Ramanuja on Bhagavad Gita 2:12

[punkdbass]

Namaste,

So I've noticed that the verse in Bhagavad Gita 2:12 plays a major role in Ramanuja's philosophy. This verse, among others, is used to support the idea that there is an eternal difference between the individual Jiva and God. See Ramanuja believes in a form of "Realism" - that is, matter and soul are real things or attributes of God that exist eternally. Matter and Souls are NOT to be viewed ultimately as illusions, like in Advaita Vedanta, but rather these things are very real aspects of God. Secondly, this verse is used to support the idea that the individual Jiva, or living being, exists eternally. So basically the idea is that individual Jivas are attributes of God, and they exist eternally as unique entities.

Here is the verse, as well as some snippits from Ramanuja's commentary on the verse:

"There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings of men. Nor will there be any time in future when all of us shall cease to be"

• "The foregoing implies that the difference between the Lord, the sovereign over all, and the individual selves, [as well as] the differences among the individual selves themselves, are real. This has been declared by the Lord Himself. For different terms like "I", "you", "these", "all", and "we" have been used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality.."
• "As regards the theory of the Advaitins that the perception of difference is brought about by ignorance only and is not real, the Supreme Being - whose vision must be true... and who must thereby be always free from all ignorance and its effects - cannot possibly perceive the so-called differences arising from ignorance. It is therefore unimaginable that He engages himself in activities such as teaching, which can proceed only from such a perception of differences arising from ignorance." -- I think the point here is that if the 'difference' between God and living beings is merely an illusion or the result of ignorance, then it seems rather unfitting for God to propagate that ignorance by asserting the difference between himself and us with this verse.

My thoughts: Honestly I'm not sure. Perhaps Ramanuja is simply reading to far into this verse, over-emphasizing the literal meaning of the text, thus resulting in a meaning unintended by the actual author. Maybe the meaning the author was trying to get across was more simple, something like the following: what you are made of (Brahman), is eternal. It always was, and will always be. Life will always happen. I dont know. How do you guys interpret this verse? Do you agree with Ramanuja's inferences from this? That every living being exists eternally, as a unique, ever-evolving attribute of Divinity?

 

[Chakra]

I found this for you.
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/ramanuja_gita_bhashya.pdf

Please check the Appendix #2.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

My thoughts: Honestly I'm not sure. Perhaps Ramanuja is simply reading to far into this verse, over-emphasizing the literal meaning of the text, thus resulting in a meaning unintended by the actual author.

I think you are hurrying in arriving at a conclusion. I think it would bode well to follow @Amrut 's recommendation on other thread
Must read texts of Vishishtadvaita? | ReligiousForums.com

It holds good for studying any siddhanta.

I found this for you.
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/ramanuja_gita_bhashya.pdf

Is this an authoritative copy representing VA views? The appendix 1 which details what characters represent has some inconsistency with how Sri Vyasa Himself describes what these characters represent, especially the pandavas.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Sumit]

"There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings of men. Nor will there be any time in future when all of us shall cease to be"


How do you guys interpret this verse?

Immortal nature of aatman

 

[Aupmanyav]

Immortal nature of Brahman, which is Atman.
"..jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" (The living being is not different from Brahman)
"Sarva khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman)
"Yatha Soumya, ekena mritpindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam syat,
vacharambhena vikaro namadheyam mritiketyeva satyam."
(My boy, just as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known,
the difference being only a name arising from speech, the clay is the only truth)
and so many other Mahavakyas (great sayings).
My homage to Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya.

 

[Chakra]

I think you are hurrying in arriving at a conclusion. I think it would bode well to follow @Amrut 's recommendation on other thread
Must read texts of Vishishtadvaita? | ReligiousForums.com

It holds good for studying any siddhanta.



Is this an authoritative copy representing VA views? The appendix 1 which details what characters represent has some inconsistency with how Sri Vyasa Himself describes what these characters represent, especially the pandavas.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

I'm not sure. It's definitely unofficial IMHO (like there haven't been any hard copies printed). Of course, my actual Sri Ramanuja Gita Bhasya is not with me right now, so I have been relying on that site. It just happened to be so that punkdbass's question was answered there.

