PrajnAvAdAn ca - QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT) and Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT)

Here is the question I want to ask – Could it be that the arguments Arjuna made at the end of Chapter 1 are NOT the words of a wise man, maybe correct according to his own understanding, etc, but not those in verses 4-9 of Chapter 2?

KT: “may be correct according to his own understanding” is a very ambiguous expression. A normal person speaks what one's own understanding is. Whether that is correct or not is altogether a different question. You merged two incompatible things in the same expression.

If the pUrvapaxa claims that verses 4-9 of Chapter 2 are wise, then that gives rise to the following problem as well.

According to all schools, “the wise should not grieve even for Bhishma and Drona” is correct. Then logically, the words that speak of justifying “one should grieve for Bhishma and Drona” should be unwise. The basic premise is that the wise do not say something and do the opposite.

Thus any school that says that those words are wise or seemingly wise are having self-contradiction.

It is better to call a spade a spade, non-spade a non-spade rather than saying “it looks like a spade” and so it is not a spade.

Arjuna does make some new arguments, like “katham bhiShmam..

dronam cha pratiyotsyaami” - how can I fight against Bhishma & Drona specifically?

KT: It is like old wine in the new bottle. The end-result is that the is saying “it is not good to engage in the battle, even if it were against the wicked Kauravas.”

My question is, are the arguments made between verses 4 - 9 of Chapter 2 also “kshudram hrdaya daurbalyaM”, or just the ones at the end of Chapter 1?

KT: You are having confusion between words and actions and also between one set of words and another set of words wrt their classification.

“hrdaya daurbalyaM” is “kshudram” and the words that express ”hrdaya daurbalyaM” are unwise. However that does not constitute the entire set of unwise words. In other words, they are just a subset. One can still speak words that do not express “hrdaya daurbalyaM”, but still are unwise. However, even the words that were spoken after that by Arjuna did have “hrdaya daurbalyaM” (yAn hatvA na jijIvishhAmaH, kArpaNya- doshhopahata svabhAva, yachchhokamuchchhoshhaNamindriyAnAM) and he concedes that he does not know the means to overcome it (pR^ichchhAmi tvAm dharmasammUDhachetAH, na hi prapashyAmi).

Even given that Arjuna's arguments are contrary to the words of a wise man, “prajna avaadaan”, why does Krishna criticize Arjuna's words, then let him make more arguments, and then say “prajnavadamscha bhashase”? Why doesn't verse 2-11 immediately follow Krishna's criticism in verses 2 & 3 of chapter 2?

KT: Verses 2 & 3 are not merely a criticism, but taking care of the immediate problem of “despondency” of Arjuna. Once he got composed (may be a little), he came up with more arguments, but in the same line. Why do you think, verse 2 & 3 do not indicate that Arjuna's words are unwise? As explained above, words of hrdaya daurbalyaM are unwise as well.

Could Krishna maybe, at this point say something like “you're talking like a wise man”,

KT: That is like saying “The words are wise”, but the person is not wise. In fact here just the reverse is true. Arjuna is a wise devatA purusha, but due to j~nAna tirodhAna, he was speaking unwise words. It makes a lot more sense to say that the words are not wise rather than saying that the person is not wise, but his words are.

rather than being blunt and say that he is NOT talking like a wise man,

KT: Of the two, which is better

1. he is talking like a wise man (implying that he is NOT wise, because it does not make much sense to go to a wise man and say “you are talking like a wise man”)

2. he is NOT talking like a wise man (implying that he is wise, because it does not make much sense to go to an unwise man and say “you are NOT talking like a wise man”) Isn't 2 better?

Also, in a dire situation, which is important – being blunt(or open) or being politically correct?

or Arjuna's logic is according to his own rationale not what is really right?

KT: That is precisely what was told in Bhashya. That also means that the words are not wise. Thus Bhashya and tAtparya give two sides of the same coin.

Perhaps not to depress him any further?

KT: Krishna did exactly that by clarifying every doubt of Arjuna and Arjuna told at the end of Gita

“nashhTo mohaH smR^itirlabdhvAtvatprasAdAnmayAchyuta sthito.asmi gatasandehaHkarishhye vachanamM tava |”

Of course, then in this case the “ca” is just there to make sure the Chandas is not 1 letter short.

KT: Acts like adjusting chandas by putting some redundant letters are done by amateurs. Not even the ones like Kalidasa will do such adjustments. What to speak of Sri Vedavyasa Himself?

Regarding the “gataasun agataasun cha naanushochanti paNDitaaH”, I think that though ordinary men may grieve for the living, wise men do not. For example, we may feel sad that people like Bin Laden are alive, or many Indians may feel sad that Musharraf is still alive.

KT: You are doing exactly the same blunder as many of the modern translators are doing, which is

1. take a Sanskrit word

2. Find an English translation for that word

3. Apply a different meaning that is there for that English word

The word “anushuc” has the meaning “grieve”, which has following types of meaning -

1. bewail, mourn over, lament, regret and also

2. ”feel sad, be upset, etc.”

Only the former meanings need to be applied for anushuc but not the latter. Thus your rest of the argument for this does not hold.

However, wise men do not grieve that someone is alive.

KT: One grieves for a loss. If you mean the sadness that springs from fear, anger, dislike etc., that is a different category.

... though ordinary people may feel otherwise. It is a stretch I know...but what do people think?

KT: More than a stretch, it is incorrect.

Finally, one thing that has been bothering me about the interpretation of the cha in the second half of verse 2-11 is that we can not give meanings to Sanskrit verse “manassige bandante”, any way we desire.

KT: Shastra is not a pastime. It is meant for anekajanma sAdhane.

Those who have “sarva shAstrasamanvayashakti” will not resort to such things. For seeing the depth and accuracy of such, there is a need for lot of manana, but not a casual browsing.

If we want to say “Just the way learned people do not grieve for those who are alive, they do not grieve for those about to die”, there has to be some precedent for interpreting the “cha” (and) to mean “iva” (like).

KT: The shAstra is like a sugarcane. Mere licking the surface will never show any sweetness in there. One need to use strong teeth to bite into it. The teeth are linguistic abilities, shAstric abilities, logical abilities, analytical abilities, grace of the gurus, etc. All these can happen only thru grace of the Lord.

Are there other examples elsewhere in Sanskrit literature, acceptable by the general public where “cha” can be interpreted as “iva”? Hopefully Gita verse 2-11 is not the only place “cha” is taken to mean “iva”!

KT: Vedic grammar is different from the usual grammar, we are accustomed to. Nirukta is the vedic glossary that is one of the vedangas.

Rayaru gives the rule “upamArthashchakAraH”.

One can see the propriety of it both from the context and the power of expression. Even other schools have not objected to such a usage of “cha”.

Also let us look at an example. If one says

“vikramAryaH siMhashcha yuddhe vikrAnta dR^ishyate”.

It has to have a meaning of “iva” only for “cha”.

...any school that says that those words are wise or seemingly wise are having self-contradiction.

The school that says it is seemingly wise (Gaudiya) does not consider it seemingly wise merely because

KT: No matter what the reasons are, the very expression ”seemingly wise” is self-contradiction. When one says “seemingly” it indicates that it is subjective. For whom those words seem wise? If they seem wise to Gaudiyas, then that has no bearing at all and they are even forgetting that they are analyzing the conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna and their opinion is of no consequence.

If they seemed wise to Arjuna, that is exactly what Acharya explained in the Bhashya as “svamanIshottha vachanAni”. If they seemed wise to Lord Krishna, that means Lord Krishna is confused as the question of “seems” is applicable to an unsure person or one who has doubts as to whether they are really wise or not. That is really ridiculous.

Arjuna is expressing grief for Bhishma and Drona, but because they are mahAnubhAvas and great bhaktas, and in the position of guru and grandfather, so for Arjuna to kill them requires some consideration than doing so as if they are not any different from Duryodhana and others. This is why though Arjuna had already included AchAryAH and pitAmahAH in his list of people who he doesn't want to kill (which also included the Kauravas), now he separates out Bhishma and Drona and speaks of only them. They are not like the out rightly wicked Duryodhana.

KT: I don't know how you want to differentiate Arjuna's earlier words from latter words wrt. Kauravas. If you claim that in his earlier words, he was sorry to kill Kauravas, but not in later words, that is not true.

If you claim that in his earlier words, he did not portray them as bad, but later he did, that is also not true. In other words, there is no difference in his approach. He did not want to kill them in both of his speeches. He portrayed them as wicked both times. He does not treat them all alike, but he expressed sorrow for both of them. So, what is the claim here?

While absolutely speaking, Arjuna should still fight, it is hard to claim that expressing hesitation to kill Bhishma and Drona is “not even seemingly wise”. At least I do not see any self-contradiction here.

KT: As mentioned above, “Is expressing hesitation wise as per Arjuna or as per Lord Krishna?”

If former, then the words of Lord Krishna should say “they seem wise to you”. That is against world norm.

When one says “it seems”, that means “it seems to me” only. One may say “This may be wise in your opinion.”, which is tantamount to saying “this is just your opinion.” and that is what the Bhashya says.

If we assume that “The words seem wise to Krishna”, two things will follow right away.

1. This implies that Lord Krishna is confused as He could not decide whether those words are wise or not.

2. He forfeits the scope to instruct Arjuna (as that means those words seemed wise even to Lord Krishna. They are wise as per Arjuna, because who wishes to speak unwise words? Then where is the scope for further instruction?)

It is better to call a spade a spade, non-spade a non-spade rather than saying “it looks like a spade” and so it is not a spade.

I agree that it is a more indirect way of saying it, but it is at least not a self-contradiction. In fact, I do not think that even Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya are contradicting themselves. Their meanings may appear as less straightforward, or not in harmony with the context, but given their assumptions, their interpretation is consistent.

