prove the point, we show a rectangle that is not a square. If someone says "now show me a square that is not a rectangle", the whole point is lost. In the prior mail I wrote "Those adopting sanyasa ashrama have chosen the path of jnana yoga".

To understand that ashrama and yoga are different, note the following. There are four ashramas and we are discussing two yogas. That means you can't do one to one mapping. In general, this is how it is. Brahmacharya and gR^ihasta are for karmayoga and vAnaprastha and sannyAsa are for j~nAnayoga. If any gR^ihasta is also following j~nAnayoga, probably, you can imagine that they have taken up "vAnaprastha way of life".

This is to give the idea how the ashramas are different from yogas. Its purpose is only that and not to drive the point who is who.

One doubt that I have been having for a long time is regarding verses 3.1 and 5.1 of Gita.

In 3.1, Arjuna asks Krishna that since Krishna had put jnana above karma in Chapter 2, why should he do karma at all. In chapters 3 and 4, Krishna explains that for a karma yogi, karma and jnana go together and karma is a necessary means for jnana.

However, in 5.1, again Arjuna seems to ask the same question - about sannyasa and yoga.

[..]

3. I am not clear about the difference between 3.1 and 5.1 - is Arjuna repeating the same question in 5.1 which he raised earlier? What is the difference? Arjuna is not a dumb person to ask the same question.

KT: Arjuna gets confused as to which path is of shreyas as Krishna has praised both Sanyaasa and karmayoga. He requests Krishna which one he has to follow.

In # 5.1 Arjuna gets mixed up with karma sannyAsa and karma yoga as referring to two ashrama-s.

In # 5.2, Krishna clarifies that he is not referring to the ashrama-s but talking about nishkAma karma.

There are two things involved in nishkama karma:

1. Giving up kAma, kroddha, attachment etc.

2. Execution of karma.

Karma sannyasa means giving up of kAma, kroddha etc., and with these qualities executing the karma is karmayoga. Of the two, execution of karma is lot more shreyas than merely giving up kAma, krodhha etc.

So, here karma sannyAsa is not sannyasa ashrama and Karmayoga is not Grhasthashrama. If the verse is misunderstood as referring to the two ashrama-s lands up in pramAna viroddha -- amounts to saying that sannyaasa ashrama is inferior to Grhasthashrama!

My doubts are:

1. What does a jnana yogi do? From what I understand, he does not go through Grhasthashrama but like Sanaka Kumara, takes sanyasa and performs the karma relevant to sannyasa-ashrama. A karma yogi goes through the worldly grhasthaashrama and performs the karma relevant to it. Both karma yogi and jnana yogi cultivate jnana. Is this correct?

KT: Yes.

If so, does this mean that the ashta-matha sannyasis who took bala-sannyasa [without going through grhasthaashrama] are on the path of jnana yoga?

KT: sannyAsi-s who follow yatidharma [yatipranava kalpa] -- kAya, manasa, vaacha as prescribed by Acharya are on the path of j~nAna yoga in that janma.

Pls. note that Acharya gave sannyAsa dIxa to some of his disciples but never 'established any maTha' or made his sishya-s head of institutions. It is during the later days that the sishya-s of these yati-s got to be referred as belonging to that particular village/region etc.

What is the difference between sannyasa ashrama for a karma yogi and sanyasa ashrama for a jnana yogi?

KT: I don't understand the question.

2. Does one who take to jnana yoga already have jnana? Or is he cultivating jnana? If he already has jnana, is it paroksha or aparoksha?

KT: I think they have some j~nAna to take that path but that need not be aparoxa.

Jiva-ishwara bheda in Gita Ch 2 verses 16-30

..the first half of the second chapter of Bhagavad Gita, discussing "sankhya" has been interpreted by all other schools as ONLY discussing the difference between body and soul, and as not discussing the difference between the jivatma and paramatma. Indeed, the verses do not directly refer to the the Lord as such by naming Him.

KT: 1. While it is important to note the difference between the body and the soul, that alone does not take us too far.

2. The verses 2.13 and 2.14 already not only spoke of such a difference, but also spoke of eternality of the soul and temporary nature or impermanence of the body. Why should the same concept be repeated in all the verses and what will be its purpose?

3. There are several aspects, which other schools missed and which our acharya Madhva has demonstrated, utilizing etymologies, grammatical intricacies, contextual significance and providing further support by scriptural quotes.

4. The verses do refer, in most cases indirectly, to the difference between jIvAtma and Paramatma. The obvious question that comes to our mind is "why not directly? why indirectly?". The answer for that is also furnished in BG itself like

"iti guhyatamaM shAstramidamuktam mayAnagha" 15.20

"O sinless one, this treatise of most secret divine knowledge has been instructed by me".

Since I first read this interpretation, which looks reasonable when you look at it superficially, I am having difficulties appreciating Srimad Acharya's interpretation of this section.

KT: Superficial meaning for these does not look reasonable at all for the above reasons and also for more detailed reasons as given below.

1. Why sankhya means jiva-ishwara-bheda-jnana. Because the etymological meaning of sankhya is just enumeration - and it reflects the enumeration of the 24 material elements, along with the soul. Of course, Krishna also does not enumerate all the 24 elements here, but then why does He call this section sankhya?

KT: The etymology for sAnkhya and yoga are as follows

"samyak.h khyAtiH j~nAnaM sAnkhyaM | ujyate aneneti yogaH tadupAyaH".

"samyak.h tatvadR^ishIH sAnkhyaM yogaH tatsAdhanaM smR^itamh".

SAnkhya means just true tatvajn~na. That is all. jiva-ishwara-bheda-jnana is only part of it. What good is it merely listing the 24 elements? Such listing may be available from other sources and Arjuna will be pretty much aware of that. May be for that reason or what ever be the reason, Lord Krishna did not bother listing them out either.

How is the difference between jiva and ishwara an "enumeration"?

KT: It is not, nor the goal is enumeration.

2. How do we conclusively establish that the difference between jivatma and paramatma is explained in this section? [particularly from 2.16 to 2.30]

KT: As far as verse 2.16, a brief comparative analysis and an argument justifying our Acharya's interpretation has been given before.

Let us first see verse 17 (avinAshi tu tadvidhi...) and then go to verse 18 (antavanta ime dehAH...)

Literal trans: Know that one, by whom all this is pervaded, to be indestructible; no one will be able to cause the destruction of this imperishable.

How can a tiny jIva be all-pervading?

VisishtAdvaita takes refuge by saying that this universe is pervaded collectively by jivas, as they are everywhere.

This is far-fetched and also goes against the shruti statements like Lord alone being present at the very beginning, etc.

Advaita takes refuge by saying Brahman (non-different from jIva pervades everywhere). The context itself goes against all that as Lord is giving upadesha to Arjuna. However they may try to retrofit all this using vyAvaArika mumbo-jumbo.

Thus the natural meaning is that the Lord is all-pervading and indestructible. Why were two words "avyaya" and "avinAshi" used? "avyaya" means it has no "vyaya" (diminution)? If it cannot even be diminished, where is the question of destroying it? Thus even curse, etc, can not cause any harm to the jIva. Just like the Lord the jIva is also indestructible. Acharya Madhva does not exclude jIva altogether, but constantly reminds its shortcomings. In this verse where does Sri Krishna differentiate Lord and jIva ? This is done by the usage of "tu". Only the Lord is free from all 4 kinds of destructibility(anityatva, dehahAni, duHkhaprapti, apUrNatA). Jiva is free from only one (anityatva). Thus there is difference in the kind of "avinAshitva" of the two.

Thus while Ramanuja sees this verse to describe only jIva and Shankara sees this as describing only Brahman, our Acharya sees in dual sense describing

1. the dependent eternal entities (in limited sense) and

2. the immanent, immortal and immutable Independent Brahman in the absolute sense

The etymology for sAnkhya and yoga are as follows

"samyak.h khyAtiH j~nAnaM sAnkhyaM | ujyate aneneti yogaH tadupAyaH".

"samyak.h tatvadR^ishIH sAnkhyaM yogaH tatsAdhanaM smR^itamh".

Could you please translate these two sentences,

KT: I did. Both of them mean "SAnkhya means just true tatvajn~Ana." (what I wrote in earlier mail).

Some of the meanings for samyak are:

entire; whole; complete; all; "all together"; correct; accurate; proper; true; right; uniform; pleasant; agreeable; straight; complete; thorough; by all means; correct; fitly; in the right way or manner; well; duly; distinctly; clearly.

(na samyak = by no means; not at all, etc.)

khyAtiH = j~nAnaM

KhyAti can be seen in Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary (where it is given):

"perception , knowledge Yogas. Tattvas"

yogaH tadupAyaH = yogaH tatsAdhanaM = Yoga is the methodology used to obtain such knowledge.

Also, is there any relationship between the words sAnkhya and sankhyA? The Hindi meaning of sankhyA is just enumeration.

KT: Yes sankhya and sAnkhya are related, but sankhya also, by the same etymology, has several meanings. Hindi (and likewise a few other languages) borrowed only one of those meanings (which is number or enumeration) from Sanskrit.

In the interpretation where Acharya says that both the Lord and mula-prakrti are eternal, I did not understand some contextual issues:

1. Why on earth should Arjuna get the doubt if there are other eternal entities, besides the jiva as described in 2.12? Krishna has just started speaking, and right after one or two verses, to get such a technical doubt when he is in so much of grief is incomprehensible.

KT: It is not a technical doubt, but is vital doubt. If the examples given are not convincing, one will lose faith in what is told.

Also isn't it a natural flow? In verse 12, Lord Krishna says:

"There was never a time when I was not there, you were not there, these kings were not there; nor will there be a time even in future (implying eternality)".

Of course Lord Krishna just started speaking. First He chastised Arjuna for saying ridiculous statements and for worrying needlessly and then says the above.

The questions that pop up for a common man are:

1. Why on earth should I believe that all the souls are eternal?

2. We see by pratyaxa, lot of those kings in the battle field will be killed. Even if it is taken that souls and bodies are different, where is the guarantee that the souls are eternal?

3. Where is the guarantee that any such eternal entity exists? What if nothing is eternal?

4. I am not able to perceive or know myself (or my own soul). How do I know "I exist, different from my body and I am eternal"?

5. Even if I grant all these are eternal, why should I fight this war? What has eternality to do with my fighting this war?

All these questions are not at all answered, even with a small level of conviction, in any of the other schools, be it Advaita or V.Advaita or Gaudiya, or any

other.

Even if it is all vyAvahArika, still why should one fight the war? If only jIva is being talked about, then what makes Arjuna fight the war?

Our Acharya gets to the root of this problem.

The purport of Lord krishna's words to Arjuna:

"If you do not see yourself as eternal. I am eternal. If you do no perceive my eternality, there is this primordial matter, which is eternal. If you do not see that, the changeless space is eternal. If you cannot conceive that, the sounds of the letters are eternal. The changeless space and the sounds of letters also pervade all over. You can surely conceive that thought."

"You are also eternal because you, who is immeasurably small, is but a reflection of the One, Who is immeasurably large. Your own svarUpa constitutes the reflecting medium. The permanence of the Bimba (the Lord) and the permamnence of the reflecting medium (your svarUpa) ensures the permanence of the jIva.

The all pervasiveness of the Lord ensures the absence of dis-contact between the medium and the Bimba and thus the pratibimba is eternal".

Q: Why should Bimba-pratibimba concept be brought in? where is it told?

A: We have to see all the verses to get a hint of it. The entire sequence from verse 11 to verse 53 have to be viewed as one logical piece.

2. Even if he does get, the Lord did mention that He is also eternal in 2.12. So why should He repeat it here, Arjuna shouldn't have a doubt about that.

KT: By the same token, Jiva's eternality is also shown in 2.12. Why should that be repeated here? Further, in lieu of Arjuna's grief and giving a solid reason for Arjuna to fight, it is necessary to keep the flow as will be explained later.

how is mula-prakrti's eternality so crucial to be described at this stage?

KT: To convince that there are other eternal entities.