 

[Makaranda]

I'd be inclined to agree with your doubt re: the Ramanuja interpretation of the verse, since the context of the previous and following verses relates to the immortality of the self (which is, after all, common to all beings) and its persistence through the changeful states and experiences which characterise samsara. It is quite clear to me that the intention of the present verse given by Krishna is not to state the difference between God and other beings, but rather he is saying how all beings are immortal- such a statement in no way contradicts the Advaita position, since the immortal atma is the self or real nature of every jiva. When we isolate the verse and then point out how Krishna says 'You and I and all these men' therefore jivahood must be a reality , I really think we are missing the obvious message and merely obfuscating. Krishna is saying in this portion of the chapter: Do not grieve for your loved ones on this battlefield, because the Self within everyone is immortal. It can not be killed and endures all the changes of samsara. To seek liberation, therefore, go beyond the changing opposites.

 

[Stormcry]

I fully agree with Makaranda. While uttering that verse lord krishna has considered himself among humans and make arjuna believe that we will not perish if we die..Besides, he says that verse while arjuna doesn't know that he's brahman. Later Arjuna realizes him all-pervading Vishnu.. So I think krishna would not directly jump to the highest knowledge. Guru while instructing his Shishya starts with the knowledge in the way he can understand ie first Guru has to to come down to his level..

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Prabhu ji's

I agree certainly that the verse in its true context refers to the problem being faced by Arjuna , but none the less Sri Krsna choses to explain it thus , ...so it is right to examine what he says and how he choses to explain it .

to me Sri Ramanujacharya's Visishtadvaita (Qualified nondualism) rests upon the desire of the realised soul to remain subservient to the Supreme , ..and here lay the difference , ...allthough when saying
"There never was a time when I did not exist,'' followed by ''nor you, nor any of these kings of men.'' Sri Krsna could be said to be making such difference due to Arjuna's inability to see beyond the temporary form .

'Nor will there be any time in future when all of us shall cease to be"
qualifies that we are in all truth eternal beings , but the question is that of our seperateness here Sri Krsna stands in full knowledge speaking to Arjuna , ...the supreme allways has been and will eternaly be in full knowledge , ..we however are not in full knowledge , we may posess the potential to attain that fullness but we are as yet incomplete , ...the lord has never been incomplete there is in that sence seperation , therefore the Lord who has for eternity been in full knowledge is therefore worshpable even if not more so by the realised .
yes we are esentialy of the same nature but still there is difference between the lord and even his most realised deciple .

Sri Ramanuja Ki Jai

 

[Stormcry]

"There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings of men. Nor will there be any time in future when all of us shall cease to be"

Wondered! how this verse supports separate existence for eternity. I think there are other verses spoken by same Krishna, that clearly posit that there's one self in all and it is illuminating itself in innumerable bodies as if it is really divided among them. Now lets see what Krishna has opinion regarding individuality of soul..


सम्पद्यते गुणैर्मुक्तो जीवो जीवं विहाय माम् ॥ ३५ ॥

: Jiva freed from his jivahood unites with me.

सम्पद्यते- Unites | गुणैर्मुक्तो- having been free from Guna | जीवो- jiva | जीवं विहाय-Giving up Jivahood ( individual existence of atma/Barhman caused by mind, intellect and prana. This defination of Jiva is already stated by krishna before )


जीवो जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः ।
मयैव ब्रह्मणा पूर्णो न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत् ॥ ३६ ॥

: Thus dropping the Jivahood caused by gunas, jiva becomes complete brahman exactly as I'm. Thereafter he doesn't move either in himself or outside.

जीवो- Jiva | गुणैश्चाशयसम्भवैः- caused by the effects of gunas | जीवविनिर्मुक्तो - escaped from Jivahood | मयैव- exactly like me | ब्रह्मणा पूर्णो - complete Barhman | न बहिर्नान्तरश्चरेत् - doesn not move either in in himself or outside

“avam vimrushya….makhilasanshayadhim “ (BP 11.13.23)

Meaning: You should think like this and arrive at the conclusion about the nature of the self that the three states of mind born out of three Gunas are falsely superimposed on Me as the Jeeva, by my delusive Power (Maya) and should cut at the root of egoism, the basis of all doubts, with the sword of Wisdom fortified by reasoning, the precepts of saints and the texts of Shruti
(Upanishads), and join in the Unity with Me seated in your heart.