KT: No, not at all. I will take their own assumptions and show contradiction within their own assumptions.

They are surely contradicting themselves. In fact Shankaracharya perceived some self-contradiction there.

Unable to handle it, he called Arjuna as “unmatta iva”(like a mad man).

Indeed Arjuna is sad, and depressed, but where is the question of “mad man”? Just because someone speaks wise words and does not do wisely, he is mad? It is easy to say, but difficult to do. Also, isn't Arjuna justifying his actions (like grieving)through his words. If Shankaracharya claims that Arjuna's actions are not wise, how can he call his words (that justify those actions) wise? Same is the problem with the commentary of Ramanujacharya.

“Seemingly wise” is really a terrible approach, as explained above and so they avoided that approach. But Gaudiyas fell into that trap straight away.

Rayaru gives the rule “upamArthashchakAraH”.

One can see the propriety of it both from the context and the power of expression. Even other schools have not objected to such a usage of “cha”.

I should remind you here that Venkatanatha has objected to this as a stretched meaning. His own interpretation was not free of problems, but it is not as if no one has objected to this.

Also, Jayatirtha didn't state it as “upamArthashchakAraH” so there was also nothing to critisize till such a statement was written later on.

KT: Of course Sri Jayatirtha didn't use exact statement ”upamArthashchakAraH”. That is why Rayaru commented on his words. Sri Jayatirtha said in Nyayadipika:

“uttarArdhamupAdatte”

“upAdatte” is the key and conveys the same meaning.

Rayaru says in bhAvadIpika:

“arthastu spashhTaH | cha-shabda upamArtho dhyeyaiti ||”

“The meaning is very clear. That 'cha' is used in the line of simile is to be realized.”

In both the expressions “upAdatta” and “upamArtha”,what is conveyed is that “aprastuta prasiddha” thing is used to

explain/highlight/indicatethe “prastuta” thing.

It is well known that people don't grieve for the living. Just like that, the wise do not grieve for those, who are about to die as well.

Thus, the earlier commentators had scope to criticize Sri Jayatirtha.

No matter what the reasons are, the very expression “seemingly wise” is self-contradiction. Ordinarily, it is important not even to offer a verbal insult to one's gurus.

KT: Not “just ordinarily”, but always. Lord Krishna has not instructed Arjuna to make any verbal insults to his gurus.

Bhishma and Drona are in the position of guru to Arjuna and they deserve to be worshiped ordinarily.

KT: Sure. The point that is missed here is that this link of gurus or parents or relatives wrt a particular being is applicable to a particular janma. The Lord is guru, parents, relatives for every jIva eternally. Hence there is a deeper purport in saying “tvameva mAtA cha pitAtvameva..”.

But here, Arjuna's kshatriya duty is conflicting with his duty as a grihastha to offer all respects to one's superiors, especially those who are devotees of Krishna.

KT: No, there is no conflict at all. Lord Krishna did no task Arjuna to kill them with hatred or disrespect, but as a sacred duty to protect the dharma, protect the society, protect the good people. The only fault that Bhishma and Drona did was to fight on behalf of or on the side of Duryodhana. For that they have to pay such heavy price.

How do you resolve this conflict of duty?

KT: There is no conflict at all.

You do that by declaring that kshatriya dharma (varna dharma) overrides grihastha dharma (Ashrama dharma) here.

KT: Not at all. Even his Ashrama dharma teaches him to protect the dharma, which is to protect the good and innocent. It is God’s will that Bhishma and Drona had to take the side of Duryodhana, who is a threat to the society and tormentor of the good.

But we may note that there was a conflict of duty here, and one was relegated below the other.

KT: No, there will never be a conflict in absolute sense. It is our ignorance that makes us perceive the conflict.

The “Seemingly wise” has to do with the fact that Arjuna recognized his duty as a grihastha not to attack his superiors.

KT: One should not attack the superiors for any selfish need. Who is superior here? The gurus or the one who created the gurus and the entire universe? If the superior gurus support a wretch who has made it a point to ignore the very norms as declared in the shastra-s and proved a threat to the society itself, where is a conflict here?

Otherwise, there is a tendency to even forget that there is a conflict of duty here,

KT: The tendency to think that there is a conflict itself is wrong.

and one may simplify things by merely saying that Arjuna's varna dharma was to fight and so he should fight (not giving any thought to his Ashrama dharma).

KT: No, it is much above that. Both the dharmas converge to one point that it is utmost important to punish one who is a threat to the society.

If one’s own gurus and relatives are an obstruction to that, it is tough, but there is no giving up of God or Dharma.

When one says “seemingly” it indicates that it is subjective. For whom those words seem wise?

To any person who remembers what Arjuna's grihastha dharma is, this would appear seemingly wise.

KT: That is much worse positioning. Now as it is, the subjectivity made the term “seeming” vague for its applicability. Now this definition makes it even more vague. Everyone interprets Arjuna’s grihasta dharma in his own way. Thus “seeming” is not applicable to K(rishna) or A(rjuna) or G(audiyas), but is applicable to a S(et) of persons containing those who interpret Arjuna’s grihasta dharma in a particular way (the above way). This is too much of an assumption. Why should Krishna be worried about such a S(et) of people? Why should that set be made a subject in the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna?

There is no grihastha dharma involved here. It is just basic weakness of mind (hR^idaya daurbalyam, as mentioned by Krishna Himself). That is all.

If they seem wise to Gaudiyas, then that has no bearing at all and they are even forgetting that they are analyzing the conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna and their opinion is of no consequence. Even CM Padmanabhachar has quoted verses in the first chapter of his book which say that if an AtatAyi is a superior, he is not to be killed, so there are always exceptions to such rules.

KT: Rayaru quotes that there is no fault in killing AtatAyins (nAtatAyivadhe doshho hanturbhavati kashchana). They have to be killed without a second thought (hanyAdevAvichArayan).

Lord Krishna is not talking about the rules that have exceptions, but about the ones that have no exceptions.

He admits that it is not such an easy problem to solve when one looks at the dharma-shAstra verses.

KT: It is not easy for ones like us, but it is easy for the Lord. So, why should He bring an extraneous element?

They did not seem wise to Krishna, but Krishna recognized that they may seem wise to many others.

KT: That is strange. Why should Krishna bother about an arbitrary set of people, about whom, he did not mention anywhere?

When Krishna says “You are speaking as if you are learned”, He means that He personally does not consider them learned words, but they are not so blatantly unlearned that no one versed in dharma-shAstra would consider them learned words (such as the other commentators have done).

KT: I am not sure what is the assumption here. Are the other commentators versed in dharma-shastra or not? Is Krishna referring to those who a reversed in dharma-shastra or not versed in it? Has Krishna given consideration for all those who are going to give a commentary that Arjuna's words are wise in the future?

Let us analyze the question “are the other commentators versed in dharma-shAstra or not?” If they are versed then as “no one versed in dharma-shAstra would consider them learned words”, the commentators should not consider the words of Arjuna as learned.

If the other commentators are not versed, then they have two-way problem -

1. They are not qualified to comment or that they are not to be taken as prime commentators.

2. Since they are not learned, Krishna is not referring them.

The whole approach is a mish-mash.

There is no indication that they or any other specific set of people are referred here.

It is after a process of thought that one would come to the judgment that Arjuna's words are unlearned -

KT: Has Krishna gone thru that process or not? If He has gone thru that, why should one make an assumption that Krishna is referring to those who have not gone thru that process?

a process involving the recognition of conflict of duty and then resolving it (which is not such an easy task as per dharma-shAstra) -

KT: Is it mentioned anywhere in Gita that there is such a conflict? If it is not, why should it be perceived that there is one?

so it is not with the blink of an eye that one can proclaim his words as unlearned.

KT: It is less than a blink of an eye for the Lord and here the speaker is the Lord.

In other words, there is no difference in his approach. He did not want to kill them in both of his speeches.

I agree. He portrayed them as wicked both times. He does not treat them all alike, but he expressed sorrow for both of them. So, what is the claim here?

The claim here is as mentioned above.

KT: In that case, if there is no difference between Arjuna’s approach in first chapter and second chapter, there should be no change of opinion in Krishna’s words as well. If Krishna is not bothered about this unknown set of people (like the future commentators)in verses 2 and 3, why should He give verse 12 from the view of this presumed set of people?

I have also heard some people say that “praj~nAvAdAn cha bhAShase” was meant literally as “words of the wise” but with a tone of sarcasm, indicating that Krishna meant the opposite.

KT: That has the following problem. When Arjuna has surrendered as “prapanna”, there is no meaning in giving a sarcastic comment. Otoh, chastising is fine. Sarcasm is meant to put down the person; chastising is meant to correct the person. Saying that the Lord spoke sarcastically to His devotee is attributing a flaw to the Lord.

Incidentally, the words “nArAyaNa-dviT-tad-anubandhi- nigrahaH kShatriyANAm paramo dharmaH” appears to some to sound like jihad -...

KT: I will come to that at the end of the current topic so that I don't lose focus.

You are assuming that Ramanujacharya considers those words of Arjuna that justify his unwise actions as wise. That is not true.

KT: I am not assuming, but I am giving that benefit of doubt. If you or the followers of Ramanuja claim that he is ignoring those words, but choosing tiny segments from his speech to depict his speech as wise, that would be like going from a frying pan to fire.

Let me give an analogy. A person X speaks about Cricket - “When the opponent bowls, you hit with the bat in such a way that it goes up in the air and gives an easy catch to the opponent. If he misses, run slowly so that the opponent can hit the wicket...so on.” A person R says “X has spoken wisely about Cricket”.