How can a tiny jIva be all-pervading? V. Advaita takes refuge by saying that this universe is pervaded collectively by jivas, as they are everywhere.

I also have read another translation - which says that pervasion only refers to the body [so the translation is - know that to be indestructible which pervades the

whole body].

KT: This is like going from frying pan to fire. Why will the verse refer "sarvaM idaM" to say "body". It does not make sense to say "entire body" as no where else such a usage can be found. Also there is another problem as pointed below.

But what is not clear is - does the jiva pervade the whole body or not?

KT: The Jainas believe that it is so. This can be refuted as follows. If it pervades the entire body, what happens, when a hand is cut off? Does the jIva gets cut too? Please refer to "achchhedyo.ayamadAhyo.ayam..."(2-24 in Gita).

We know that consciousness does pervade.

KT: Is it? How? Also pervades what?

Is it different from the jiva pervading?

KT: The jIva is very minute in size. Its effect spreads all thru the body. This is compared to a lamp in a room.Though the lamp does not pervade the room, the light from it does.

This is done by the usage of "tu".I did not understand this usage. What is "tu" for?

KT: "tu" is meant to say "and then" or "on the other hand" or a similar kind of contrasting aspects. "avinAshi tat" would mean "that is indestructible". "avinAshi tu tat" would mean "that is indestructible (in some way) and on the other hand that is indestructible (in another way).These are subtle expressions and hard to explain.

"tu" also means "eva" (only). avinAshi tu = nityaM eva = indestructible (eternal) only.

our Acharya sees in dual sense describing 1. the dependent eternal entities (in limited sense) and

2. the immanent, immortal and immutable Independent Brahman in the absolute sense But the first half of the verse, you said, only describes Brahman. But the second half describes both jiva and Brahman? There seems to be arbitrary context switching here.

KT: Not at all. In fact, the first half gives the reason why the second half includes jIva also. Even the first half partially says jIva also. Infact first half describes not only "Brahman", but anything that is indestructible and pervading (like the letter sounds, the primordial space, etc). jIva is eternal (but not pervading). If Brahman is eternal, its reflection, jIva, is also eternal. Thus no one can cause any destruction to this jIva.

Also, a general comment - if these verses have so much intricate meanings, and that too multiple - not just one meaning, how could Arjuna understand them. ALL in the middle of a battlefield while in grief?

KT: Very simple. Arjuna is not like us. He is incarnation of Indra. By the will of God, he had temporary retreat of knowledge. He got back what he temporarily lost. This can be noted by the verse 18-73.

He also says later that he does not remember the things Krishna told him in Bhagavad Gita since he was under tension, and asks Him to repeat, and Krishna speaks Anu Gita then. Do you think he would have understood such esoteric meanings?

KT: Since when do we place the mere mortals and the gods (even though they incarnate as humans, they do possess special abilities) on the same scale?

that is indestructible (in some way) and on the other hand that is indestructible (in another way).

KT: There are four kinds of destruction.

A. anityatva (non-etrnality)

B. DehahAni (Loss of body)

C. dUhkhaprApti (acquiring sorrow)

D. apUrNatA

Jivas are devoid of A, but have B, C and D.

Brahma, vAyu are devoid A and C, but have B and D.

Laxmi is devoid A,B and C, but has D.

Only the Lord is devoid of all four.

The Lord is hinting that Alphabet and Space, which are universal pervaders in space, are also indestructible.These are devoid of A, B and C, but have D.

As a side note, Prabhupada interprets "sarvaM idaM" as entire body. It was already pointed out, how that is a defective interpretation and also loses the real significance of the verse. Further in the same verse, one can see two contradicting statements in the translation by Prabhupada.

S1 : Only the insane man can think of this atomic soul as all-pervading Visnu-tattva

S2: Such atomic particles of the spirit whole are compared to the sunshine molecules. In the sunshine there are innumerable radiant molecules. Similarly, the frag-mental parts of the Supreme Lord are atomic sparks of the rays of the Supreme Lord, called by the name prabha or superior energy.

This atleast drives the need for the "bimba-pratibimba bhAva" as told in Upanishads.

Also how can anyone simply say that a simple translation is good enough. See the one below by Prabhupada:

avinasi = imperishable;

tu = but;

tat = that;

viddhi = know it;

yena = by whom;

sarvam = all of the body;

idam = this;

tatam = pervaded;

vinasam = destruction;

avyayasya = of the imperishable;

asya = of it; na

kascit = no one;

kartum = to do;

arhati = is able.

"Imerishableness" or "indestructibility" has been spoken of three times in the same verse. This is highly redundant. No explanation has been given for such redundancy.

To get out of this, one has to know that avyaya means immutable or undiminishable.

"avinAshi" implies "absence of svAbhAvikanAsha" "vinAshaM na kartuM arhati" implies "absence of naimittikanAsha (like by curse, or any external agent or any adventitious cause)."

Now coming to verse 18 (the simple translation is):

antavanta = perishable;

ime = these;

dehAH = bodies;

nityasya = of the eternal;

uktAH = are said;

sharIriNaH = of the embodied (jIvAs);

anAshinaH = of the imperishable;

aprameyasya = of the immeasurable or omnipresent or one resembling that;

tasmAt = therefore;

yudhyasva = do you fight;

bhArata = O Arjuna.

Difficulties.

1. The immortality of soul and perishableness of body has already been stated in the verses 12 and 13. Why repeat that here?

2. Even within this verse itself, Nityasya and anAshinaH mean the same. Is that not Redundant?

3. sharIriNo dehAH = bodies of embodied. What does this mean? It is as if the non-embodied also can have bodies. Is it not true that only embodied can have bodies? If so, why say like this? No such two kinds of bodies (bodies of embodied and bodies of non-embodied).

4. Aprameyasya = of the unknowable. Jiva is knowable thru self-consciousness. God is knowable thru vedas. So why is this told here?

5. Also the original question. Even if it were the case that an immortal soul is her in this perishable body, why should Arjuna fight the war?

With these questions in the backdrop, let us analyze some of the expressions used.

a. ime = these.

This is used to differentiate gross bodies with svarUpa dehas.

Let us think of "reflection" to see if there is any relevance to bring it in here.

Any reflection needs three things

- medium (like a mirror), original (like a person) and contact (the peron being in front of mirror; if the person is not in the purview of the mirror, there can be no reflection).

The combined effect of nityasya and anAshinaH is to impress on upAdhi (medium and its permanence and so the permanence of reflection.)

Lord is saying

"Though you are eternal, these gross bodies that you bear are perishable. There is One Who is eternal and whose body (non-different from Him) is also eternal. Your eternality springs from the fact that you are His reflection. The upAdhi or medium for that is your own svarUpadeha. He is omnipresent (aprameya) and so there can never be a break in contact. These gross bodies can not be the medium. It is told that you are His (nityasya) meaning that you are His reflection. Therefore do your duty to please Him Who is all perfect. Your duty is to fight the war against the evil.Therefore do you fight."

Now we found answers to above questions.

1. This verse is carrying forward what is conveyed in 12 and 13, by bringing in the ownership of the Lord (nityasya uktAH). So no repetition here.

2. Your nityatva comes from the fact that the Original (Lord) is eternal (meaning He is real anAshi). So no redundancy here.

3. These bodies of you are perishable, but the ones inside are non-perishable and so can form the medium. (meaning the medium, which is svarUpadeha is eternal).

4. His aprameyatva (omnipresence) ensures eternal contact. He cannot be fully known and jIva cannot know him self or anything about Him without His grace.

5. This precipitates the point that to earn His grace one must do what pleases Him. That is to do the Dharma yuddha.

Other interpretations do not answer these questions anywhere near the satisfaction.

...the interpretation of Srimad Acharya is totally non-obvious.

KT: If we go with only obvious or superficial meanings, then the superficial meanings of mahavakyas also need to be taken.

You probably know also that SMS Chari's Bhagavad Gita also would criticize this view of Sri Madhva.

KT: Did SMS Chari try to answer the above five questions? Is he specific as to what exactly is his problem with Sri Madhva's interpretation, instead of vaguely saying that "it is far-fetched". Advaitis said the same thing about V. advaita also.

This section, which seemed so simple to understand earlier, has for me become the most difficult to appreciate from Srimad Acharya's bhashya.

KT: Neither the fear of complexity nor the love for simplicity be allowed to lead to the sacrifice of the real purport of Lord's words. How to know which is that real purport as every one claims that he is saying Gita as is? The litmus test is that it must have inter consistency and consistency with the rest of the scriptures. "OM tattu samanvayAt.h OM".

Before continuing, let me clarify a couple of things for verse 18.

This verse only utilizes the "bimba-pratibimba bhAva" as told in Upanishads. It does not explicitly says "the bimba pratibimba bhAva". Utilization of that thought itself is confirmation.

For ex. Kathakopanishad says:

ekastathA sarvabhUtAntarAtmA rUpaM rUpaM pratirUpo bahishcha

The All-pervading Lord, who is the antaryAmi of all the jIvas, is only One with such Supremacy. Every jIva is the reflection of one of His forms and is different from Him.

Now coming to verse 18 (I am repeating the following simple translation from prior posting for continuity):

antavanta = perishable;

ime = thse;

dehAH = bodies;

nityasya = of the eternal;

uktAH = are said;

sharIriNaH = of the embodied (jIvAs);

anAshinaH = of the imperishable;

aprameyasya = of the immeasurable or omnipresent or one resembling that;

tasmAt = therefore;

yudhyasva = do you fight;

bhArata = O Arjuna.

KT: sharIriNaH nityasya ime dehAH antavanta uktAH

"These bodies of the embodied eternal entity are perishable - so are they told".

If only "nityasya ime dehAH antavanta" is told, then an objection may have been raised "Lord is eternal and so His body also may be perishable. To exclude Him (and also to exclude Laxmi) from having a perishable body, the expression "sharIriNaH" is used. The bodies of "embodied ones only" are perishable.

Now "anAshinaH" and "aprameyasya" are also in genitive case (ShaShTI vibhakti) just like "sharIriNaH" and "nityasya". So the natural question that comes to one's mind is whether these have to be taken for jIva or for the Lord.

As always, our Acharya never spares anything and gives the interpretation in both ways.

In tAtparya, he gives the primary meaning by interpreting "anAshinaH" and "aprameyasya" wrt the Lord. While jIva is nitya (meaning he does not have svarUpa nAsha), the Lord is anAshi (devoid of all 4 kinds of nAsha). While jIva is sharIri (embodied), the Lord is aprameya(all pervading).

The contrast is striking. Thus the Lord is worth-worshipping and as His pUja, do fight to please the Lord.

"tasmAt.h anAshinaH aprameyasya [vishhNoH pUjArthaM] yudhhyasva".

As one can note "vishhNoH pUjArthaM" is adhyAhAra, based on the context.

In Bhashya, Acharya gives the secondary meaning by interpreting "anAshinaH" and aprameyasya" wrt the jIva. Then the natural questions that comes to ones mind is

1. Doesn't this contradict what is told in tAtparya?

2. Is it not punarukti (redundancy) to use "nitya" and "anAshi" for jIva?

1A. Bhashya and tAtparya are not contradictory. Two alternate explanations are given.

2A. The upanishadic statements have to be remembered here. Jiva is pratirUpa or pratibimba of the Lord. If someone bring in an objection that the upAdhi (or reflector) is physical body and when the body is destroyed, the jIva also gets destroyed, that is answered by saying "No, the sthUladeha is not the reflector, but the svarUpadeha itself is the reflector". If the objectioner says "ok, but what if there is dissociation between reflector and the object? Then the reflection ceases to exist". That is answered by saying that the object (here the Lord) is all-pervading and so there is never a disconnect.

"nitya" signifies that here is no destruction related to the reflector. "anAshi" signifies there is no destruction even due to any special causes (like a curse, etc.).

"Because your nityatva is due to His grace, it is but your duty to fight the war to please Him."

There is a shloka from the Bhagavad Gita which I have often seen quoted in favor of Dvaita:

asatyam apratishTham te jagadaahuranIshvaram |

aparasparasambhUtam kimanyatkAma haitukam || 16-8

The meaning given being "Those [demoniacal people] say that the universe is unreal, without basis, and Godless, not brought about by things related as cause & effect, but caused by Karma/avidya."