“ avam samahit……..jyotishi sanyutam “ (BP 11.14.45)

Meaning: With his intellect thus established, he sees me in himself and himself actually merged in me (bramhan) like an individual light (Individual jiva) in the element of fire (Brahman).

These all verses shatters the claim of Vaishnawas...

 

[Aupmanyav]

HLK, I think I can live with you, so I have unignored you.

 

[Stormcry]

You and I are not different One self everywhere

 

[shivsomashekhar]

We have to accept that the Gita is 'loose' enough to allow for multiple readings. As evidence, every Vedanta tradition has claimed the Gita for itself by writing commentaries attempting to prove that the Gita concurs with the tradition of the commentary. A commentary such as "Gita as it is" too has to resort to interpretation to align it with the tradition the author belongs to.

A great example is brahmano hi pratishta aham (Gita 14.27). A literal reading of this text is "I am the basis of Brahman". Here are some of the interpretations -

Iskcon: aham = Krishna. The text becomes "Krishna is the basis of Brahman"

Madhva: aham = Hari/Vishnu and Brahman = Laxmi (Vishnu's consort). The text becomes "Vishnu is the basis of Laxmi".

Shankara: aham = Nirguna Brahman, Brahman = Saguna Brahman. The text becomes "The Nirguna Brahman is the basis of Saguna Brahman"

Ramanuja: aham = Narayana, Brahman = jiva. The text becomes "Narayana is the basis of the jiva"

Proceeding this way, every tradition conclusively demonstrates that the true purport of the Gita is *exactly* the same as that of the tradition the commentator belongs to!

 

[Ekanta]

It makes me wonder, if Ramanuja was right... if the individual is eternal, it follows that all individuals would have started reincarnate an eternity ago and would thus also have reached liberation an eternity ago. The whole Creation (or Creations) would be a temporary phase which ended an eternity ago. It seems quite illogical to me.

 

[Stormcry]

We have to accept that the Gita is 'loose' enough to allow for multiple readings.

I won't accept that. Because I know it happens only when the verse is not interpreted in the context and correctly. Gita is perfect having one clear message.

Shankara: aham = Nirguna Brahman, Brahman = Saguna Brahman. The text becomes "The Nirguna Brahman is the basis of Saguna Brahman"

The preceding verse BG 14.26 talks like this: " And he who serves Me exclusively with Yoga of devotion, goes beyond these qualities and qualifies to become Brahman "

Thus without contemplating Brahman itself, how devotee transcends Maya by fixing his mind on Lord Krishna's form and becomes fit to become Brahman? There could be one doubt. How without fixing mind on brahman, one can become brahman. In order to posit the reason Lord Krishna continues in BG 14.27: " ही ब्रह्मणो प्रतिष्ठा अहं " "Because I'm situated in Brahman" - 'प्रतिष्ठा' means the thing which is प्रतिष्ठित (Firmly situated/established) in something. प्रतिष्ठिति- Standing Firmly... So Krishna is saying that he's situated in Brahman which is the origin of all. He is one with Brahman. Contemplating something which is situated in brahman means indirectly contemplating Brahman. In vedanta there's a peculiar tendency of mind. Whatever mind thinks, it becomes that. This is the only reason why devotee acquires brahman without contemplating Brahman itself. This much is the import of that verse. Saying something is superior than brahman is quite illogical and against Shrutii...

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

We have to accept that the Gita is 'loose' enough to allow for multiple readings. As evidence, every Vedanta tradition has claimed the Gita for itself by writing commentaries attempting to prove that the Gita concurs with the tradition of the commentary. A commentary such as "Gita as it is" too has to resort to interpretation to align it with the tradition the author belongs to.