When Y objects to R, Z can support R saying “How do you know what R has in mind? R is referring to the fact that X is aware that ball, bat and wickets are used in Cricket. R is not referring to the faulty game tactics of X.”

The example is made glaring to drive the point.

Ramanujacharya's approach is 1. Since from 2.12-2.30, Krishna talked about the nature of the body and the soul...

so the wisdom in Arjuna's words is the awareness that the body will perish while nothing will happen to the soul, as indicated by Arjuna's words - “Devoid of piNDa and udaka, the forefathers will fall into hell.”

KT: So, Ramanuja is ignoring the entire logical reasoning of Arjuna justifying his action of sadness and his decision to desist from fight, but concentrating on the tiny segments that were used to make his argument.

That means that he is even ignoring the very heart of the context. This is like the awareness of bat and ball in the above example.

The contradiction in Arjuna is thus his using words which show an awareness of the difference between body and soul, and his actions of grieving and thus not being able to live upto his words.

KT: There are three big flaws in this thinking.

1. Contradiction is never used when one does not live up to his words. It is used only for statements like -

“the act of opposing in speech””assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed”

“denial of the truth of a statement””a statement or proposition containing contradictory parts”

“a self-contradictory phrase or expression””logical incongruity”

“opposition of facts, forces, tendencies, qualities, or events”

“direct opposition of logical contradictories”

2. In case of Arjuna, he made arguments supporting sadness and not fighting. He also set out to the same. Thus there is no discrepancy between his words and actions.

3. Awareness of difference is not a logical reasoning, but just a tool. Why is Ramanuja looking at the tool ignoring the whole picture?

How is there a self-contradiction here in Ramanuja's Bhashya?

KT: If he is perceiving “contradiction” (which in factis discrepancy) between his words of awareness (depicted as wise) and his actions, then he must stick with that. No, he contradicts himself.

He goes on to say “ato dehasvabhAvaM cha na jAnAsi,tadatiriktaM AtmAnaM cha nityaM, tatprAptyupAyabhUtaM yuddhAdikaM dharmaM cha |”

“Thus you do not know the dehasvabhAva, that there is an eternal soul other than body, the duty of war that forms the mode of attaining the fruits of such eternality.”

Now if you or Ramanuja's followers turn around and say (like VenkatanAtha) that there is contradiction in one set of words of Arjuna and the other set, then it is you people who are creating this imaginary contradiction by bloating the expressions like “patanti pitaro hyeshhAM luptapiNDodakakriyAH” to say that he spoke wise words (like bat and ball in Cricket).

Shankaracharya perceived some self-contradiction there. Unable to handle it, he called Arjuna as “unmatta iva” (like a mad man). I don't see how you think he is “unable to handle it”.

Shankaracharya is perceiving a contradiction in Arjuna, like Ramanujacharya.

KT: That is where the problem is. A contradiction is always between two statements. When both are from the same person, it is self- contradiction. A disconnect between a statement and its execution is not “contradiction”.

It is failure in implementation or what ever.

“Contradiction” is a wrong usage. In order to cover their self-contradiction, they are using the cover of Arjuna, but that is done in a pathetic way. Why? In the case of Arjuna, there is not even the failure of implementation. He gave arguments for “sadness” and he gave arguments for “not fighting” and he set out for that. His awareness of body and soul is also used for “sadness” and “not fighting” only. So, attributing wisdom for mere “awareness” is, but a pathetic move.

A contradiction between wise words and unwise actions is not uncommon in the world. Such a thing was demonstrated even by Hiranyakashyipu at the funeral of Hiranyaksha, where after speaking wise words to console his mother and sister-in-law, Hiranyakashyipu thought of doing the most unwise thing.

KT: That is not called contradiction. It is failure in implementation. In fact if Hiranyakashyipu had acted wisely, then there is conflict between his svabhAva and his action.

Indeed Arjuna is sad, and depressed, but where is the question of “mad man”? Just because someone speaks wise words and does not do wisely, he is mad?

It is “unmatta iva” and not “unmatta” literally.

KT: Note that I wrote at the very outset “unmatta iva”(like a mad man). I don't mean “literally” at all.

“he is mad” is to be understood as “he is like a mad man”. Just because someone feels sad to kill the close relatives and gurus, no one will call him “like a mad man”.

Instead of perceiving the self-contradiction in their (Shankara and Ramanuja) statements (calling Arjuna's words as wise and his actions as unwise),they are selecting the tiny part of “Arjuna's words” and ignoring the main part of his arguments. Please see my example of Cricket in the reply for your mail on Ramanuja, who fell in the same trap as Shankara.

Arjuna's showing in himself a contradiction in words and action is likened to “unmatta iva” since even a person in delirium is observed to speak words that are completely cut off from his actions

KT: There is a big problem in this approach itself.

1. X says something and does not implement what he says.

Do we call X is “like a mad man”? I dare say “certainly not”. Most of the politicians say lot of things and they don't implement them. Do we say “they are like mad men”?

2. In case of Arjuna, it is not even a case like X.

He gave arguments for being sad and for not fighting.

He set out for doing exactly those acts. Then there are some who make this big assumption “if someone (Y) is aware of body and soul, he must have the wisdom to know everything about body and soul and so must be wise and so must not feel sad and must not desist from fight”.

First of all this kind of assumption is laughable.

Added to that, calling that someone is “like a mad man” is even worse. Even that X (in 1) is not called “like a mad man”, where as this Y, who is much better than X(since his words and actions match) is called “like a mad man”. This is appalling!

(also please see below what Venkatanatha's take on Shankara's words is).

KT: That does not help in anyway as will be shown.

So it is not a literal equation between Arjuna and a mad man. It is the equation of only one particular aspect of behavior.

KT: As shown above, there is a big goof in the very analysis of that aspect itself.

It is easy to say, but difficult to do. It may be difficult to do, but there is a difference between a person who acknowledges that he is only speaking and finds implementing it difficult,

KT: Like X in the above example.

and a person who speaks while feeling fully justified that he is implementing what he speaks.

KT: Like Y in the above example. Arjuna spoke the reasons to be sad and not to fight. He felt fully justified.

He set out to implement that. Thus there is no conflict at all in the case of Y.

In Arjuna's case, from his own perspective, he feels that his speech and his actions are in harmony.

KT: They are. In fact, that is the reason, why Lord Krishna had to instruct him to change his mind. Otherwise Krishna could have simply said

“Arjuna, your thinking is great. It is just your action that is not right.

Just do what you are thinking/saying”.

But Shankaracharya feels that his words and actions are contradictory

KT: That is his flaw. Mere awareness of body and soul does not indicate any conflict between his arguments and his actions. It is a big folly to ignore the powerful (yet wrong) arguments set forth by Arjuna and pick up some remarks, which are also used as tools for his wrong argument and refer only to those remarks. This like ignoring the main thesis and talking about some footnotes there in.

(or that his words themselves are reflecting both wisdom and foolishness, as Venkatanatha explains – please see below).

KT: Of course and the pitfall there will also be shown.

Also, isn't Arjuna justifying his actions (like grieving) through his words. If Shankaracharya claims that Arjuna's actions are not wise, how can he call his words (that justify those actions) wise?

The big question here (as in Ramanujacharya's case) is which words Shankaracharya has in mind here.

KT: No, the bigger question here is which words one should have in mind here. If an infant holds a knife and begins to injure and hurt itself, it is not wise to keep commenting “how beautiful the knife is and how shiny it is, etc.”

When Arjuna used his concept of body and soul also to justify his sadness and decision not to fight, is it wise to say that Arjuna's words are wise since they contain such shiny information about the body and soul and beautiful concept of love for gurus and elders?

Obviously, he cannot and does not say that Arjuna's justification for grieving is wise. Such a position cannot be put into his mouth, because even a neophyte like myself wouldn't say such a thing.

KT: That is the point. How come they (Shankara and Ramanuja) ignore such obvious and important point, which even a neophyte can see and make a wild goose chase for wrongly used tools, saying that the tools themselves are good and turn a blind eye to what the tools are used for?

Since he has not elaborated on which words he finds wise, it is difficult to know what he had in mind.

KT: Two things here. Firstly, since Ramanuja has mentioned what he found wise, there is a good chance that Shankara finds them also wise. Or they may be what Venkatanatha found as wise. Or there may be others. No matter what they are, is it even wise that one has to do the same wild goose chase, leaving behind the very obvious thing and ignoring the very heart of the teaching of Krishna?

I have seen different answers to this question from different advaitins.

KT: It will be a thrill to analyze this since 'nAsatovidyate bhAvo |' (only good can come out of good and bad out of bad)

1. Anandagiri says it is “utsanna kuladharmANAm..” which by itself are not unwise words – a person who knowingly destroys his own Vaidika family traditions by slaughtering his kinsmen ordinarily would cause the whole family (including himself) to end up in a sorry state.

KT: How could he be so naive? How could anyone be so naïve ? This is like the typical “mathematical fallacies”, where each step seems correct and yet you land up in a wrong conclusion. A true mathematician will point out where exactly the flaw is. Just because so many intermediate steps are right, one cannot call that the conclusion is right and that it is a wise approach.

Another example (for such flawed thinking):

“One has to respect the pIThAdhipati (say xyz). The way to respect is to listen to and follow what he says. He says “do strict fasting on Ekadashi”. A person P respects xyz a lot, but is unable to do Ekadashi fasting strictly. So, p is causing disrespect to xyz. That means he is insulting xyz. Insulting elders is tantamount to murder. So, p is actually committing a crime equal to murder.”

Can one call this line of argument very wise, because the person who calls this wise has in his mind good things about “Ekadashi”.

Now Arjuna argued that if the war is fought, then all the bad things that he listed will happen.