There are Advaitic commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. Couldn't an Advaitic interpretation be given just as easily ? "Those [demoniacal people] say that the *basis* for this world is unreal ..."

I think it would be more profitable to look at the actual comm. of Sri Shankara and his commentator Anandagiri, rather than to speculate about possible Advaitic interpretations. In the event, Shankara interprets the verse as criticizing the chArvAka school of materialism. It is not obvious to me how `asatyaM apratishhTham.h' could mean "the basis is unreal," in place of "is unreal, and without basis." For the meaning suggested, perhaps `pratishhThAnaM asatyam.h' or some such usage would be appropriate.

KT: It is interesting to note that the thread was started with the question as to how Advaitins interpret the above verse as against Dvaitic interpretation and/or that Advaitis can as easily interpret as Dvaitis. In the same thread further down, yet another question was raised by the same person as to why there are many works in Dvaita for refuting Advaita compared to refuting others. The answer to the second question lies partly in the original question as the comparison was sought against Advaita only and not against others. Maximum extent of misinterpretation of Vedas and upanishads and other works was done by Advaita. So, the need to refute all such interpretations led to maximum works for refuting Advaita.

Secondly, the argument that all kinds of wrong knowledge lead to Advaita is also not tenable as then there is no need to refute so many schools and the refutation of Advaita along with the statement that all wrong knowledge leads to Advaita would have been sufficient.

I shall attempt to give both Advaitic and Dvaitic interpretation and one can note what a difference it makes.

Advaita interpretation to above verse:

Shankara bhAshhya:

kiJNcha - asatyeti | asatyaM yathA vayamanR^itaprAyAstathedaM

jagatsarvamasatyamapratishhThaM cha nAsya dharmAdharmau

pratishhThAto.apratishhThaM cheti ta AsurA janA jagadAhuranIshvaraM nacha

dharmAdharmasavyapexako.asya shAsiteshvaro vidhyata ityato.anIshvaraM

jagadAhuH | kiJNchAparasparasambhUtaM kAmaprayuktayoH strIpurushhayo\-

ranyonyasaMyogAjjagatsarve sambhUtam.h | kimanyatkAmahaitukaM kAmahe\-

tukameva kAmahaitukaM kimanyajjagataH kAraNaM na kiJNchadadR^ishhTaM

dharmAdharmAdi kAraNantaraM vidyate jagataH kAma eva prANinAM kAraNamiti

lokAyatikadR^ishhTiriyam.h || 8||

Anandagiri vyAkhyAna :

asurAnAM janAnAM visheshhaNAntarANyapi santItyAha - kiJNcheti | vidyata

ityAhuriti pUrveNa sambandhaH | shAstraikagamyamadR^ishhTaM nimittIkR^i\-

tya prakR^ityadhishhThAtrAtmakena brahmaNA rahitaM jagadishhyate chetkathaM

tadutpattirityAshakyAha-kiJNcheti | kimanyadityAxepasya tAtparyamAha- na

kiJNchediti || 8||

Based on these the following points are noted :

"asatyaM" (false) and "apratishhTaM"(absence of steadfastness) have to be seen with reference to previous verse ("pravR^ittiM cha nivR^ittiM cha..."), which means "The demonic people know neither what to abide by nor what to refrain from. There exists no purity, no good conduct and no truthfulness in them". Thus the prior verse (no. 7) speaks of veda prAmANyata.

Thus verse 8 means :

Those Asuric people say "Just as the veda prAmANyata (validity of vedas) is false, the world is false. Also one cannot establish the steadfastness in vedas. Thus the Lordship of the universe is not established or the universe is without a Super-Lord. Then how does the creation come about? What else? It is only by the mutual attraction resulting from lust".

What is striking is Advaita seems to oppose the thought that the "world is false", but it lapses into the thought that the "world is "sat asat viveka" or "mithya" which is defined as something different from truth and falsehood. Thus it has an element of self-contradiction since it opposes the statement "world is false" and also it opposes statement "world is true".

Let us see how all this confusion is removed and how it is done with Pramanas by our Acharya.

Sri Madhva bhashhya:

jagataH satyaM, pratishhThA iishhvarashcha vishhNuH |

tadvaiparityena AhuH | tasyopanishhat.h satyasya satyamiti |

prANA vai satyaM | teshhAM eshha satyaM || iti hi shrutiH |

dve vAva brahmaNo rUpe mUrtaM chAmUrtam cha sthitaM cha

yachcha sachcha tyachcheti | tasyopanishhat.h satyasya

satyamiti eshha hyeva etat.h sAdayati yAmayati cheti |

iti prAchiinashAlAshrutiH |

paraspara sambhavo hyuktaH 'annAdbhavanti bhUtAni' ityAdinA |

Meaning:

Lord Vishnu is "satya", "pratishhTA" and Ishvara of the universe. Here "satya" means "samhArakarta" (Annihilator); "pratishhThA" means creator and Ishvara means Lord. The demonic people say the opposite namely Vishnu is not the annihilator, Vishnu is not the creator and Vishnu is not the Lord. Also they don't agree for the cyclic process of "karma, yaj~na, sun, rain, food, progeny", as mentioned in the verse 14 of 3rd chapter of BG ('annAdbhavanti bhUtAni...').

Acharya explains the word "satya" from shruti vakyas. Shruti proclaims that Vishnu is known as "satya" of "satya". This universe created by Brahma consists of things with form and things without form. Things with form are known as "sthita" or "sat.h" and things without form are known as "tyat.h". Combination of the two will be "satya", which is the name for the universe. How Vishnu is known as "satya" of the universe is explained by "prAchiinashAlAshruti". "sat.h" means "sAdayati" or destroys/annihilates. "ya" means "yAmayati" or controls. Lord Vishnu annihilates and controls the universe. Thus "satya" of "saty" becomes the secret name of Lord Vishnu.

Sri Raghavendra tiirtha explains:

"yadvA jagadasatyaM satyaM na mithyerthaH | ata eva

shuktirUpyavanna pratitishhThatiityapratishhThaM

j~nAnabAdhyaM | aniishvaraM niyantR^ihiinaM |

aparasparasambhUtaM parebhyaH sambhavahiinaM |

ekasmAdekasya janirneti yAvat.h | kiM tarhiiti

prashnasyottaraM ||anyaditi || sadasadvilaxaNamityarthaH |

kena jAyata ityata uktaM | kAmahaitukaM kAmahetvavidyA\- pariNAmarUpam.h |"

[The demonic people say that] the universe is not real hence an illusion, consequently cannot be established like silverness of the shell, not revealed to the wise, without the Lord, not born out of mutual cyclic process - then how did it come about. The answer given [by the Asuric people] is "anyat.h" (different) meaning "different from sat.h and asat.h". How did this "sat.h asat.h vilaxanatva" come about ? It is on account of "avidya".

It is obvious that the assertion/statement made by the Asuric people has to be rejected. The interpretation of the assertion of the Asuric people is critical and the readers can easily assess where the strength of argument and elucidation lies.

I have read and heard that AchArya Madhva interprets verses 8.23-27 as not recommending a time to quit the body (after all, we don't have control over it) but describing the various abhimAni-devatAs one encounters along the two paths.

KT: First of all let us look at the two interpretations -

1. AchArya Madhva's interpretation, which says that there are two paths thru the lokas of abhimAni devatas as listed and the path that the jIva takes after it quits the body, determines the return or no-return (even that only if jIva remembers that as confirmed by the Brahma sUtra "OM yoginaH prati smaryete smArte chaite OM").

If such smaraNa is not there, the jIva won't go thru those mArgas. Further, irrespective of time of death, an aparoxa jn~Ani reaches the abode of the Lord (once the sAdhana is complete).

2. Others' interpretation which says that jIva's time of quitting the body determines the return or no-return.

Now with the latter interpretation, let us see what the problems are.

2a. Even in that case, people don't have the choice in deciding the time of quitting the body (Even the great ones like Sri Raghavendra Swami, who did Brindavana pravesha, they obeyed the Lord's decision. Interestingly,the day of Rayaru's Brindavana pravesha is on Shravana Krishna DvitIya, which is in Daxinayana, indicating that such a popular interpretation of "time of death" is not Rayaru's purport either.) Otherwise, the ones who believe in "time of death" interpretation may have to resort to suicidal means, which is a great sin also.

2b. In verse 24, Agni and Jyoti are mentioned, which are not indicative of time. In verse 25, dhUma (smoke) is mentioned, which is not indicative of time. So, that whole "time of death" interpretation collapses right there.

2c. In verse 24, AhaH (Day), Shukla paxa, six months and Uttarayana are mentioned. Are they "exclusive or" or "inclusive or" or "a compounding and"? Any of these approaches will lead to difficulty, as "Day" is part of "Shukla paxa", which is part of the six months, which actually constitute Uttarayana. Similarly in verse 25, rAtri (night), Krishna paxa, six months and DaxinAyana are mentioned. The same kind of problem is here as night is part of Krishna paxa", which is part of the six months, which actually constitute Daxinayana.

2d. There is a quote from shruti "atha yo daxiNe pramIyate pitR^iNAmeva mahimAnaM...tasmat.h brahmaNo mahimAnamApnoti" and another quote from PadmapurANa "vidvAn.h brahma samApnoti yatra tatra mR^ito.api san.h", which indicate that an aparoxa jn~Ani reaches the abode of the Lord (once the sAdhana is complete), irrespective of time of death.

Acharya Madhva's interpretation does not have any of these difficulties.

However, this raises the question of why Arjuna (or we) should know about these paths. Is it that a brahma-jnyAni will face this choice between the two paths? If so, how?

KT: This has been answered in Gita itself in verse 27. Lord Krishna says: "One who knows these two paths (and thereby adopts the appropriate karmAnushThana along with devotion to the Lord, seeking the grace of the Lord), will not be deluded whatsoever at the time of leaving the body (will not undergo the delusion, caused by the absence of Bhagavat smaraNa).That is why, oh Arjuna, adopt the appropriate means/path of knowledge. (Engage yourself in the jnAna bhakti pUrvaka prescribed duty of fighting the war against the evil Kauravas)."

Question on Gita vivruti 1.1

pANDavAnAM bhagavat-priyatvam = That the Pandavas are dear to Lord Krishna

sarva-sAxikam api = sarva-loka sAxikam api = though known very clearly to everyone

ajAnan dhR^itarAShTraH = could not be seen by Dhritarashtra

svaputrANAm vijaya-vividiShayA = With hope put on the victory of his own sons

sa~njayam paprachCha = he asked Sanjaya this question

KT: According to Rayaru, the mindset of DhritarAshtra, when he asked Sanjaya "kim akurvata?" is that he had the hope of victory.

Because of VyAsa's blessings, Sanjaya came to know every detail of the battle, including what people were thinking in their minds. Be it events of the day or night, everything could be seen by Sanjaya. No weapon could harm Sanjaya, nor could he get tired.Upon seeing the battle first-hand, Sanjaya comes to the worried Dhritarashtra and narrates the events of the battle from the beginning.

KT: So, another point to note is that DhritarAshtra did not want to see directly, but wanted to hear about the battle from the divine vision given to Sanjaya.

The Mahabharata describes that Sanjaya was narrating the events of the battle only after Bhishma fell in the battle.

KT: This is against all pramANa-s and goes against common sense and conflicts with the above commentary of Rayaru. How? If Dhritarashtra asked this question after knowing the death of Bhishma, then where is the question of his having high hopes?

If the battle had been fought in accordance with dharma, then Bhishma would not have fallen.

KT: This is absurd. It is repeated several times "yato kR^ishhNastato jayaH". Even hundred Bhishmas have no chance against the Lord's decision. If one argues that Dhritarashtra was blind to Lord's supremacy, such a person must also be aware that Dhritarashtra was also blind to DharmadR^ishhTi by supporting "mAyAdyUta". He has no right to question in this line at all.

