Jiva Ishwara Bheda QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao tadipatri (KT)

...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 tatsAdhanaMsmR^itamh”.

Sankhya means just true tatva jnAna. 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 in the following.

NAsato vidyate[.a]bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

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

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 mUlaprakR^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 traditionalrendering 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.hsiddham.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 isexplained in this verse “nAsataH...”.

asataH = mUlaprakR^iti which is material causesataH = 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 renderingfrom 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.hbhAvonAstiH ; 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 from 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 insatnces 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).”

The above gives part of Acharya's Bhashya, explanation and justification.

nAsato vidyate[.a]bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || 2-16||}

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.hsiddham.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 causesataH = Brahma (Paramatma)

Both do not have abhAva.

PrakR^iti, purushha (Paramatma) and kAla (time) are eternal – this istold 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.hbhAvonAstiH ;

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).”

This one gives Acharya's interpretation and also points out the flaws in the other two (Advaita and V.advaita) schools.

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?

V. Advaita 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” (dimunition)? 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 onlyjIva 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 tatva jn~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 permanence 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. In fact 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?

Before continuing, let me clarify a couple of things. I wrote earlier (in the context of explaining tu):

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 fragmental 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-pratibimbabhAva” as told in Upanishads.

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

avinashi = imperishable;

tu = but;

tat = that;

viddhi =know it;

yena = by whom;

sarvam = all of the body;

idam = this; tatam = pervaded;

vinasham = destruction;

avyayasya = of the imperishable;

asya = of it;

na kascit = no one;

kartum = to do;

arhati = is able.

“Imperishableness” 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 naimittika nAsha (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 svarUpadehas.

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 person 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 svarUpa deha. 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 12and 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 Dharmayuddha.

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 inUpanishads. It does not explicitly says “the bimba pratibimba bhAva”. Utilization of that thought itself is confirmation.

For ex. Kathakopanishad says:

ekastathA sarvabhUtAntarAtmArUpaM 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 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.

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 sthUla deha 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.”