Lord Krishna instructed that Arjuna had to go ahead with the war. So, does that imply that Krishna wanted all those bad things to happen?

So, where is the problem? The logical reasoning that Arjuna applied is flawed.

While one can argue that this issue was not relevant to the battle in retrospect, if you put yourself in Arjuna's position,

KT: Yes, you have to put yourself into Arjuna's position after he was instructed by Krishna.

it is not as if these words are untrue.

KT: Please look at all the examples above.

Arjuna was not sure about the consequences of the battle.

KT: Oh, he at least thought that all those bad things will happen due to the battle.

2. Neelakantha feels it is the same quote given by Ramanujacharya “patanti pitaraH hi eShAm..” which shows that Arjuna knew that the soul is different from the gross body. His defense of Shankaracharya is essentially the same as Ramanujacharya's argument.

KT: Of course, there is not much of difference between both the approaches. They are on the same plane.

All that can vary is which of the intermediate steps(like in a mathematical fallacy) they like to enlist.

3. Venkatanatha feels that it refers to 2.4-5 (which is essentially the pUrvapakSha that Sri Prasanna put forward when starting this thread).

KT: Prasanna put forth the pUrvapaxa and wanted a reply.

So, this Venkatanatha put forth the pUrvapaxa and concluded that it is right. In other words that itself was siddhAnta for him.

He feels that Arjuna's words and actions in the first chapter can be classed as “mauDhyam”, then after Krishna speaks in 2.2-3, Arjuna's words in 2.4-5 can be classed as “prAj~natvam”,

KT: That is where he is showing his ignorance. Just because the situation was dramatized, he felt that they are “prAj~natvam”? What a pity! The arguments are exactly in the same line. There is no difference at all between 1^st chapter words/approach and 2.4-5.

then his words under 2.7-8 can be classed as “shiShyatvam”

KT: There is no logical reasoning involved there. He is just surrendering to Krishna and that is why Krishna is also instructing Him. If Arjuna had said “I have made up my mind. Don't tell me anything. I won't listen to one word you say”, what can be done? That did not happen, Arjuna is a uttamAdhikAri and that is a temporary j~nAnatirodhAna.

and his final words as “na yotsye” can be called as “svAtantryam” (since after declaring himself a disciple, he immediately declared his independence also by saying he will not fight).

KT: That is not svatantryam. That is an outcome of his flawed reasoning. The same thought is also expressed in 1.44-45 also. Couldn't he see that? Then what happened to his classification as “mauDhyam” (ch.1)?

Thus, in these words of Arjuna, Venkatanatha says that there is self-contradiction multiple times; sometimes, Arjuna is showing his mauDhyam, and sometimes he is showing prAj~natvam.

KT: I don't see any self-contradiction. Nor do I see any prAjnatvaM in the reasoning process. Showing devotion and humbleness is not part of reasoning. Showing awareness of body and soul is like awareness of “using bat and ball in cricket”.

One may note a subtle difference here between the position of Shankaracharya that I put forward earlier and Venkatanatha's understanding of Shankaracharya's words here.

KT: How can one hold a jug upside down? With a left handle or right handle? Both are possible.

I had said that Shankaracharya considers the self-contradiction to be between Arjuna's actions and words.

KT: Arjuna's words said that he won't fight and he has reasons for sadness and his behavior was exactly that. Drawing wrong conclusions with the tools that Arjuna used will not make the arguments wise.

No one calls a job “excellent workmanship” just because wonderful tools were used.

Venkatanatha seems to suggest that the self-contradiction is between Arjuna's words themselves in different sections.

KT: Absolutely not. None of the commentators have shown any wise arguments made by Arjuna. They have only shown the nice tools that Arjuna used.

His words in chapter 1 show his foolishness, but in 2.4-5, he demonstrates good intelligence,

KT: As shown above, Venkatanatha is the one who is showing self-contradictions. He said chapter 1 shows his foolishness and said again that 2.4-5,which speak the same thought, demonstrates good intelligence! I hope the readers perceive the obvious self-contradiction.

then he declares himself a disciple of Krishna,

KT: That is very natural.

and ends off with something contrary to his immediately preceding declaration.

KT: There is nothing contradictory. Based on all the reasoning that he gave, he did exactly as per his reasoning. His ending off is same as what he said in 2.4-5 (the so called 'demo of intelligence').

So Venkatanatha does not separate Arjuna's actions of grieving from his words expressing grief in chapter 1.

KT: His separation of words itself is very flawed.

With his explanation, the “unmatta iva” would be like the self-contradictory incoherent speech that mad people give.

KT: Then we have to realize who has to be labeled as”unmatta iva” here. Calling one set of words as wise and another set which express the same thought as foolishness – wow!

Of course Sri Jayatirtha didn't use exact statement “upamArthashchakAraH”. That is why Rayaru commented on his words. Sri Jayatirtha said in Nyayadipika:

“uttarArdhamupAdatte”

“upAdatte” is the key and conveys the same meaning.

How does it convey the same meaning? Only if you look at Raghavendra Tirtha's sub commentary on it. Without the sub commentary, a person reading the Nyayadipika will not think that “upamArthashchakAraH” is that obvious. If it was obvious, there was no need for Raghavendra Tirtha to add the following in Nyayadipika:

KT: The same thing applies to all the Tippanis. Doesn'tit? Then why do we accept the Tippanis? They are obvious to some, but not to others. Why they write TIka-s and Tippanis? To tell those for whom they are not obvious. All do not fall under the same category. Right?

Rayaru says in bhAvadIpika:

“arthastu spashhTaH | cha-shabda upamArtho dhyeya iti ||”

“The meaning is very clear. That 'cha' is used in the line of simile is to be realized.”

In both the expressions “upAdatta” and “upamArtha”, what is conveyed is that “aprastuta prasiddha” thing is used to

explain/highlight/indicate the “prastuta” thing.

It is not clear from Jayatirtha's words that cha = iva. Unless someone like Raghavendra tirtha writes it down in bold, why will anyone criticize it?

KT: Rayaru never said “cha = iva”. All that he said was “upamArthashchakAraH””cha-shabda upamArtho dhyeya”

Why are you concluding “cha = iva” from the above? Rayaru never even used “iva” in the above context.

That is obvious for you. But that may not be for some. All people are not at the same level.

The very fact that Raghavendra Tirtha has written it shows that it was needed, and that without it, a person may not necessarily think it is obvious.

KT: Which person are we talking about here? It is given that even with Bhashya, Tika and Tippani's, different people have different levels of understanding.

To give a corresponding example, you have criticized “unmatta iva”, but I do not see anyone from dvaita school criticizing this particular point, because it is not clear that Shankara considers Arjuna literally to be a madman.

KT: Our Acharya parampara have given all the necessary tools and it is upto us how and how much we use them and how much the Lord gives us the ability. I wrote ”unmatta iva (like a mad man)”. After that I loosely referred it as “mad man” argument and I don't mean that Shankara called him literally mad. I never used the expression “literally mad” either and that was the assumption that you made. All my arguments hold good for “like a mad man” expression as well and that is exactly what I meant as well.

Thus I do not think that you or Shankaracharya's followers will have any advantage by stressing it is “like a mad man” only and not “literally a mad man”.

Thus your following statement also is invalid and irrelevant -

Unless someone from advaita school says that Shankara means to say that Arjuna is literally mad, no dvaita commentator will want to criticize a strawman.

Thus, the earlier commentators had scope to criticize Sri Jayatirtha.

I still do not feel convinced about this. People judge a commentary based on what is explicitly written -

KT: It is explicit by the word “upAdatta”.

it is risky to attack a commentary based on unwritten things.

KT: “upAdatta” is written.

Since it was unwritten in Jayatirtha's Nyayadipika,

KT: It is not unwritten.

it is very unlikely that someone would have endeavored to criticize it.

KT: Lack of ability to understand cannot be substituted or compensated.

what is your universal set of “Advaita commentators on Gita who criticized Madhva commentary on Gita”?...

... except Venkatanatha, no one has explicitly criticized the Madhva commentary (not even Madhusudana Sarasvati). The person who explicitly critiqued the Madhva commentary verse by verse has criticized the cha = iva equation.

KT: Even according to you, he only mentioned that the meaning is stretched. Did he criticize Rayaru's commentary or something else? Is the objection for the usage or for the meaning? If it is for the usage, then he has to explicitly say that.

If it is for the meaning, then he has to give the flaw in the meaning and present a better meaning. Has he done any of these?

Thus, it cannot be taken as something other schools have found permissible.

KT: I only said that “not objected to such a usage of “cha”. Even that is “as far as I know” only.

I did not say that they accepted that meaning as permissible.

It is not my worry as to how many went for verse by verse criticism. My concern is if anyone objected to the grammatical part of it. If anyone brings up an objection to that in grammatical way, I will be interested.

Otherwise, there is a tendency to even forget that there is a conflict of duty here,

The tendency to think that there is a conflict itself is wrong. A conflict is also perceived by Sri Vishvesha Tirtha in Gita Saroddhara

(http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/gita_sara/gs-001.html):

KT: No, it is not perceived by Sri Vishvesha Tirtha.

Please read again and again until that is clear. If not, here it goes.

Quote - “Arjuna is thus tossed between two opposing duties, duty as a kshatriya to kill the enemies and duty as an ordinary householder to show reverence to his elders and preceptors.”

KT: I am stressing: “ARJUNA IS THUS TOSSED.”

So, it is Arjuna who perceived it. Arjuna clearly indicated his conflict of mind “dharmasammUDhachetAH..”, “na hi prapashyAmi..”, etc.