KT: Even granting all that, if that were the intent of DhritarAshtra's question, how come Sanjaya, who was granted divine vision by Sri VedavyAsa, failed to see the intent of Dhritarashtra, which today's commentators are able to see and goes on answering something else?

.. is against the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata, which mentions that Sanjaya returned to Dhritarashtra only after Bhishma had fallen after 10 days of the battle, and first informed him of the same, so there could not be a doubt in Dhritarashtra's mind about whether the battle took place or not.

KT: It is such a flimsy argument to rely on the physical order in the Mahabharata or the type of bhUtakAla indicated by the word "akurvata".

Acharya condemns such approach in MBTN. There are occasions where kAlavyatyAsa is made. It is called "pratilomatA" or "prAtilomya".

AchArya says:

"kvachinmohAyAsurANAM vyatyAsaH pratilomatA uktA grantheshhu tasmAddhi nirNayo.ayaM kR^tA mayA"

Then the questions that pop up are "Did Acharya mention this in case of Gita? How can we say that only some are mentioned? If only some are mentioned, then how to determine others?", etc

The simple answer to this is that Acharya mentioned a few with reasoning and other means and we have to determine others with similar approach/reasoning.

Sri VadirAja comments:

"prAtilomyapadena auttarakathAyAH pUrvaM kathanamuchyate |

yathA daxiNagograhaNAtpUrvaM uttaragograhaNasya kathanaM | ..."

"By the word prAtilomya, the latter incident is told earlier and viceversa like mentioning uttara-gograhaNa prior to daxiNa-gograhaNa."

To expel the doubts of people about their trust in such instances, he says:

"uchyamAnakathAyAH sattvena vAkyasya nApramANyaM"

"By the strength of the narration of the story, the non-validity of the narration is not the case."

Why it is done so? He answers that too.

"kvachidalpaj~nAnAM buddhimanukUlayituM sUchIkatAha\-

nyAyena alpAyA uttarakathAyAH pUrvaM kathanasambhavAchcha |"

"Sometimes, to accommodate the intellect of the less capable ones, the smaller incident is told prior to the bigger one like the maxim of needle and the kettle."

Now in case of the question whether Sanjaya told Dhritarashtra only after 10 days after returning from the battle field or was it told in real-time mode, we need to look at the following.

1. A king is also called chArachaxu (because he has the spies and messengers as his eyes). So Dhritarashtra must have shunned all the messengers for 10 days so that he can get a complete picture from Sanjaya or he must have gotten the messages from others all those 10 days anyway and gotten more details (which are not available to those chAras).

A simple analogy for this is like saying to someone, who is very hungry "I will give you pancha bhaxa-s after 10 days and you starve until then or you keep eating some junk food for 10 days and after 10 days get this meal with pancha bhaxa-s."

This sounds ridiculous.

2. Sri VedavyAsa offers divine vision to DhritarAshtra so that he can see directly what is happening. He does not take that offer because he does not like to see his sons death directly. So the divine vision is given to Sanjaya so that he can narrate to Dhritarashtra. If Sanjaya does not narrate the battle as running commentary what is the purpose of the whole thing?

3. See the psychology point of view. In one way, Dhritarashtra is the root cause (from Laukik sense) for the war itself. It is the putravyAmoha that blinded him. How can he be in total oblivion for 10 days, without knowing the fate of his sons and the state of war. He had to hold an empty plate despite the what was granted by Sri Vedavyasa? Did his putra vyAmoha vanish or was he helpless in getting information from Sanjaya?

4. What was Sanjaya doing in the battlefield for ten days? Was he merely collecting information or was he also fighting the war? It is not the latter as there is no mention of it anywhere? If it is the former, looks like there is some limit in the divine vision given by Sri VedavyAsa! To see the battle first-hand, he has to go to the battlefield? What a pity? people are enamored by the statement "no weapon could harm Sanjaya", but ignoring the bigger picture of his capacity to see the battle by being next to Dhritarashtra? Are they trying to use the invulnerability of Sanjaya and in the bargain sacrificing every other reasoning?

5. Look at the order of incidents in the prior chapters. Sanjaya returns from the battlefield and gives the news of Bhishma's fall and Dhritarashtra bewails a lot and then suddenly Dhritarashtra asks "dharmaxetre kuruxetre samavetA...", as if he is hit with total amnesia - a total fresh look at the beginning of the battle! What does that mean?

6. If one still persists that Sanjaya told Gita only after 10 days and after the fall of Bhishma, how come there is no mention of any of the past events during Gita narration. One can just put oneself in the scene. If the above were true, for instance, while mentioning "tasya sanjanayan harshhaM kuruvR^iddhaH pitAmahaH siMhanAdaM vinadyochchaiH...", atleast a casual mention would certainly be made to his being on the bed of arrows or the like. But, no. How come in the entire Gita, there is not one word mentioned by Sanjaya about the past 10 day events, especially in the first chapter? It is understandable in the latter chapters, there is less scope for that.

7. As Sri Rayaru mentioned, despite all the words of Sri Krishna, there was lingering hope in the mind of Dhritarashtra, when he asked "Dharmaxetre...". After hearing the news of Bhishma, where is the scope for hope. Even if one makes a claim that he "may be hoping against hope", even then there is not even mention ofany past and no such mention is made by Rayaru either.

8. Due to divine vision, Sanjaya knows the future and knows how long the battle will be. But that is not the case with Dhritarashtra. For all practical purposes, the battle might have been over in 8 days and Duryodhana might have been killed in 8 days itself. Still he was kept in dark and suspense? Why?

9. Sanjaya is the charioteer and constant companion for Dhritarashtra and in most crucial moment, when he is needed most, he was missing for entire 10 days.That is strange!

10. There may have been lot of other people with Dhritarashtra in all those 10 days. They would have conveyed to him what all hear-say that they can catch hold of. He would have sought clarifications for most of those words, but there was no Sanjaya around to make those clarifications either? During those 10 days, there was no battle in the night time. What was Sanjaya doing in the battlefield during nights?

11. It is too much of a kalpanAgaurava to say that until Bhishma's fall, the details were given to Dhritarashtra as "flash-back" and after that it was given on "real-time" basis. If he can give the latter one on real-time mode, why not earlier one also. If for the earlier one, it was mandatory that Sanjaya has to go to the field,how come it is not so, for the latter one as well?

One can go on and on. Except for the physical occurrence of the chapters in Mahabharata, there is not a single supporting statement to say that Sanjaya narrated only after 10 days after Bhishma's fall.

That argument can easily be thrown out of the window with "prAtilomya".

A simple logical approach will be this. Sanjaya narrated all the events real-time only using the divine vision bestowed by Sri VedavyAsa. After the mention of Bhishma's fall, he would have taken leave of Dhritarashtra, gone to the field, paid respects to him and returned the same day. The reason for the prAtilomya is as per the maxim of needle and kettle. When someone has to make a needle and kettle (from molten iron), he may make the needle first (get it out of the way) and then get to making the kettle. Similarly the smaller incident of Sanjaya returning from the battle and Dhritarashtra bewailing over Bhishma's fall are mentioned earlier and then the important Gita narration is mentioned.

Sri Haridas Bhat specifically criticized Madhusudana Saraswati for thrusting the doubt of whether the battle happened or not on Dhritarashtra, giving the reason that Bhishma had already fallen, so where was the question of uncertainty of fighting.

KT: The logistics of MS regarding the uncertainity of fighting is very likely to be defective. That is not the point here. Concluding that Bhishma had already fallen, when Dhritarashtra asked that question, just because of the physical occurrence in the grantha, ignoring the "prAtilomya" completely, is a defective argument. Further if MS is wrong about the live rendering, how come no traditional commentator condemned that?

Your argument is that Bhishma's fall should have crushed all hopes of victory in Dhritarashtra's mind.

KT: No, I did not say "crushed all hopes". I said where is the question of "high hopes". If it is "reduced hopes",then when Rayaru mentioned, this "hope", why did Rayaru not say that "despite Bhishma's fall" or something like that?

...clearly told him his sons will be slaughtered, why should one expect the single event of Bhishma's fall to change that, given that Karna would now enter?

KT: No one said that. In fact human nature is such that until things are completely out, the human being keeps hoping only. The question is what I mentioned above.

is not as if Dhritarashtra's mind worked properly - if it did, he would have rectified the situation long back, and if it didn't,

KT: No one is saying that his mind was working properly or he would want to rectify. The question is after a major setback, if a positive mindset is mentioned,by the very direct rendering nature of Rayaru, he would have mentioned "despite Bhishma's fall" or the like.

then there is no reason to expect Bhishma's fall to change things.

KT: No one is expecting that.

This is absurd. It is repeated several times "yato kR^ishhNastato jayaH". But Dhritarashtra did not understand it. What he thought was of course absurd. But that's what he thought.

KT: We are not talking about Dhritarashtra here. We are talking about Rayaru's comment about Dhritarashtra and his not mentioning "despite Bhishma's fall".

But he does. He says - "In that irresistible bull of Bharata's race, were truth, and intelligence, and policy, to an immeasurable extent. Alas, how was he slain in battle?...how canst thou tell me, O Sanjaya, that that celebrated hero, that great refuge of all, that wise and holy personage who was devoted to the duties of his order and conversant with the truths of the Vedas and their branches, hath been slain?"

KT: That is the point. In the backdrop of it, the exclusive mention of "hope" by Rayaru indicates that Dhritarashtra was unaware of Bhishma's fall at the moment of asking "dharmaxetre..."

Given that he had fallen, the battle may not have been a dharma-yuddha. What was the battle like then? This is the intent of Dhritarashtra's question - "O Sanjaya, please tell me what happened as it is." Even granting all that, if that were the intent of DhritarAshtra's question, how come Sanjaya, who was granted divine vision by Sri vedavyAsa, failed to see the intent of Dhritarashtra, which today's commentators are able to see and goes on answering something else?

Why do you feel that Sanjaya failed to see the intent of Dhritarashtra's question? Dhritarashtra asked him to narrate all the events from the beginning, and that is what Sanjaya did.

KT: Because of too much of KalpanAgaurava. Dhritarashtra is not that incapable to ask a direct question. This is not "a case of cryptic set of statements intending to cause asuramohana". Instead of asking simply "give me all the details thru 'dharmaxetre...'", why did he not (as in the earlier instance) directly ask "How can Bhishma be killed in Dharmayuddha?". Even in all the above questioning that you mentioned his line was "How can some one like Bhishma be killed" and not in the line "how come in dharmayuddha...".

What ever is not mentioned in that elaborate questioning earlier on, why does one wants to somehow retrofit here?

It is such a flimsy argument to rely on the physical order in the Mahabharata or the type of bhUtakAla indicated by the word "akurvata".

The bhUta-kAla is there everywhere from then on. Does that mean that there was not a single live rendering by Sanjaya?

And it is not there before Sanjaya left for the battlefield,

KT: That is because they are description of JambukhaNda, Sudarshana dvipa, etc. How can "vastusthiti" be in past tense? They have to be present tense only.

which is consistent.

KT: Not with the presumption that Sanjaya was never there with Dhritarashtra all thru the duration of war to tell him in real mode and is always flashback only.

If Sanjaya was giving a live telecast commentary, then the barrage of questions asked by Dhritarashtra here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06014.htm) would not make sense - since many of them betray his ignorance about what happened that day.

KT: Not at all. I have stressed a lot on "prAtilomya". The needle like incidents of Dhritarashtra's bewailing, return of Sanjaya from the visit to Bhishma etc. are mentioned earlier on and the crucial Gita and the detailed narration are given later in the grantha (like the kettle).

Such questions would not arise if Sanjaya was giving a live telecast.

KT: Sure, they will. If you notice, they are in the form of bewailing. Don't we come across in our own lives situation where we say "how could I do such a foolish thing?" What is wrong in Dhritarashtra asking al that? That is perfect indication of despair.

The only question he should have had would be about the battle between Shikhandi/Arjuna and Bhishma.

KT: Not necessarily. Just imagine his mental frame then.

Acharya condemns such approach in MBTN. There are occasions where kAlavyatyAsa is made. That may be, but it is not clear to me why there are reasons to suspect that it was made here.

KT: Because of the whole string of events. What is the purpose of the boon given by Vedavyasa, if it is not used what it is meant for?

The order is simple - Sanjaya tells Dhritarashtra that Bhishma has fallen - Dhritarashtra goes into a state of shock, and after expressing his shock, asks Sanjaya to narrate the events right from the beginning. Sanjaya narrates events right from the beginning - the preparation of the army, followed by the Gita, followed by the description of the battle on each day, and the fall of Bhishma.

KT: The big problem is that Sanjaya is absconding for the entire duration and describes all 10 days of war in a few hours and after all the water has flown under the bridge.

Then Sanjaya goes away again.

KT: That is to abscond again or to run to the battlefield to collect info (forgetting about the divyadrishti) or to take part in the war? His role was to convey the events to Dhritarashtra as soon as he can (and due to the boon, it could as well be live).

It is like a person coming and telling you the highlights of a cricket match that took place over 5 days.

KT: If it is cricket match, that will be fine. Even for a cricket match, people go head over heels to have live match rather than "after the event highlights". Will a cricket fan be content if a cricket expert tells him "I will go and take part as a score-keeper in the cricket match and if a major batsman gets out, I will immediately return from the ground and give you highlights and will not come if average batsmen get out, as that means nothing major has happened"?

And here, where the lives and future of Dhritarashtra's sons are at stake, he has to be in suspense, despite the special boon from Sri Vedavyasa? That goes against all logic.This sounds ridiculous.Why is it ridiculous? Since nothing of significance happened, whether or not he got messages from messengers is not relevant,

KT: Why not. Please see the same analogy of cricket match and the above analysis.

as he would know Sanjaya would come at the right time to tell him.

KT: Which is the right time and which is not? You know "right" is a very subjective term. Is this "right" according to Sanjaya or Dhritarashtra? Also, how would he come? By "AkAshagamana or the like" or like any other mortal? If it is former, no such boon was given to him. If it is latter, it does take time.

It also does not make sense for VyAsa to bless Sanjaya with the boon that he would not be hurt by weapons

KT: It makes very perfect sense. I will come to it a bit later.

and would come from the battle alive,

The boon does not say "that he would come from the battle alive". It says "that he will outlive the war". There is a difference.

if Sanjaya was not going to go to the battle.

KT: Please read the mUla that I posted in the other mail. The word "vimoxyate" is used and "nivartate" or the like.

In order to use the "invulnerability", the very purpose of "divyadrishti" is sacrificed.

Now note the following important things.

Sri VedavyAsa's boon to Sanjaya is

1. "divyachaxus".

2. invulnerability from the weapons

3. absence of fatigue

4. outliving the war

Note that "1." is the main boon and the other 3 are only "angabhUta" (subordinate) boons. Why?

What good is "1.", if someone can hurt him? So no external causes can hurt him (either while visiting any one in the battlefield, or partaking in the mantrAlochana in the nights in the shibira or the like). He can do his task to use divyadrishti and narrate to Dhritarashtra in the day-time.

What good is "1.", if he is too tired to narrate? So fatigue does not touch him.

What good is "1.", if he does not outlive the war? So he is unaffected by natural cause of death or the like and outlives war to narrate.

Also note that the boon does not include Akashagamana or the like, which is vital if Sanjaya wishes to take part in the war and rush back to Dhritarashtra at "right" time. Without that, he has to drive his chariot from Kuruxetra to HastinApura (even if it were couple of hours)!

Also what will PAndavas do, if Sanjaya, with such invulnerability enters the battle-field? Then the Lord Krishna has to stage a drama to handle the situation of His own other form of Vedavyasa giving such a boon. No such thing has taken place and to claim that mention of such vital point is omitted is too much of a claim.

Even if Sanjaya, out of humility, did not mention his own performance in the battlefield, why did Vedavyasa did not mention that, which has as its anga His own boon?

Why should it be a running commentary necessarily? Sanjaya's being given divya-chaxu is to understand the details of what went on, why should it necessarily be a running commentary?

KT: Please see your analogy of cricket and my analysis above.

Further, a running commentary also seems impossible, since there would be multiple events of significance happening at the same time, and the narration of Sanjaya shows no such rapid context-switching or interruption of one description suddenly to declare that something of importance has happened elsewhere.

KT: Then by kaimutyanyAya, how can he give the details of 10 days of multiple events in just a few hours (after the return). If you say that he will selectively say important events, the same thing can be told about this too. If his divyadrishti is complete, why is there a need for rapid context-switching or interruption of one description suddenly? Wouldn't he know before-hand the priorities?

There could easily be an arrangement that as soon as some important person is killed, Sanjaya would return.

KT: How? By AkAshagamana or normal way. There is no mention of the former any where. The latter takes time.

Given that Sanjaya did not come for 10 days,

KT: This is a pure conjecture. If he left after Bhishma's fall on 10th day and returned the same day, it is still fine, still one has to say that he returned after seeing Bhishma.

Dhritarashtra could be assured that the main personalities he was attached to were alive.

KT: How much would Dhritarashtra like to know about the death of one of his sons a few hours after the son's death? Would he not be anxious to know right away?

As soon as Bhishma was felled, Sanjaya immediately returned.

KT: How long will it take for a person taking part in Kuruxetra war to drive the chariot and come to HastinApura? There is a difference between starting immediately and reaching immediately. The former is possible, but not the latter.

Sanjaya could either be fighting or serving as charioteer - I do not know.

KT: Both are wrong. He is not listed as one of the survivors of war from Kauravas. Please see Sauptikaparva.

But it is to be noted that even after the Bhishma Parva, there is mention of Sanjaya returning later and telling Dhritarashtra what happened earlier, for instance the beginning of Drona Parva - such as http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07001.htm

<QUOTE>

"'Hearing that his sire had been slain, king Dhritarashtra of Kura's race filled with anxiety and grief, obtained no peace of mind. And while he, of Kura's race, was thus continually brooding over that sorrow, Gavalgana's son of pure soul once more came to him."

</QUOTE>

KT: If you notice other verses before and after, you will also notice that both are referring the Sanjaya's return in the night on the day of Bhishma's fall.

The claim made by the incorrect position boils down to: "Sanjaya returned in the night of 10th day, narrates 10 days of events, goes back to the field and same night comes back again!" How and why?

If Sanjaya was giving a live commentary, how could he> again go and come back?

KT: No, the question is "if Sanjaya is giving a flash-back, how could he again go and come back same night?" and the second question is "why?"

Sanjaya did not go to battle to see things - he went there either to fight or to serve as charioteer probably.

KT: As mentioned earlier, after the massacre done by AshvatthAma, Sanjaya is not mentioned as war survivor!

I see more problems with accepting that the text has been warped, on this issue. There are just too many evidences.

KT: prAtilomya is sarvasAdhAraNa. See MBTN of Acharya. No evidence is conclusive. Only evidence given is physical occurrence. The niravakAsha pramANas are being ignored!

No, to me, it seems that Dhritarashtra wailed a lot, and then recovered and told Sanjaya (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06014.htm) -

KT: If that were so, despite the recovery, there must be atleast a casual mention (during the entire Bhishma parva) about the death of Bhishma, which Dhritarashtra already knew. There is a difference between recovery and total absence of mention (which can happen only thru amnesia). Even assuming that is so in case of Dhritarashtra, certainly somewhere along Sanjaya could have referred to that! But not at all.

Sanjaya had already told him that Shikhandi made Bhishma fall, and that he was now lying on a bed of arrows. So the essence had already been communicated.

Now Dhritarashtra wanted all the details, right from the beginning, since Bhishma's exploits for 10 days also would be of interest. In all these 10 days of exploits, not once Sanjaya makes a casual mention of currently Bhishma lying on bed of arrows!

That has already been mentioned. That was in fact the very first thing mentioned. What is the need to repeat it, particularly when the focus now is on narrating the events as they are?

KT: I am not talking about repeating what all he told. I am just talking about casual mention of one tiny piece of expression of sorrow by just referring the current situation!

But that precisely shows how systematic Sanjaya was in his narration. He objectively narrated things, answering precisely what Dhritarashtra had asked. Why should he jump back to Bhishma's lying on bed of arrows after every few minutes when he has already communicated it to Dhritarashtra at the beginning?

KT: Just visualize the situation described, when Sanjaya returned. I am not asking or looking for "jumping back every few minutes to Bhishma's lying in bed of arrows". I am asking for one subclass like "such Bhishma, whose support of strength we don't have now" or any such statement, which is normal, considering the gloomy night.

Is there scope for hope after hearing from Vyasa that all his sons will be slaughtered? If yes, then why can't there be hope here? If not, then Rayaru is contradicted.

KT: Are you saying hearing the words is same as experiencing the fall of Bhishma? The human tendency is always to have hope. But still no one would say "After hearing VyAsa's words, Dhritarashtra spoke the words with lot of hope". Much less so "After the fall of Bhishma, Dhritarashtra spoke the words with lot of hope".

Neither has Rayaru said that Sanjaya was giving a live commentary. When commenting on Gita, these issues may not be of importance, which is probably why he didn't go into them.

KT: Also, because

1. prAtilomya is quite possible

2. There is enough evidence to say that it is live.

At least Dhritarashtra would have faith on Vyasa and Sanjaya - that Sanjaya would not be harmed, and he would return as soon as there was something significantly important to be informed about.

KT: Losing the sons on the fourth day of the battle is not significant? In fact Duryodhana gets scared that Bhimasena will kill all the sons that day itself. Losing even one son matters more to Dhritarashtra than losing Bhishma (He would like Bhishma to be alive so as to protect his sons!). He loses number of sons and you are saying it is insignificant? Atleast we should have faith in Vyasa and Sanjaya. There is no need for absence of live rendering.

He is not needed most, because the first 10 days were like a test match, and once Bhishma had fallen, the highlights could be given together.

KT: People don't want to miss a test match and Dhritarashtra, who had the choice of live rendering, had to miss the live rendering of war details and has to be content with highlights? He has to be kept in dark about the death of his own sons?

What everyone else was doing - for instance, here is a hint from Sanjaya about something he did

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07180.htm):

"Sanjaya said, 'Returning from battle every day, O monarch, all of us, O foremost one of Kuru's race, used to debate in the night and say unto Karna.

Tomorrow morning, O Karna, this dart should be hurled at either Kesava or Arjuna.' When, however, the morning came, O king, through destiny, both Karna and the other warriors forgot that resolution. "

KT: That is the key. Sanjaya partook in the mantrAlochana in the nights. During daytime, he was giving live details to the king. Note that KarNa and other warriors forgot. "Not Sanjaya". If he were in the battlefield, one time or other, he could have told Karna. He did not, because he was not there. Only in the nights, he could tell. If one claims - "how can he do that in the field", then the statement "other warriors forgot" becomes purportless.

No, even after that, it was given as flashback. But without a gap of 10 days of course - maybe daily. Whenever Sanjaya felt he had something important to tell Dhritarashtra about, he would return and tell him, and answer all his questions with the help of his divyachaxu.

KT: The king had 100 sons. They were dying more regularly after Bhishma's fall. You mentioned that after the fall of Duryodhana, he came and listed out the death of all of them. Instead of taking it as a recap, you want to take it as a fresh flashback. I pointed out the difficulties with that. Losing sons is major event, no matter what.

Sanjaya went to the field before that, and after that too. He gave flashback before, and after too.

KT: Is every count a flashback? If not, which one is not?

..and returning from it multiple times to inform Dhritarashtra (I have given two examples above).

KT: I answered both.

Neither does the use of past tense make sense.

KT: The narration can certainly be in past tense. No one would say "so and so is saying" or "so and so is killing", etc.

Even at beginning of Drona Parva, it is mentioned that after narrating events upto fall of Bhishma, Sanjaya left Dhritarashtra brooding, and then again returned after some time.

KT: The war does not happen 24 hours. Only during day, it takes place. He thus can certainly leave now and then. He goes and takes part in mantrAlochana and takes rest, etc.