His perception above is wrong. That is why it is”praj~nA + avAda”. If what you claim is true (that there is conflict of duty), then there is atleast some hope for Advaita and V. Advaita claiming that Arjuna spoke wisely. This is another proof that it isonly “praj~nA + avAda” (unwise words), but not “wise words”.

I am not sure how Ashrama dharma can be said to support Arjuna's fighting with his superiors. It is his varNa dharma which says it. Even if the Ashrama dharma does not require him to follow Bhishma and Drona when they support the wicked, I do not know of any injunction which says that one can even fight with them. If such an injunction was part of Ashrama dharma, then even brahmanas, vaishyas and shUdras would have been free to fight with their superiors. I have always heard in pravachanas that if one's family members go wayward, one need not follow them, but one should continue to formally respect them.

KT: You are missing the point completely. It is the paramadharma that says “nArAyaNadviT tadanubandhi nigrahameva kAryaM”. VarNa dharma supports it. Ashrama dharma yields to it (gives way by stepping aside). Paramadharma sits on the top. Other dharmas stay below. Either they support/strengthen or yield/step aside. So, it is ridiculous to look for injunctions from the other dharmas.

There is no role of paramadharma in the second half of your above remark. Thus brahmanas, vaishyas and shUdras have to fight/protest as appropriate when the superiors are “nArAyaNadviT tadanubandhis”.

If one's family members go wayward, that does not have to mean that they are “nArAyaNadviT tadanubandhis”.

If they are, even then it does not mean that they have to be hurled with verbal insults, but every effort has to be made to stop them, when they turnout to be a threat to the society.

The point is that when there is a conflict of duty, and one injunction overrides the other, a person who has in mind the injunction that is overridden (like Arjuna) is partly correct in his assessment of that injunction,

KT: That is a wrong approach. There is no conflict of duty.

The one that overrides all is “paramadharma”. There is no question of “partly correct”. There is no indication anywhere in Gita that says that Arjuna was partly correct in his initial remarks.

but wrong when it comes to resolving the conflict with the other injunction that overrides it.

KT: There are two wrong things. Thinking that there is conflict of duties is wrong. Not realizing the Paramadharma is another wrong.

Rayaru quotes that there is no fault in killing AtatAyins (nAtatAyivadhe doshho hanturbhavati kashchana). They have to be killed without a second thought (hanyAdevAvichArayan).

That's right, but CM Padmanabhachar calls it a sAmAnya-dharma which is a general rule but which has exceptions.

“Looking at the rules bearing on the question in the dharma shAstras, . AtatAyins as they were.”

KT: That is pUrvapaxa and the thinking process of Arjuna, which is wrong.

“sAmAnya-dharma (general rule) has exceptions”.

Sure, but here we are talking about paramadharma, which has no exceptions (tadviruddha sarvo.api adharma).

For that matter, isn't this why Ashvatthama was spared by the Pandavas even after he performed the gruesome act of slaughtering sleeping men? (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/43/en)

KT: He was spared of life, but not punishment.

Please see:

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/55/en

Lord Krishna is not talking about the rules that have exceptions, but about the ones that have no exceptions.

The above are exceptions according to CM Padmanabhachar.

He was a lawyer, and if it he says the law is not clear, I think there must be something in it, otherwise he would have been happy to not go beyond the Gita Vivrtti.

KT: You are missing the whole point. It is not enough if the lawyer says correctly. It depends on how one understands the lawyer. He said those words thru Arjuna. If Sri Vedavyasa writes that Duryodhana spoke “so and so words”, that does not mean that those words are the opinion of Sri vedavyasa.

If CMP wrote that “so and so” is the thought process of Arjuna, that does not mean that CMP also means that. He certainly would not go beyond the words of Madhvacharya, who said unequivocally ”svavihitavR^ittyA bhaktyA bhagavadArAdhanameva paramo dhrmaH, tadviruddhaH sarvo.apyadharmaH”.

What about the argument that Draupadi gives for not killing Ashvatthama (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/43/en) how is that any different from Arjuna's argument in 2.4-5?

KT: Very simple. Arjuna's argument is coming from the angle of “skipping paramadharma” (the skipping is in the form of avoiding war).

Draupadi's words are for sparing the life of AshvatthAma when he is already in “imprisoned state”.

In his current state, AshvatthAma is not a threat.

If he is not in that state and if he were killed in the war, Draupadi had no objection. Look at the case where, his father himself (thru whom only AshvatthAma gets the honor of Acharyaputra), who was killed in the war.

Has Krishna gone thru that process or not? If He has gone thru that, why should one make an assumption that Krishna is referring to those who have not gone thru that process?

To indicate to Arjuna that while some of his words like 2.4-5 may be fine when it comes to Ashrama dharma of an individual, the right thing to do at the moment is to follow kShatriya dharma for the larger benefit of society.

KT: Did Krishna say that anywhere in Gita? If not that suffers from kalpanAgaurava. Also, please see the paramadharma concept indicated above.

Is it mentioned anywhere in Gita that there is such a conflict? If it is not, why should it be perceived that there is one?

Because Arjuna perceives a conflict - “dharma-sammUDha- chetAH”. This is explained by Vishvesha Tirtha as a conflict between varNa dharma and Ashrama dharma.

KT: That is where you are having problem. Just because Arjuna perceived the conflict, you are assuming that there is conflict. Swamiji has been very clear in pointing out that “ARJUNA WAS TOSSED”. Acharya is very clear by saying “praj~nA + avAda” or svamanishhottha\-vachanas. Where is the scope for any doubt?

In that case, if there is no difference between Arjuna's approach in first chapter and second chapter, there should be no change of opinion in Krishna's words as well.

There is no change of opinion because for Baladeva, Krishna's verdict is that the words were only seemingly wise, not actually wise.

KT: They may have seemed wise for Baladeva, just as even the 1^st chapter words seemed wise for quite a few.

For saying “seemingly wise”, he has to use the”cha=iva” (praj~nAvAdan cha = praj~nAnvAdAn iva).

While grammatically, there is no problem, there is a problem semantically. Why?

1. Vagueness – whom does it seem?

2. Inconsistency – For some, even the words of first chapter may seem wise. So, why call only the 2^nd chapter words as “seemingly wise”?

Arjuna's approach in 2nd chapter is with a special emphasis on guru-bhakti that was absent in chapter 1.

KT: No it is not absent.

In chapter 1, he did not mention Bhishma and Drona as “mahAnubhAvas” and “pUjArhau”. He clubbed them with a bunch of other relatives who were evil. Here, he is emphasizing them because they are good people.

KT: In chapter 1, he showed not only gurubhakti, but also pitR^ibhakti, bandhuprema, shAntipriyatva, vairAgya, absence of greed and so many fine qualities. So, one may claim that he showed more good qualities than in 2^nd chapter.

This change in emphasis by Arjuna can lead to Krishna's change of words by which He slightly softens His usage of words by calling it seemingly wise but not actually wise (referring to 2.4-5).

T: Sure He softened. He did not say words like “klaibya, kashmala, anAryajushTa, asvargya, akIrtikara, xudra hridaya daurbalya”, but simply said “unwise words”.

Why should it be “wise”, “seemingly wise”, “half-wise” or any other variations of wise with too many assumptions?

Note that much of the above arguments are taken from dvaita sources. I am not representing a pure Gaudiya argument here, because I have not seen any of them give the above arguments.

KT: I know. That is why I am pointing out the pit falls in riding two horses at the same time.

I am just trying to understand why you feel this other interpretation is so wrong.

KT: I think I have given enough reasons for that.

What you consider a tiny segment is not tiny, for Krishna spends the whole section 2.12-30 on this point (difference between body and soul).

KT: “Tiny” does not mean unimportant. It refers to size. Also it is a “tiny portion of Arjuna's words”. I did not say “tiny portion of Krishna's words”. “Krishna spends the whole section 2.12-30 on this point” means Arjuna did not get it right and so Krishna explained at length.

R is referring to the fact that X is aware that ball, bat and wickets are used in Cricket. R is not referring to the faulty game tactics of X.”

A V.advaitin may call this analogy as misleading, because

KT: that person does not understand the analogy.

it ignores what Krishna is speaking on in verses 2.12-30: the difference between body and soul.

KT: Many words are spoken about bat, ball and wickets and their specifications. They are not of no importance at all for Cricket lovers.

Since this is the topic of focus, there is nothing wrong in focussing on a “tiny segment” of Arjuna's words.

KT: Sure, one must focus. It does not mean that one should focus on the mere mention of that. Why do you think Krishna went that long on that? Calling “mere awareness” as wise is not a wise move. In fact, that is why Ramanuja self-contradicted himself by saying that “Arjuna did not know those”.

That tiny segment is tiny only in terms of words;

KT: Of course “Tiny” refers to size only. You have not yet substantiated why the real “crux of the argument for being sad and not fighting” is ignored in preference to the ”mere awareness of the presence of soul and its difference from body”.

in its significance to this section (2.12-30), it is not tiny. So Krishna focuses on it because that is what He will be speaking on for the next 19 verses.

KT: I am not saying that it is not significant. I said that Arjuna did not say anything significant about that so that the term “praj~nAvAda” is taken to make a reference to that. Even if “praj~nAvAda” refers to that term, it is all the more reason to say “unwise” for “praj~nAvAda”.

Why? Arjuna used his awareness of body and soul to make a conclusion that it is for his sadness and that he should not fight. Otoh, Krishna used 2.12-30 for exactly the opposite (no need for sadness; need to fight). Thus what Arjuna said was “unwise”.

Also look at the amount of confusion that is created between Gaudiyas and V.Advaita. Gaudiyas say a switch to “seemingly wise” is made based on 2^nd chapter words of “gurubhakti mentioned with explicit names”. However

V. Advaita says “wise” based on 1^st chapter words. If that were the case, why not mention “praj~nAvAda” in 2.2-3 itself? Nothing adds up.