<QUOTE>

Dhritarashtra said, '[I understand] that the hearts of all of you are turned towards Vikartana's son Karna,... Could he also crown with fruit the hopes, entertained by my sons, of victory?'"

</QUOTE>

This example also indicates that Sanjaya was not giving a live telecast sitting with Dhritarashtra all the time.

KT: I don't see how it supports flashback at all. It speaks of the hopes of the king. How does it oppose Live rendering?

For that matter, Sanjaya also reveals Drona's slaying much before he comes to the actual narration of it - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07008.htm

KT: This is same as Bhishma's case.

Even when Karna was slain, Sanjaya was in the battlefield only,

That is not mentioned anywhere.

and returned to inform Dhritarashtra - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08002.htm

KT: The same as the other two cases.

Finally, Sanjaya returns after Shalya, Shakuni and Duryodhana are slain and again tells Dhritarashtra first that they are slain -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09001.htm

KT: Please read completely. DushshAsana's death occurs before KarNa's death. That is insignificant? Sanjaya does not come to the king even then? You have to accept prAtilomya and live rendering only.

Thus, there is a lot of evidence from the present text, as well as no significant logical objections to the version positing a flashback after 10 days.

KT: No evidence at all. There is niravakAshapramANa that Sanjaya did not partake in actual fighting.

Because practically everything that Sanjaya told Dhritarashtra was in flashback.

KT: This goes against simple psychology itself. When there is no way out, it is different. When there is, why is this flashback?

No weapon could harm Sanjaya,Where is this mentioned? - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06002.htm

KT: There is no doubt about it. It is there clearly in Mahabharata. But that does not pose any problem at all.

As mentioned earlier

"To see the battle first-hand, he has to go to the battlefield?What a pity? People are enamored by the statement 'no weapon could harm Sanjaya', but ignoring the bigger picture of his capacity to see the battle by being next to Dhritarashtra? Are they trying to use the invulnerability of Sanjaya and in the bargain sacrificing every other reasoning?"

What was Sanjaya doing in the battlefield for ten days? Was he merely collecting information or was he also fighting the war? It is not the latter as there is no mention of it anywhere. If it is the former, it will raise a doubt that there is some limit in the divine vision given by Sri VedavyAsa.

<QUOTE>

Weapons will not cut him and exertion will not fatigue him. This son of Gavalgani will come out of the battle with life.

</QUOTE>

KT: That is a wrong translation. The text is

"gAvalgaNirayaM jIvan yuddhAdasmAdvimoxyate".

Note the word vimoxyate. This simply means that he will outlive the war, This does not indicate that he will fight the war. "He will continue to live and will be free from war". This may even indicate that he will not partake in the war.

The data that we have from the Mahabharata are - 1. Sanjaya was going to enter the battlefield as per Vyasa's own words in the link above - "This son of Gavalgani will come out of the battle with life." 2. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06013.htm

KT: As mentioned above, the translation is wrong. VyAsa did not say at all that Sanjaya was going to enter the war. Far from it, it is "vimoxyate".

describes Sanjaya as returning from the battle right after Bhishma's fall. This is where the Bhagava Gita Parva is placed.

KT: The physical placement has nothing to to do with actual sequence. "prAtilmya" can happen and we have to see other reasoning to determine that.

3. Dhritarashtra's questions and Sanjaya's statements about the battle are always in the past tense. But before Sanjaya left for the battle, they are not -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06004.htm

KT: The ones that are in present are "vastusthiti" and they have to be in present tense only. If an aparoxa j~nAni sees a pillar on the top of a hill he will say "The pillar is there on the top of that hill" and will not say "the pillar was there...". How can the description of JambukhaNda, Sudarshana Dvipa, MAlyavanta hill, earth's measures, etc. be in the past tense?

Every one of the utterances have to be in past tense only. Even the ones that you may claim (if you do) as real time are also in the past tense only.

There are some other references also to Sanjaya having been on the battlefield, which I do not have at hand immediately.

KT: Even if you have some references, they do not conflict the real time narration.

Since Bhishma's fall was the first major event of the battle, it is possible that Dhritarashtra understood that there was nothing major that had happened,

KT: That is not at all true. Please read the hair-standing events in Bhishmaparva. There are many events that happened and there were many tense situations.

else Sanjaya, as per Vyasa's boon, would have returned earlier. When Bhishma fell, Sanjaya did return.

KT: That does not mean that Sanjaya never was with Dhritarashtra earlier on.

I suppose you mean "to someone who was not always with the blind king". The divya chaxu would be necessary even if Sanjaya was in the battle, since even in the battle, he would not know what is happening at every corner of the battlefield, at day and at night, and what was in the mind of the people, what astras are being used, etc.

KT: No one denies that Divyachaxu is needed then also. The question is whether he can use divyacaxu by being next to Dhritarashtra or not. If he can, why did he not use that?

And after the first major event of the battle, Sanjaya did return to Dhritarashtra.

KT: Again, the question is not whether he returned or not. The question is why he was not there all along. Why should he not come to Dhritarashtra until the "first major event". Even though relatively less major, there are many tense situations and big slaughters have taken place. Are they not important?

Either to fight himself, or to serve as charioteer - one of the two. I do not know which one.

KT: Neither of that is mentioned anywhere in Mahabharata. The mere mention of power is not indication of his taking part. Even Vidura could fight, but he did not.

What about the rest of the eight days -- where was Sanjaya? where Dhritarashtra asks Sanjaya why the senior people did not make Duryodhana stop Karna using the shakti against Ghatotkacha, and Sanjaya replies that he himself too had advised Duryodhana exactly that.

KT: So does this mean that Sanjaya was in the battlefield on all 18 days?

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07082.htm) Dhritarashtra said, 'After Abhimanyu's slaughter when the next day came, what did the Pandavas, afflicted with grief and sorrow do? Who amongst my warriors fought with them? The above question of Dhritarashtra shows that Sanjaya was certainly not giving a live commentary, because Dhritarashtra himself says "what they did when the next day came?"

KT: Why not? The prior day, Sanjaya gave the live commentary of Abhimanyu's death. "The next day" to "the prior day" is "today". So, DhritarAshtra is asking about the current situation. Please see the verses that come in that context. DhritarAshtra is speaking about the "calmness" that is there due to the "great oath" taken by Arjuna to kill Jayadratha.

In the following reference, Dhritarashtra clearly asks Sanjaya why he and others did not guide Karna about using shakti against Arjuna and none else. Sanjaya answers that he did so every night when they returned from the battlefield. How can this make any sense if Sanjaya was not on the battlefield?

KT: You yourself answered your question. Note Sanjaya did that "guiding" every night and not during day. If he is in the battle field, then he should have done during the day also, which he did not.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07180.htm)

...

"Sanjaya said, 'Returning from battle every day, O monarch, all of us, O foremost one of Kuru's race, used to debate in the night and say unto Karna.Tomorrow morning, O Karna, this dart should be hurled at either Kesava or Arjuna.' When, however, the morning came, O king, through destiny, both Karna and the other warriors forgot that resolution.

KT: Note all the following.

1. On the first day of battle, KarNa was not there, but still Duryodhana says "bhavAn bhIshhmashcha karNashcha...". Presence of KarNa's army logically means karNa's presence. Similarly, when Kaurava army returned, Sanjaya can surely say "after our return from battle...".

2. From DhritarAshtra's mention of hearing sounds from the tents indicates that, they are not too far off. Sanjaya after giving "running commentary" during daytime, was partaking in "mantrAlochana" during nights perhaps on all days.

3. When morning came, karNa and other warriors forgot. Having divyadrishti and VedavyAsa's boon, Sanjaya would not have. But he was not in the battlefield to remind KarNa during day. That is what is "vidhi balIyaM".

The next time Sanjaya returns is after the fall of Karna (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08002.htm):

KT: Sanjaya could have visited the shibira every night. Note that Dhritarashtra mentioned about hearing the sounds from there).

After each major event, he may have visited during day also, as the war would have paused at such point. After visiting them, he would have returned to

Dhritarashtra.

Also like earlier on, the same event is described in http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09001.htm

The entire KarNaparva is sandwitched between the two mentionings of this same event. They have to be linked together. It is impossible to do without the approach of prAtilomya.

Note In each of these cases:

"Sanjaya breaking the news, Dhritarashtra getting shocked, then Sanjaya giving the details and again Sanjaya mentioning the same event and Dhritarashtra getting shocked" is weird. The first mention is simple "sUchI nyAya" (akin to needle).

Again, Dhritarashtra goes into shock, and asks Sanjaya> for the details. While asking for details of what led to Karna's slaughter, he makes a statement "How was the mighty car-warrior Karna slain amidst your united selves?" [kathaM cha vaH sametAnAm hataH karNaH mahArathaH]

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08009.htm)

KT: Again the same thing. Sanjaya is part of the scheme, by taking part in the nights in "mantrAlochana".

This shows that Sanjaya was very much on the battlefield amongst the Kaurava army when Karna was slain, not for gathering information, but for either fighting or driving someone's chariot.

KT: Nope. As mentioned earlier:

1. He is not one of the war survivors as quoted from Sauptikaparva in the other mail.

2. He never persuaded Karna to use shakti against Arjuna during daytime.

3. There is no mention of any of his deeds anywhere.

4. His invulnerability to weapons will be a big asset to Kauravas, if he partakes. God's ways are great. He never allowed that situation.

6. Then Sanjaya returns after the fall of Duryodhana (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m09/m09001.htm) -

KT: Sure. After the fall of Duryodhana, he will certainly visit him. Then he returns and continues the reporting. That is very natural. Right?

Also note that Sanjaya informs Dhritarashtra about the death of several important warriors, including Duryodhana, in one go.

KT: If we apply that logic, then after Karna's death, the death of Bhishma, Drona and KarNa are told in one go - as per the text! This means after 10th day, also nothing was told to Dhritarashtra! Only after KarNa's death only, all the details were given. That is even bizarre!

Thus, it is completely conceivable that he informed Dhritarashtra about the happenings of the first 10 days one go, after the fall of Bhishma, as the text of the Mahabharata proves.

KT: Nope. The text goes "Sanjaya informing Dhritarashtra, his be wailings, 10 days of war, and again Sanjaya informing the same right after return and DhritarAshtra's be wailings. If physical sequence is strictly taken, how can 10 days of briefing be sandwiched between the two mentions of the same incident.

Definitely not as tense or hair-standing as the combined death of Duryodhana, Shakuni, Shalya, Uluka, Dhrishtadyumna, Shikhandi, 5 sons of draupadi, etc etc which are all declared by Sanjaya in one shot, one day after they happened.

KT: Then as mentioned above, by the same logic, Bhishma's death, Drona's death and KarNa's death were declared in one shot in one breath and not so in another breath.

What then to speak of Bhishma Parva, where there was hardly anyone aside Bhishma.

KT: What does it mean? Dhritarashtra is not a mere spectator. He is the king and there was such fierce battle and heavy carnage with rivers of blood flowing and we talk about relative importance? Relative to what? Also, any of his sons could have been killed and is it enough if Sanjaya, then drives back and comes to DhritarAshtra to report?

Sanjaya was in the battlefield as the clear references above establish.

KT: No. What was he doing in the battle field? He was not a war survivor? If he partook in the war, with the boon of invulnerability, he could have wreaked havoc.

Because he had to fight or to drive chariot for Kauravas in the battlefield. (as references above establish)

KT: There is not a single reference that he fought or drove a chariot for Kauravas.

What is more important here is that the text says that it was not just in Bhishma Parva but all along that Sanjaya did this.

KT: And same kind of inconsistencies can be seen with that approach.

I do not see what difference it makes if the narration was not real-time but delayed by a few days.

KT: A world of difference for a father totally afflicted with an enormous putravyAmoha. An over-attached father can't wait for an exam result of a son and you are talking of "what difference does it make if the welfare of the sons is told a few hours and a few days later?" The king's one hundred sons were in the battle!

The point is that Sanjaya described everything in great detail, as much as Dhritarashtra wanted.

KT: The question is that a person like Dhritarashtra would want it real time only.

He answered all of Dhritarashtra's questions.

KT: It is not for any quiz. His anxiety has to be gauged.

No one without divya-chaxu could have done this.

KT: That is not the question here. The divyachaxu can come to his rescue in using realtime aspect.

Neither of that is mentioned anywhere in Mahabharata. It is, as shown above. There are other references which I did not have the time to search for.

KT: Shown above that he fought?

So does this mean that Sanjaya was in the battlefield on all 18 days? Seems to be so, from the text. He used to return at night, except in the final case (when Duryodhana was killed and the night massacre took place), where he returned in the next morning, since all was over.

KT: He was in the battlefield or shibira, either part of the night or all night and not during daytime (except for visiting, etc.), as shown above.

More than reasoning, aren't the direct words of the text more important when it comes to facts about what happened?

KT: You are not using direct words of the text, but using the direct sequence as placed in the grantha, which is questioned here.

Especially because reasoning can cut both ways -

KT: Sure. Reasoning alone cannot be used to establish a point, but it can be used to show the flaws in the pUrvapaxa. For instance, see the "Khandanatraya" of our Acharya.

I will send a detailed mail showing all the flaws in your approach. You can do the same. And then you can defend your points and I will try to defend mine.

I can argue that it does not make sense for Sanjaya to be given the boon that weapons will not cut him,> if he is going to stay in the peaceful palace with Dhritarashtra all the time

KT: Why not. Is Shibira not a peaceful place during night time as per the war rules? Wasn't Dhrishtadyumna killed in the shibira during night? Who said that Sanjaya is in the palace all the time? Won't he go home in the evening after the narration? He can get hurt in many ways. When he went to pay respects to Bhishma, he can get hurt.

(even granting that the interpretation you gave of the boon is correct, and the one that says "he will emerge from the battle alive" is wrong).

KT: That is your translation. The exact boon details and the way it makes sense is given in the next mail.

By pure reasoning, I could also argue that since Sanjaya had been given the ability to also see the future [bhUta-bhavya-bhaviShyavit, says the text], Dhritarashtra should have first asked him to look into future and tell him straightaway whether Duryodhana will survive or not, and ask for details of that, rather than ask him about geography of the earth, and then follow the events of the battle till the death of Duryodhana. In other words, if you argue that a real-time commentary is better than a flashback, I can argue that a jump-into-the-future-commentary is better than a real time commentary.

KT: That is a very flimsy argument. Lord Krishna knows all the future and shows even VishvarUpa to Arjuna. Did He tell YudhistHira all the details and outcome of the war? There is a purpose in the boon of Sri VedavyAsa. He just gave "divyachaxus" to Sanjaya. There is what is called "maryAda" and suitability. Certain norms are never violated. The Lord also demonstrates that, even though He has no restriction. Also, you are relying on the wrong English translations where pratyaxadarshi" is translated as "Possessing a knowledge of past, present and future".

As per the text, the following are references to Sanjaya's being in the battlefield or returning from the battlefield to Dhritarashtra, also showing that he was not with Dhritarashtra all the time.

1. Sanjaya returns first after the fall of Bhishma.(http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06013.htm)

KT: Certainly, he can return after visiting Bhishma. Also note that Sanjaya talks to Bhishma and Duryodhana only, who live longer after their fall.

There is niravakAshapramANa for Sanjaya not taking part in the war. See, MBH sauptikaparva 9.47ff

ashvatthAmA samudvIkShya punarvachanamabravIt.h

duryodhana jIvasi chedvAkyaM shrotrasukhAM shR^iNu

sapta pANDavataH sheShA dhArtarAShTrAstrayo vayaM

te chaiva bhrAtaraH paJNncha vAsudevo.atha sAtyakiH

aham.h cha kR^itavarmA cha kR^ipaH shAradvatastathA

draupadeyA hatAH sarve dhR^iShTadyumnasya chAtmajAH

pA~nchAlA nihatAH sarve matsyasheSham.h cha bhArata

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m10/m10009.htm

"Ashvatthama once more cast his eyes on him and uttered these words - On the side of the Pandavas, only seven are alive, and among the Dhartarashtras, only we three! The seven on their side are the five brothers and Vasudeva and Satyaki; on our side, we three are myself and Kripa and Kritavarma! All the sons of Draupadi have been slain, as also all the children of Dhrishtadyumna! All the Pancalas too have been slain, as also the remnant of the Matsyas, O Bharata!"

Note that Sanjaya is not mentioned as war-survivors.

2. Then he returns again at the beginning of Drona Parva. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07001.htm) "And while he, of Kura's race, was thus continually brooding over that sorrow, Gavalgana's son of pure soul *once more came to him*. Then, O monarch, Dhritarashtra, the son of Amvika, addressed Sanjaya, *who had that night come back from the camp to the city* called after the elephant." Note the words "AjagAma punaH gAvalgaNiH tadA" and "shibirAt sa~njayam nishi nAgAhvayam puram" which say that Sanjaya returned from the battle camp to the city of Hastinapur again (he had returned after fall of Bhishma first, as ref 1 shows)

KT: You are relying on English translations and making your conclusions.

1. See the verses before and after. It is on the same day as Bhishma's fall.

2. The word "punaH" meaning again is used means, he should have come from Shibira earlier on also. Is it on same day or another day?

3. Note the word "nishi". So Sanjaya came in the night, narrated 10 days of war and went back to war again next morning?

4. The one (you mentioned of return of Sanjaya from the battlefield) in the beginning of Bhishma parva and the other (you mentioned of return of Sanjaya from the battlefield) in the beginning of DroNa parva (both these that you mentioned) are on the same day and so must be the same. They are sandwitched by the entire Bhishma parva. You have to connect these two. So my "prAtilomya" approach only makes sense.

KT: In all this discussion, there was one point, that was not raised or discussed.

Vedavyasa gave the boon of invulnerability to Sanjaya.

Then how come he was injured?

We come across the incidents like below.

In MBTN Acharya says:

"mamarda sapta parvataprabhAn.h varAbhiraxitAn.h"

"killed the seven mountain like demons, protected by the boons [of Brahma and Rudra]"

describing How Hanumanta killed the demons having the boons from Brahma and Rudra. Similar tasks were done by Bhima.

It is explained that the gods can render the boons of same kaxa or lower kaxa gods ineffective.

Then we also hear how Lord Narasimha makes the boon of Brahma true, by choosing various tricky possibilities in the killing of

HiraNyakashipu. Also Hanuman takes a small form and enters the mouth of Nagajanani (surasa) and comes out to make the boon of devatas (lower than Vayu) remain unbroken.

One may argue that the boon will be rendered ineffective for killing the evil ones as in the case of demons, who are killed by Hanuman. Then HiraNyakashipu is evil.

Why not in that case?

One may argue that the boons of lower gods can be rendered ineffective by higher gods, but that will be done occasionally only, when necessary.

Then what about Sanjaya? Vedavyasa, who gave the boon is Lord Himself. Sanjaya is not evil person. Satyaki is not Lord and is way below.

When Sanjaya fought against Pandavas, he was fighting against Dharma, protected by Lord Narayana Himself. So, He can render His own boon (which He gave in the form of Vedavyasa) ineffective. Satyaki is only a tool.

"dharmo raxati raxitaH".

"When one adheres strongly to Dharma, Dharma will protect."

"nArAyaNadviT tadanubandhinigrahameva paramo dharmaH"

"Resisting haters of Vishnu and their supporters is the parama dharma".

When Sanjaya fought with pANdavas, he lost that protection. But again Lord decided not to completely forsake Sanjaya and so in the form of Vedavyasa, He saved him.

Doubts on Arjuna's doubts

In Gita 5.1, Arjuna asks Krishna which of sannyasa and yoga is superior. This confusion comes because of his not understanding what sanyasa means - he thinks it is the sannyasa ashrama. His asking this question here is quite plausible since Krishna has just asked him to do "karma sannyasa" and "yoga" both in 4.41. However, Krishna also spoke the same in 3.30, so why didn't Arjuna get this question then?

KT: The confusion is not merely because of not understanding what sannyasa means, but in addition thinking that there are conflicting messages.

It is true that in 3.30, Lord Krishna says "mayi sarvANi karmANi..."

"Dedicate all the actions to Me, by realizing that you are not the independent doer, Lord is the only independent Being, give up all the attachments, doing the prescribed acts, forsake the sorrow of separation from relatives and fight as a service to the Lord".

Here there are no "apparent conflicts" either. That is why, Arjuna doesn't ask that question, but he asks other questions. After that Krishhna explains other aspects and eventually speaks of the importance of yoga (which is j~nAnopAya). Here there is scope for some confusion.

If all the karmas are to be dedicated to God and no desires should be there, then j~nAnopAya implies some desire for j~nAna.

The apparent conflict between "karma sannyAsa" and "karmayoga" arises here only and not after 3.30 (because at that point karmayoga has not been told. Only karmasannyAsa was mentioned there).

"If kAma, krodha, etc. have to be given up, why go with the war that is basis for kAma, krodha, etc.?". The scope for that question is here only.

2. In 4.4, Arjuna asks how he can believe that Krishna spoke this yoga to Vivasvan at the beginning of this manvantara. But Arjuna knows that Krishna is God, he knows that both he and Krishna are eternal, so why is it so difficult for him to believe that Krishna spoke to Vivasvan at the beginning of the manvantara?

KT: We have to note the following points.

1. Arjuna is a great j~nAni

2. Further,Lord Krishna has already said "na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM.." (2-12) indicating that the Lord and all the jIvas are eternal.

3. Krishna has indicated that he is the Lord.

The key question is "why still Arjuna asked such a question -how can you, who took this form much later than the Sun god?"

The following are the reasons for that.

1. Great j~nAnis ask such questions for the sake of others (the immediate objection is that Arjuna is Seeking sermons from Krishna and this doesn't seem tenable).

2. Great j~nAnis, even though the know the point, they like to acquire vishesha j~nAna.

(Even in real life, we come across the situations, where we may have fairly good idea, but still we ask either for confirmation or to seek an elaborate explanation).

Acharya quotes a proving point for this from AgneyapurANa.

"jAnanto.api visheshhArthaj~nAnAya sthApanAya chapR^ichchhanti

sAdhavo yasmAt.h tena pR^ichchhasi pArthiva"

"even though they know it, for the sake of special knowledge or for confirming it, the wise ask the questions. Thus you are asking the question."

3. As mentioned above, in verse 3.30, Krishna suggests to dedicate all the actions to Him.

The consequent question that comes is what is the pramANa that makes Him so much supreme compared to others? To seek answer for that Arjuna asks this.

To say that He is eternal and that He taught to Sun, it would have been enough to say "many janmas took place for you and me", but He also says "I know them all, but you don't" - drawing an irrefutable contrast between Him and others. Arjuna wants to hear this establishment of Lord's supremacy from His own words, yet another way.

him to do "karma sannyasa" and "yoga" both in 4.41. However, Krishna also spoke the same in 3.30, so why didn't Arjuna get this question then?

KT: Before, we proceed, a word of caution. It is quite improper for us to guess how Arjuna's mind ran and why he didn't ask some questions, when they need to be asked.

In our attempt to analyze this aspect of "why Arjuna didn't ask a particular question at a particular time?",I think the commentaries may not come to our rescue, as they may not deal with such issues. We may need to analyze this in quite a limited sense based on tarka, as much as we can, with the awareness that it is only "limited tarka".

It is quite a common experience for us also that after a pravachana (or during a pravachana), different people get different doubts and at different parts of time. Two persons are quite unlikely to think in an identical fashion. That being the case how can we question the timing for Arjuna's question?

Even if a question pops up in the mind of a person (say "A"), he may wait patiently for some more time hoping that he may get his answer. On the other hand, another person (say "B") may ask the question as soon as it pops up in his mind.

Here there is scope for some confusion. If all the karmas are to be dedicated to God and no desires should be there, then j~nAnopAya imples some desire for j~nAna. But this confusion should have arisen in the 2nd chapter itself - when Krishna said "yoga sthah kuru karmani sangam tyaktva dhananjayah" it implies that

1) Yoga or jnana-upaya is recommended, which means desire for jnana.