In your analogy, awareness of use of bat and ball is a trivial fact of cricket that is way off from the point being made in the Gita:

KT: Similarly awareness of body and soul is also trivial fact of philosophy. Even Christians and some of the aborigines are aware of body and soul.

1. In your analogy, there is no perceived discrepancy between theoretical awareness of use of bat and ball in cricket and practical application of it. In the Gita, there is a discrepancy between Arjuna's awareness of the afterlife and his grief for body and soul. It is this discrepancy which is the key point for Ramanuja.

KT: In my analogy, awareness of bat and ball has not helped to arrive at right conclusions. And in Ramanuja's realm, the awareness of body and soul has not helped Arjuna to arrive at the right conclusion. That is the key point.

2. If awareness of body and soul difference was like awareness of use of bat and ball in cricket, then why does Krishna devote the whole section 2.12-30 just on driving home this awareness?

KT: You have not noted that yet? That is because Arjuna arrived at a wrong conclusion, even though he is aware of body and soul difference. Similarly if a person is aware of bat and ball, but still arrives at wrong conclusions, he needs a long session in Cricket!

Since he has done so (according to V.advaitins), your analogy is misleading.

KT: The analogy is perfect. What is misleading is to draw a conclusion that since Arjuna mentioned a statement that indicates awareness of body and soul difference, call the entire argument of Arjuna as unwise and then justify by saying that “no, no entire argument is not wise, but just the awareness of body and soul is wise; that is what is referred”.

Hardly anyone in the world is able to live up to the fact that they are different from the body. It is very different from awareness of bat and ball in cricket, where there is no question of a discrepancy arising.

KT: You are again getting mixed up between statements and ”living up to a statement”. This is the discrepancy.

Awareness of “body and soul difference” - still arrived at wrong conclusion.

Awareness of bat and ball - still making wrong conclusion.

Both need instruction that helps arrive at proper decision.

The example is made glaring to drive the point. The example is misleading; V.advaitins will say.

KT: Of course, because the example is not understood.

It will mislead people into thinking they are making such a ridiculous interpretation

KT: It will make the analyzing people realize how ridiculous such an interpretation is.

when the fact is that the analogy lacks the crux of the issue that their interpretation of Gita has (a discrepancy between theoretical awareness and practical application, and thus the need for Krishna to drive home that point).

KT: The analogy has the exact crux of the issue. It has a discrepancy between theoretical awareness and practical application and thus need an expert in Cricket to drive home that point.

So, Ramanuja is ignoring the entire logical reasoning of Arjuna justifying his action of sadness and his decision to desist from fight, but concentrating on the tiny segments that were used to make his argument. He feels justified in doing so because Krishna is talking about body and soul difference throughout this section, and that tiny segment is directly relevant to that issue.

KT: Why did Krishna talk about body and soul difference throughout this section? It is because Arjuna arrived at wrong conclusion. How do you use the relevance of this tiny and crucial segment? Arjuna made a wrong decision. So, Krishna gave a long session. So, please don't say “Arjuna spoke wisely.” That is not only misleading, but absurd as well.

That means that he is even ignoring the very heart of the context. This is like the awareness of bat and ball in the above example.

No it isn't, as mentioned above.

KT: It is as explained above.

1. Contradiction is never used when one does not live up to his words.

Well you can call it an opposition or discrepancy if you don't like the word contradiction.

KT: It is not a question of my liking. It is more like a failure to implement, which is not applicable in case of Arjuna.

2. In case of Arjuna, he made arguments supporting sadness and not fighting. He also set out to the same. Thus there is no discrepancy between his words and actions. Since what is relevant for Ramanuja here is the nature of the difference between body and soul.

KT: One cannot make “half a sentence or half an argument” as relevant and mislead people. If X says “I like Mr. Y to be hanged”, a person R cannot come and say “X likes Y very much” since “I like Mr. Y” is relevant for him.

(since Krishna devotes the whole section to it),

KT: I have explained enough why Krishna does that.

as far as that is concerned, the context is appropriate for Krishna to focus only on that issue in 2.11 also.

KT: Why did he do that? It is because Arjuna got it wrong. You cannot call some workmanship as excellent because someone used wonderful tools, but messed up the job. The whole argument is dumping the whole context into ocean and saying Arjuna spoke wisely because he made an expression that indicates that he is aware of the difference between the body and soul.

3. Awareness of difference is not a logical reasoning, but just a tool. Why is Ramanuja looking at the tool ignoring the whole picture? The context for him (2.12-30) befits it.

KT: What does the context say? That Krishna had a need togive a long session to Arjuna about body and soul.

Still Ramanuja thinks that Arjuna spoke wisely. I can't even believe that one can make such a big logical blunder.

“ato dehasvabhAvaM cha na jAnAsi, tadatiriktaM AtmAnaM cha nityaM, tatprAptyupAyabhUtaM yuddhAdikaM dharmaM cha |”

“Thus you do not know the dehasvabhAva, that there is an eternal soul other than body, the duty of war that forms the mode of attaining the fruits of such eternity.” I don't see a problem here.

KT: Because, you did not get what the problem is.

When a person makes some philosophical statements and shows discrepancy in his behavior,

KT: The above statement is not talking about the behavior.

Note “na jAnAsi” (meaning 'you do not know'. It does not mean 'you do not behave accordingly'). How could you miss that?

it means that he has not realized or properly understood that philosophical statement. Otherwise there would be no discrepancy. The above statement of Ramanuja is saying that because Arjuna did not live upto a proper knowledge of body and soul difference, it means that he actually had not understood it properly.

KT: You are getting all mixed up between “knowing” and ”living up to”.

creating this imaginary contradiction by bloating the expressions like “patanti pitaro hyeshhAM luptapiNDodakakriyAH” to say that he spoke wise words (like bat and ball in Cricket). I think this is already addressed above.

KT: Wrongly and has been explained above.

Siddhi at all, I am sure Madhusudhana Saraswati very strongly argues

against the Dvaita interpretation of the Upanishad verse...so why say nothing in this case?

KT: The prime commentators must be very careful and should not oppose anything blindly.

In fact, in this verse, he even took the same kind of split as used by our Acharya (praj~nA + avAdAn) also.

However he took the other (praj~nA + vAdAn) as well.

His two interpretations are

1. He spoke unwisely and acted unwisely.

2. He spoke wisely, but acted unwisely.

There is partial inconsistency, but he didn't care.

“Omkar” wrote October 12, 2007 :(The contents from his mail are prefixed by )

How can both simultaneously be true? He probably finds it irrelevant to the overall siddhAnta whichever interpretation one decides to go

KT: It is not a question of whether the statements are relevant to one's siddhAnta or not. It is a question of clarity of thinking as well. If relevance alone is to be taken as criterion, some may argue that every advaitic statement should be either one that establishes Advaita or refutes Dvaita. Similarly every Dvaitic statement must be one that establishes Dvaita or refutes Advaita. That is not right.

Interestingly enough all these are to be taken as dvaitic in nature as we are discussing whether Arjuna spoke wisely or unwisely (acted wisely or not). There will never be a discussion that whether Krishna spoke wisely or not (or acted wisely or not). It is taken for granted that Krishna always speaks wisely and acts wisely.

The interpretations must always be logically consistent.

for (like Gaudiyas for 1.10 – Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and Baladeva Vidyabhushana give opposite interpretations but Gaudiyas accept both since neither affects their siddhAnta).

KT: When a siddhAnta has many loose ends, it does not matter if there are some more loose ends. I did not know that they have self contradictory interpretation here as well.

In addition to giving the wrong interpretation, one has to note the ridiculous conclusions that they draw in the purport,

(http://vedabase.net/bg/1/10/en )

Quote:

Herein an estimation of comparative strength is made by Duryodhana. He thinks that the strength of his armed forces is immeasurable, being specifically protected by the most experienced general, Grandfather Bhishma. On the other hand, the forces of the Pandavas are limited, being protected by a less experienced general, Bhima, who is like a fig in the presence of Bhisma?. Duryodhana was always envious of Bhima because he knew perfectly well that if he should die at all, he would only be killed by Bhima. But at the same time, he was confident of his victory on account of the presence of Bhishma, who was a far superior general. His conclusion that he would come out of the battle victorious was well ascertained.

Unquote:

(This reminds of the episode of the first verse from Advaita siddhi read by Sri Achyutaprexa to Acharya Madhva. Acharya points out that there are 32 errors in one verse.)

When Duryodhana's forces are 11 to 7 compared to Pandava forces, how could he think that his forces are immeasurable and Pandava forces are limited?

Let us grant that. Is Bhima general of Pandava Army (While Bhishma is general of Kaurava army)?

Let us grant that (LUGT). Is Bhima's prowess not known to Duryodhana that he thinks Bhima's experience as a general is not good enough

(even if it is less in terms of years than Bhishma)?

LUGT. Even if Bhima is not experienced as much as Bhishma in Generalship, does Duryodhana think Bhima is like a fig in the presence of Bhishma? Is he not aware that Bhishma got defeated in ViraTa war by Arjuna and Bhima is no less than Arjuna?

LUGT. Did he forget that he himself made a remark of prowess of Bhima when Kichaka was killed?

LUGT he forgot the remark he made for Kichaka's death. If he thinks so low about Bhima, why should he be envious of Bhima? He should be worry-free.

LUGT. Is Duryodhana so bad in logic to think that he would be killed by one, who is like a fig in the presence of Bhishma?

LUGT. He knew perfectly well that if he should die at all, he would be killed by Bhima. But at the same time he was confident of victory due to Bhishma. So, was he sure that Bhishma will protect or not sure?

LUGT he was not sure whether Bhishma protects him or not. At least, he must be aware that one who makes his potential killer look like a fig does not need his protection. Why should he comment to his Acharya that all the forces be engaged in protecting Bhishma?

LUGT due to anxiety or affection or what ever reason, he just made that comment. At least Bhishma must be aware that Duryodhana is in high spirits, but he had to make a lion's roar to boost the spirits of Duryodhana.

Let us grant all these, because the war has uncertainties.

At least the commentators have to note that here we are not talking about the outcome of war, but the thinking process of Duryodhana. They must not be confused or unsure.

I have yet to see such an approach in the dvaita school,

KT: I am confident that we won't succeed in seeing that approach as that is what sets it apart – absence of self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies.

It is alright to give multiple interpretations (like in case of 2.16, Bhashya and tAtparya give different meanings), but they are not at all self-contradictory.

but if you look at some other schools, they do not see an issue in coming up with opposite interpretations as long as it doesn't have to do with the core philosophy.

KT: Not surprising. If the implication is that inconsistent interpretation is irrelevant to the core ingredients, it is a scary thought since it indicates inefficient thinking process in case of prime commentators.

Let us take a hypothetical example. If a person who sets out in preparing an advanced mathematical thesis on some “application of complex variable functions in Vector Calculus” makes an effort to explain “how 3 is greater than 8” in the first part of the thesis itself, a serious student naturally tends to discard the thesis, rather than thinking that this small error is not relevant for the main thesis. The point here is that if the logical thinking falls short terribly in small things, it is very likely that in complicated things, that person will fumble badly. We are seeing that again and again.

What is Sri Madhvacharya's position on Arjuna's words? Is Arjuna actually experiencing...

KT: Both Acharya and Gita are explicit on this.

Acharya interpreted “praj~nA + avAdAn”. In the 18th AdhyAya in Gita Arjuna says “nashhTo mohaH smR^itir/- labdhvA...”.

Arjuna had lot of knowledge, but it was temporarily obstructed. That turned out for the good of Arjuna and also for a few others in the world as Lord decided to create that situation and teach Gita to Arjuna (as Krishna) and to give to the world (as Vedavyasa). However, people get as per their capacity and daivAnugraha.

It is a bit hard to believe that Arjuna is an amsha (avatara/avesha?) of Indra, who is the controller of the mind. If he cannot control his own mind (being overcome by emotion), how can he control the mind of others?

KT: What is the problem there? If you read Kenopanishad, the god of fire (Agni) fails to burn a blade of grass.

The god of wind (nAsikya vAyu) fails to blow a blade of grass, when the Lord comes as Yaxa. Indra does not control the minds as an independent being. All the tatvabhimani devatas do their functions from the ability given by the Lord. Some times, for some special purpose, He temporarily suspends that.

Shankaracharya's view is that the words of Arjuna were those of an Atma-j~nAni (since in advaita philosophy, an Atma-j~nAni may very well abstain from the war without any sin accruing from it; so all talk of Arjuna wanting to abandon the kingdom and living by begging is a legitimate desire for a person wishing to live in sannyAsa Ashrama for being fixed in Atma-vidyA).

KT: This was discussed in detail. The flawed thinking can be seen if we notice that it is not a legitimate desire since Arjuna has not taken sannyAsa Asrama and secondly he has chosen the words after asking Sri Krishna “rathaM sthApaya me.achyuta”. The decision about the wisdom in words is also made from the aptness of time and place. Just the awareness of body and soul alone do not make up as “Atmavidya”.

However, Arjuna's emotions and actions showed that he was far from an Atma-j~nAni or not yet purified enough to take sannyAsa.

KT: And so are his words.

Thus, while his words may be put into the mouth of a j~nAni,

KT: Certainly not. Part of the j~nAni laxaNa is also the awareness of proper time and place as well.

his actions and emotions were that of an ignorant person.

KT: So are his words. If anything, his actions and emotions were appropriate for a common man. It is not appropriate for a great soul like Arjuna to speak those words at that time, but the Lord made that happen.

Hence the contradiction.

KT: There s none in Arjuna's words.

It is something like my saying “Arjuna was under delusion”. A great dvaita AchArya may himself say that Arjuna was under delusion, so my words would be the words of a j~nAni. But in my actions and life, I am a thoroughly deluded person. Hence the contradiction in me. My words may indicate as if some wise person wrote that statement, but my actions do not.

KT: Lack of implementation is totally different. Also if a person gives the above statement (”Arjuna was under delusion”) in an office meeting amidst a serious office topic, that act of saying those words will be labeled unwise. No one will say that there is contradiction in that person.

When interpreting “dhira”...dhi means intellect (buddhi), but is “raa” like in Telugu “ikkaDa raa”=”come here”. The intellect is what comes (in Kannada we may say “avanige buddhi bantu”...

KT: Certainly not. “raa”, “raNDi”, “rammu”, etc. are used only in imperative form and it does not have its root from Sanskrit “ra” in dhIra. The root in Telugu itself is “vachchuTa”, which is very different.

The word dhIra is how it is explained below.

Bhavaratnakosha says - “matvarthe ra-pratyayaH iti bhAvena uktam - “dhImAn” iti |

PT: Bhagavad-Gita verse 2-11 has been discussed quite a bit, and I have been fortunate enough to understand most of it. However, I did have a couple of doubts.

First of all, I understand that Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of the verse is very much different from that of other commentators. He takes into account the context, the meaning of each 'ca', 'tu', 'hi' ,etc, as well as considering the meaning that makes the most sense. I'm struggling with a couple of issues, and I hope that some of the learned people on the list can address them.

In verse 2-11, Krishna says that Arjuna's words are “prajnavada”.

Literally, this means “words of a wise man”. However, Arjuna's words are criticized as being “klaibyam” (unmanly), and “kshudram hrdaya daurbalyaM” (despicable weakness of heart). One point that I felt noting is that Krishna mentions this at the beginning of Chapter 2. In other words, it refers to the arguments Arjuna made, not the ones made between verses 4 – 9 of Chapter 2, since these follow Krishna's comments.

So here is the question I want to ask – Could it be that the arguments Arjuna made at the end of Chapter 1 are NOT the words of a wise man, maybe correct according to his own understanding, etc, but not those in verses 4-9 of Chapter 2?

Arjuna does make some new arguments, like “katham bhiShmam..dronamcha pratiyotsyaami” - how can I fight against Bhishma & Drona specifically? My question is, are the arguments made between verses 4

• 9 of Chapter 2 also “kshudram hrdaya daurbalyaM”, or just the one sat the end of Chapter 1?

Even given that Arjuna's arguments are contrary to the words of a wise man, “prajna avaadaan”, why does Krishna criticize Arjuna's words, then let him make more arguments, and then say “prajnavadamschabhashase”? Why doesn't verse 2-11 immediately follow Krishna's criticism in verses 2 & 3 of chapter 2?

One other thought I had was that considering how depressed Arjuna seemed to be (though, being Indra he is uttama adhikari), he seemed to have “shokaM uccoShaNam indriyANAm”, grief that is draining his senses, and he says “shaadi maaM tvaaM prapannaM”, asking Krishna to instruct him. Could Krishna maybe, at this point say something like ”you're talking like a wise man”, rather than being blunt and say that he is NOT talking like a wise man, or Arjuna's logic is according to his own rationale not what is really right? Perhaps not to depress him any further? Of course, then in this case the “ca” is just there to make sure the Chandas is not 1 letter short.

Regarding the “gataasun agataasun cha naanushochanti paNDitaaH”, I think that though ordinary men may grieve for the living, wise men do not. For example, we may feel sad that people like Bin Laden are alive, or many Indians may feel sad that Musharraf is still alive.

However, wise men do not grieve that someone is alive. They know that, as pointed out in the upcoming verses, that the soul passes through several bodies, that we need not be sad that even the most wicked person is alive (there is a Paramatma who will make sure that such a wicked person reaps the fruits of his actions, “naasato vidyatebhaavo”, no good can come from bad deeds. So it takes a wise man to not grieve that wicked people are alive, though ordinary people may feel otherwise. It is a stretch I know...but what do people think?

Finally, one thing that has been bothering me about the interpretation of the cha in the second half of verse 2-11 is that we can not give meanings to Sanskrit verse “manassige bandante”, any way we desire. If we want to say “Just the way learned people do not grieve for those who are alive, they do not grieve for those about to die”, there has to be some precedent for interpreting the “cha” (and) to mean “iva” (like). Are there other examples elsewhere in Sanskrit literature, acceptable by the general public where “cha” can be interpreted as “iva”? Hopefully Gita verse 2-11 is not the only place ”cha” is taken to mean “iva”!

A few points here:

1. If you look at the two main commentators (Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya) who have considered Arjuna's words as those of a wise man, neither of them point to 2.4-9 as examples of wise words. Ramanujacharya points to the first chapter where Arjuna talked about the forefathers not receiving piNDa and suffering in hell as a result.

While Shankaracharya is not explicit about what words he considers wise, his sub commentator Anandagiri feels that it is referring to “utsanna kuladharmANAm..” - again from chapter 1. Madhusudana Sarasvati in fact points to 2.4 as an example of words that are unfit to be uttered by the wise.

PT: Oh, wow...I did not realize they tried to use Chapter 1's verses when describing Arjuna's words as that of a wise man. Then Krishna's words and strong criticism quite clearly show that he does not consider Arjuna's words to be wise.

I thought maybe Madhusudana Saraswati would try to argue against the Dvaita interpretation of the verse. His time period..again, not that the Wikipedia is the best resource for this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhusudana_Saraswati was more than 300 years after Sri Madhvacharya's Bhashya, so he certainly must have been aware of Sri Madhvacharya's interpretation of this verse.