2) Karma is to be done (kuru karmani) but with no desires for phala (sangam tyaktva)

KT: There is no confusion here. Here the desire for phala is what is made a taboo, but not the desire for j~nAna. In fact giving up the desire for fruits and treating siddhi and asiddhi alike is the upAya for procuring j~nAna. How ever the next verse "dUreNa hyavaraM..." leads to a question (3-1 and 3-2).

The question after 23 verses! So, the timing is not critical. It is quite possible that a person may wait patiently before asking a question.

In any case, wasn't this confusion resolved when you put together

a) ma karma phala hetuh bhuh = Don't perform karma with desire for fruits

b) Yoga sthah kuru karmani = Perform karma situating yourself in yoga (that is, jnana-upaya, so desire for jnana must be there)

From a) and b), the phala whose desire is to be removed is not jnana but amukhya-phala (material benefits).

KT: That is quite true as mentioned above. How ever in that case the natural question is "Why bother about doing an action without the desire for material benefit (like the kingdom)? Why not refrain from the war itself, which results in so much of violence?".The answer comes in several ways in several verses.

Krishna speaks of the glory of karma. The words of Krishna are only giving the details of "how karma" is to be done. They don't talk of "alternate method" (or mistakenly thought of as alternate method). When Krishna speaks of yoga or j~nAnopAya, the possibility of another approach seems to be there.

In fact, there is a misconception (which reigned wide before Madhvacharya came and clarified) that there are various paths

(like karma marga, j~nAna marga, Bhakti marga, etc.). Even now those who don't go with Madhva Bhashya take to such misconception.

Madhvacharya clarified that all these elements are necessary.The prAchrya or intensity may vary from one type to another (See 3-3).

So why would this doubt come again later? I don't see identical doubts. Which doubt is repeated?

The apparent conflict between "karmasannyAsa" and "karmayoga" arises here only and not after 3.30 (because at that point karmayoga has not been told. Only karmasannyAsa was mentioned there). But I thought the whole of chapter 3 is karma yoga.When Krishna says "yudhyasva", isn't he implying karma anushthana with no desire for amukhya phala and bhagavad-arpana-buddhi?

KT: Yes, as mentioned above, for Arjuna's doubts in 3-1, and 3-2, the importance of Karma is stressed. In fact, karma sannyAsa and karma yoga are all interlinked only.Yes, "yudhyasva", implies karma anushthana with no desire for amukhya phala and and with bhagavad-arpana- buddhi. Instead of fighting war without desire for amukhyaphala, why not abstain from the war itself ?

"If kAma, krodha, etc. have to be given up, why go with the war that is basis for kAma, krodha, etc.?".The scope for that question is here only. But I heard that Arjuna interpreted "sannyasa" in 4.41 to mean the ashrama, and not giving up of kama, krodha, etc.

Both the interpretations are given (not to leave any option out).

So why is the above question in scope?

KT: In both the interpretations, "karmasanyasa rUpa yatidhrma and karmayoga rUpa gR^ihasthadharma" seem to go against each other" - this is the doubt expressed.

Doesn't sannyasa get equated with giving up kama-krodha in Krishna's reply (5.3) and not here?

KT: Yes, the concept of sanyasa is clarified/defined as giving up kAma-krodha in 5-3. The conflict, however, is between karmasanyasa and karma yoga.

The explanation is using the concept of 5-3 only for elucidating. Arjuna's words did not use "giving up kAma, etc." in 5-1.

3. As mentioned above, in verse 3.30, Krishna suggests to dedicate all the actions to Him. The consequent question that comes is what is the pramANa that makes Him so much supreme compared to others? To seek answer for that Arjuna asks this. Again, in chapter 2, it was confirmed that jivas are pratibimbas of the Lord, so isn't complete dependency on the Lord already established from there? Is it that the motivation of the question is to elucidate the nature of the Lord's appearance?

KT: The complete dependency alone may not prompt one to go with the feeling of worship. For ex, even if A is completely dependent on B, why should A worship B?

If B is all supreme and also B is Apta for A and B also instructs A to surrender to B, then A's worshiping B becomes a very obvious mandate. Such supremacy is what is indicated here.

The shukla-gati and krishna-gati of 8th chapter, Bhagavad Gita

I have read and heard that AchArya Madhva interprets verses 8.23-27 as not recommending a time to quit the body

(after all, we don't have control over it) but describing the various abhimAni-devatAs one encounters along the two paths.

KT: First of all let us look at the two interpretations -

Further, irrespective of time of death, an aparoxa jn~Ani reaches the abode of the Lord (once the sAdhana is complete).

2. Others' interpretation which says that jIva's time of quitting the body determines the return or no-return.

Now with the latter interpretation, let us see what the problems are.

2a. Even in that case, people don't have the choice in deciding the time of quitting the body (Even the great ones like Sri Raghavendra Swami, who did Brindavanapravesha, they obeyed the Lord's decision. Interestingly, the day of Rayaru's Brindavana pravesha is on Shravana Krishna DvitIya, which is in Daxinayana, indicating that such a popular interpretation of "time of death" is not Rayaru's purport either.)

Otherwise, the ones who believe in "time of death" interpretation may have to resort to suicidal means, which is a great sin also.

2b. In verse 24, Agni and Jyoti are mentioned, which are not indicative of time. In verse 25, dhUma (smoke) is mentioned,

which is not indicative of time. So, that whole "time of death" interpretation collapses right there.

2c. In verse 24, AhaH (Day), Shukla paxa, six months and Uttarayana are mentioned. Are they "exclusive or" or "inclusive or" or "a compounding and"?

Any of these approaches will lead to difficulty, as "Day" is part of "Shuklapaxa", which is part of the six months, which actually

constitute Uttarayana.

Similarly in verse 25, rAtri (night), Krishna paxa six months and DaxinAyana are mentioned.The same kind of problem is here as

night is part of "Krishnapaxa", which is part of the six months, which actually constitute Daxinayana.

2d. There is a quote from shruti "atha yo daxiNe pramIyate pitR^iNAmeva mahimAnaM...tasmat.h brahmaNo mahimAnamApnoti"

and another quote from PadmapurANa "vidvAn.h brahma samApnoti yatra tatra mR^ito.api san.h", which indicate that an

aparoxa jn~Ani reaches the abode of the Lord (once the sAdhana is complete), irrespective of time of death. Acharya Madhva's

interpretation does not have any of these difficulties.

However,this raises the question of why Arjuna (or we) should know about these paths.

Is it that a brahma-jnyAni will face this choice between the two paths? If so, how?

KT: This has been answered in Gita itself in verse 27.Lord Krishna says:"One who knows these two paths (and thereby adopts the appropriate karmAnushThana along with devotion to the Lord, seeking the grace of the Lord), will not be deluded whatsoever at the time of leaving the body (will not undergo the delusion, caused by the absence of Bhagavat smaraNa). That is why,oh Arjuna, adopt the appropriate means/path of knowledge.

(Engage yourself in the jnAna bhaktipUrvaka prescribed duty of fighting the war against the evil Kauravas)."

Apicheth Suduracharo..... BG 9:30

I have some problems in understanding the captioned version - specially the word 'suduracharo'.

Kindly spare your time if possible on my queries:

1. Is there any difference between 'durachari' and 'sudarachari'. If No,what does 'su' connotes in the verse.

KT: "su" here connotes "suShTu" (meaning very high, exceedingly high)Sri Raghavendra swamy explains the word "sudurAchAri" as"atyantadurAchAri".

This is similar to "durlabha" and "sudurlabha" (very difficult to obtain).

2. Siddhantha says that Sudurachari is one who is either a gyani - devatha or rushi temporarily doing 'durachara' in order to be relieved from the excess punya. No, the word "sudurAchAraH" itself does not include "devata, Rishi, etc.".

The words "ananyabhAk mAM bhajate" indicates that the ones referred in this context ara "devata, Rishi, etc.".

I could not understand the logic behind 'excess punya' or 'yogyathe meerida punya'. Can some one detail this a bit.

KT: This does not apply to ordinary beings like the normal humans. It applies to only "adhikAri varga". The hint for this can only come thru shastra-s or thru aparoxaj~nAnnis. The logic behind this is that God determines that certain people in AdhikAri varga have done puNya that is beyond their svAbhAvika yogyata. God does them a favor, by taking away this excess thru various means.

3. Basically, what is meant by excess.

KT: It means that only very few of those in adhikarivarga, due to some prArabdha acquire this excess and again as per the decision taken by God, get a relief from that excess punya.

We all acquire punya/papa in excess

KT: No. Never. We do not have the capacity to exceed our yogyata. We do far less than our yogyata. So, we don't have to worry about that.

and when we surrender to Lord, the all independent Lord liberates us and all our accumulated karmaphala - be it punya or papa gets burnt off.

KT: No. For ordinary ones like us, surrendering to God does not happen that easily. Acharya explains Sharanagati as follows (by quoting Mahavishnupurana) -

"sarvottamatvavij~nAnapUrvaM tatra manaH sadA |

sarvAdhikapremayuktaM sarvasyatrasamarpaNaM |

akhaNDA trividhA pUjA tadratraiva svabhAvataH |

rakShatItyeva vishvAsaH tadIyo.ahamiti smR^itiH |

sharaNAgatireshA syAt viShNau mokShaphalapradA |

"The above quote clearly weakens/breaks the argument of those, who try to advocate that those who do sharanagati do not need j~nAna. Then about punya, pApa getting burnt -

1. Before aparokSha - prArabdha is intact. Sanchita and AgAmi are intact. However surrendering to Lord, doing Nivritta karma and acquiring parokShaj~nAna and doing proper sAdhana leadsto aparoxaj~nAna.

2. At the time of aparokShaj~nAna - Sanchita and Agami get burnt off (with the exception of iShTapuNya - it is not desirable that iShTa punya also gets burnt off; right?).Left over Prarabdha is still intact, which gets exhausted only thru "bhoga".

3. After aparokSha - No more unishTa sanchita or Agami.The prArabdha is still required to be depleted thru bhoga.

In this circumstances what is excess punya and why one has to get it off from oneself with so much efforts much against svarupa.

KT: First of all, it is for adhkArivarga only.

Secondly, it is not against svarUpa, but in accordance only.

Thirdly, it is like an obstacle for mokSha and so, has to be removed.

4. For e.g., we can take Bhrigu or Kaikeyi here who have excess punya phala and wanted to get rid off it. So Bhrigu takes shelter in an asura or Kaikeyi sent Rama to forest to get out of anishta punya phala. Why can't Bhrigu with his tapo phala surrender as oblation/offer all his punya phala to Lord and thus get relieved from it instead of indulging in a non-vaishnava act. Why can't one do satvika tyaga here instead of indulging in durachara.

KT: You are forgetting an important concept of

"karmaNyevahikAraste mA phaleShu kadAchana...".

Only God determines how when and where this excess puNya is to be removed.The choice is hardly given to jIva.

5. PUnya is the one which is a phala acquired by a jeeva due to his righteous deed.

This gives temporary happiness and thus a anista phala for a vaishnava.

KT: Which puNya are you talking about. If it is Ishtapunya, that cannot give aniShTaphala.

How we understand this in the context of Raghavendra Swamy's sadhane. Is the saint does satvika tyaga and thus breaking the shackles of the punya phala or he uses the punya to bless the mankind to gain more ananda after his liberation.If the latter, why can't others choose this way instead of committing some crime.

KT: Sri Raghavendra swAmy "did not choose" per se, but Lord chose and Rayaru simply obeys the Lord.

and then invite Krishna to tell us thru this verse that whatever you see it is not the reality etc.,

KT: This is not the case always, but is so in Adhikari Varga, where it is explicitly mentioned. Only in such extra-ordinary situations, it is the case of excess punya. We are not judges for that.

6. Finally is there any situation where 'excess papa' also happens. If yes,how it is being dealt with asuras.

Any examples would be helpful to understand.

KT: I have not heard of "excess pApa" being mentioned explicitly.