When I saw how “prajnavaadan” was split as “prajna+avada”, it reminded me of the way we split “atmaatattvamasi” as “atma+atat+tvam asi” (both the Upanishad & Gita verse can be interpreted without inserting the 'a'). Though I haven't read Advaita Siddhi at all, I am sure Madhusudhana Saraswati very strongly argues against the Dvaita interpretation of the Upanishad verse...so why say nothing in this case?

2. Sridhara Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura point to 2.4 as words of the wise (or as seemingly wise words). In fact, I do feel, as I indicated in one of those mails, that 2.4 is something that was seemingly wise, even if not actually wise, which is why I also feel Baladeva's interpretation – praj~nAvatAm iva bhAShase is not incorrect or that far from Madhvacharya's interpretation.

PT: But of course, the beauty of Acharya's translation is that he interprets the 'cha' particle, prajnavadan CA, but I don't think Baladeva pays attention to that. It is quite amazing when you think about it – Sri Madhvacharya pays such close attention to such minute particles, but when a normal human being pays attention to such small details like “What does the 1^st cha mean, what about the 2^nd one?”, you lose sight of the overall context because you're focused on the details. In this case, it is Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, and other commentators who neither pay attention to minute details, nor do they understand the verse in context!!

3. In chapter 1, Arjuna had already included “AchAryAH” within the group of people that he did not want to kill. 2.4-5 are merely emphasizing that point of guru-bhakti. Since Krishna rejected what was said in chapter 1, one can argue that He would have also rejected what Arjuna said in 2.4-5, which was some kind of repetition only, although with emphasis on Bhishma and Drona. Krishna was also not sympathetic when Arjuna later on showed laxity in fighting against Bhishma, and He personally got down and charged towards Bhishma, making Arjuna fall at His feet and assure Him that he would not be weak-hearted.

PT: Yes, I had forgotten about that episode...of course, though Bhishma isa very great soul who delivered the Vishnu Sahasranama, because he fought on the side of Kauravas, Krishna would never consider arguments like “How can I slay Bhishma?” to be the words of a wise man (prajnavada as interpreted by other commentators).

It is only prajnaavada (against the words of the wise men) or svaprajna vaada (wise only according to Arjuna's own confused mind. Yes Arjuna is manobhimani Indra deva, but in this case his mind is confused).

What is Sri Madhvacharya's position on Arjuna's words? Is Arjuna*actually* experiencing a sort of mental confusion? Or does Arjuna simply engage in a type of “lila” (like Krishna lila), pretending that he is confused, so Krishna can deliver the Gita for the benefit of mankind. It is a bit hard to believe that Arjuna is anamsha (avatara/avesha?) of Indra, who is the controller of the mind. If he cannot control his own mind (being overcome by emotion), how can he control the mind of others?

The following is an understanding gleaned from V.advaita and Gaudiya literature, but I think it is not opposed to the dvaita interpretation:

Arjuna had not surrendered to Krishna as a disciple in 2.2-3. Krishna was trying to rouse him through strong words, but to no avail. Arjuna was not yet ready to hear. He was only interested there in justifying his own decision not to fight. The fact that the two verses spoken by Krishna did not help showed that the disease of Arjuna was deep-rooted and it needed a full philosophical discourse to remove it, which Krishna gave after Arjuna surrendered to Him as a disciple. In 2.7-8, Arjuna realized that he needed help from Krishna to get him out of this helplessness. He did not express that helplessness before, and was in fact trying to show that he knew what the right solution is.

PT: Okay, this explanation seems to make a lot of sense why the verse 2-11is separated from Krishna's arguments in the beginning of Chapter 2.

He was waiting for Arjuna to surrender to him, which happens in the previous verse. It is quite strange when you think about it. Arjuna surrenders to Krishna, asking him “yat shreyaH nischitaM syaat tat mebruhi” -- tell me whatever is certainly the best, in other words to guide him. At the same time, his final words before Krishna starts speaking are “na yotsye”= “I will not fight” (the 'e' in yotsye becomes 'a' because of the following iti in verse 9). Obviously these are not the words of a wise man!

My confusion was whether verses 4-9 of Chapter 2 are a continuation of the previous arguments, or something new. But they also seem to qualify as the words of someone overcome by emotion, and not a rational person.

If Arjuna's words are called the words of wise men, then his action of grieving would also be justified.

His words and actions of grieving are complementing each other, not contradicting one another (at least according to dvaita interpretation; Shankaracharya feels there is a contradiction). The words are nothing but justification from his side for his grief.

PT: I don't think that there is a contradiction between his words and actions. In verse 2-9, after he's finished speaking, “na yotsya iti govindaM uktvaa tUshNim babhuva ha” --he indeed became silent after saying he won't fight. How can there be a

contradiction between his words and actions? Now, it is starting to make sense. I think the reason why verse 11 is placed there after verse 9 as opposed to after verse 3.

Since Arjuna did not express grief for the living (about the fact that they are living), to come up with such an interpretation is not so satisfying, though Bannanje Govindacharya (and some commentators) do mention such an interpretation too.

PT: Yes, that is true...Arjuna is not grieving for the life of Bhishma & Drona, but rather that for the fact they are about to die. So “Just the way wise men don't grieve for the LIVING, they also do not grieve for those who are about to die”. In other words “agataasunscha” should be taken as “na gataasun iva” - those who are not about to die (those who are alive).

What I was saying before...it is difficult for most ordinary humans to pay such close attention to the syntax of the verse and also keep in mind the context. This bring out the greatness of Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Jayateertha, Sri Rayaru in helping the common man understand the verse.

takes a wise man to not grieve that wicked people are alive, though ordinary people may feel otherwise. It is a stretch I know...but what do people think?

The main problem with this is that it is not relevant to the problem that Arjuna has expressed at all. He is grieving even for the Kauravas' death – yAn eva hatvA na jijIviShAma, te avasthitAH pramukhe dhArtarAShTrAH.

He is not grieving that they are alive. In fact, he wants them to remain alive.

PT: Yes, the problem was that I was trying to take the cha as a literal”cha”...”the wise do not grieve for the living and the dead.” So, to try to justify it, I said, well there are cases where the ignorant people do grieve for the living, they grieve for the dead as well. But wise men do not. However, the fact that in some rare, bizarre cases, those who are not pandits grieve for the living...that is of no relevance here.

So, to summarize (pardon my lack of Sanskrit knowledge--we are all in the same boat!) “na anushochanti paNditaaH” --pandits do not grieve for whom? “gataasun” - those who are about to die (since no one has really died yet). Katham? How come? Agataasunscha=”na gataasun iva” Just the way they do not grieve for those who are not dead. Then, according to Sri Madhva Bhashya, the next 4 verses all go together.

Without a bhashya, the 4 following verses seem completely disconnected, and I imagine even the greatest Advaita commentators must have struggled with them.

But using the Dvaita interpretation (adding my own twist!), asking questions like

12) Well, we don't grieve for the living, but the soul is not eternal is it? Is that why we grieve for those about to die, but not the living? (what atheists may say)

13) Ok, if the soul is eternal, what if we do not get another body after this (like in Christianity/Judaism)? Then it makes sense to grieve for those about to die.

14) Ok, fine, Bhishma & Drona may be eternal (the soul), they may also acquire another body...but then why does Arjuna still have sorrow over their death?

15) Ok, so abhimani is causing the sorrow, not the mere contact of sense organs with the various external objects? But what is the ultimate goal in killing them in this Kurukshetra battle?

(Pardon the lack of Itrans...)12)”na chaiva na bhaviShyaamaH...” (We will never cease to exist)

13) ”dehino.asmin yathaa dehe kaumaaram yauvanaM jaraa...” (we acquire new bodies just the way a person passes through youth & old age)

14) ”maatra sparshaas**TU** kaunteya shitoShNa sukha dukhadaa? aagamaapaaayino.anityaa taanstitikShasva bhaarata” (Do the mere contact of senses with their objects cause pain & sorrow?

No, it is abhimana or attachment, so get rid of that)

15) ”samaduhKhasukhaM dhiram so.amrutatvaaya kalpate” ( He who views happiness and sorrow equally, in that he has no attachment to either, such a person is not driven astray by his senses, he is “dhIra”, his buddhi is what functions & is not driven astray by emotions.

Having done sadhana guided by intelligence & not petty emotions, having given up attachment to even his own body, he then achieves moksha.

Moksha is only possible after giving up attachment to “linga sharira”, not just the external body.)

I don't know much Telugu...but I know that much of it is based on Sanskrit. When interpreting “dhira”...dhi means intellect (buddhi), but is “raa” like in Telugu “ikkaDa raa”=”come here”. The intellect is what comes (in Kannada we may say “avanige buddhi bantu”, meaning that his buddhi is functioning,

“barodu”=coming in Kannada can mean ability to use something--”maaDakke baratte”). Does the meaning of “dhira” go along these lines, or am I making the wrong connection with “rAti” in Sanskrit to Telugu & Kannada? How do we understand “dhira”?

Rayaru gives the rule “upamArthashchakAraH”.

KT: I'm assuming upamaa means “upamaalankaaraH”=analogy.

One can see the propriety of it both from the context and the power of expression. Even other

KT: I can understand the contextual appropriateness, I just didn't know if there were other examples of cha meaning iva.

schools have not objected to such a usage of “cha”. Also let us look at an example. If one says

“vikramAryaH siMhashcha yuddhe vikrAnta dR^ishyate”.

KT: This is a clear example. I can see that the cha in siMhascha does not mean there is also a lion fighting with vikramarya, but rather Vikramarya fights like a lion in battle and is perceived as an excellent warrior. So cha can give the meaning of “iva”.