A great example is brahmano hi pratishta aham (Gita 14.27). A literal reading of this text is "I am the basis of Brahman". Here are some of the interpretations -

Iskcon: aham = Krishna. The text becomes "Krishna is the basis of Brahman"

Madhva: aham = Hari/Vishnu and Brahman = Laxmi (Vishnu's consort). The text becomes "Vishnu is the basis of Laxmi".

Shankara: aham = Nirguna Brahman, Brahman = Saguna Brahman. The text becomes "The Nirguna Brahman is the basis of Saguna Brahman"

Ramanuja: aham = Narayana, Brahman = jiva. The text becomes "Narayana is the basis of the jiva"

Proceeding this way, every tradition conclusively demonstrates that the true purport of the Gita is *exactly* the same as that of the tradition the commentator belongs to!

The Gīta indeed presents a philosophy that is cogent and unequivocal. I find it important to appreciate and understand the ontological and epistemological basis on which the Ācāryas have presented their views, without which it not only undermines their contribution to philosophy, but also certainly misrepresents their views. I think such haste leads to finding fault with the Ācāryas by calling them opinionated. Whether a system appeals to our conviction or not, i would take to commenting on it only after i've myself studied and practiced it and experienced its limitations.

There is no 'looseness' in the Gītā -- the only subjectivity arises out of the inclinations of the individual and whichever system appeals to the person's conviction. And as far i see, the only way is to study all of them before rejecting any, after all, the philosophical systems are tools to inquire into that which cannot be easily conceptualized. I feel, if it were only a matter of interpretation, and the Gītā indeed lends itself to any such, the Ācāryas wouldn't have wasted their time writing commentaries on it. There is for sure one consistent import, and it becomes obvious when you engage in the study. The commentaries exist to provide guidance at places that may say, appear contradictory or are too complex. One does not study the Gītā through the commentary, but studies it in its original form, then considers the commentaries. In this case i find Śri Madhva's treatise good because he barely adds his own sentences, only refers to other scriptural evidences in ṣrutis and smṛiti in presenting his views as if encouraging the reader to consider the import in the context of overarching philosophy of the śāstras. There are no elaborate articulations nor does he even venture into word-by-word exposition. Now if one were to consider that he was trying to present Gītā according to his views, then it would tantamount to implying that the entire corpus of śāstras originated to do so

Unlike the purāṇas, there haven't been interpolations in the Gītā, thanks to its popularity, and even within the Mahābhārata, perhaps only the Gītā and Sahasranāma remain without interpolations. Irrespective of whose system one follows, it is bound to unravel new understanding; only, the possibility of comparing the views can happen after one has studied two or more philosophies starting with their foundational concepts.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

It makes me wonder, if Ramanuja was right... if the individual is eternal, it follows that all individuals would have started reincarnate an eternity ago and would thus also have reached liberation an eternity ago. The whole Creation (or Creations) would be a temporary phase which ended an eternity ago. It seems quite illogical to me.

I think you are forgetting the cycles of creation. Perhaps in the previous cycles all selves merged into Brahman, but this is another cycle going on. Eternity is just as long as one cycle. Then Time stops, till Brahman restarts it with the reading 00.00.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I won't accept that. Because I know it happens only when the verse is not interpreted in the context and correctly. Gita is perfect having one clear message.

If the Gita had one unequivocal message, then we would have one Vedanta tradition and not multiple. Just looking at the three major traditions, they clearly differ in their interpretation of the sutras, Upanishads and the Gita. They are also very different in their definitions of the end goal. From a traditional perspective, each of them claim exclusive lock on the truth and have spent considerable time disproving others. This is common knowledge and none of the above is in dispute.

Of course, times have changed today. With Ramakrisna Paramahamsa's "all paths lead to the same goal" and several new age movements which are inclined to be all-inclusive, the traditional standpoint of exclusivity has been pushed out in favor of the new. Nothing wrong with the new approach, but this should not lead to the mistaken idea that all the Vedanta traditions are interchangeable or that they all lead to the same destination. There is no support within any of these traditions for such a position.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From a traditional perspective, each of them claim exclusive lock on the truth and have spent considerable time disproving others.

These debates are good, but there is no exclusivity in Hinduism. It has been banished by just one line - 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'. They are all correct with respect to the particular person. Neither atheism is wrong, nor theism is wrong. The sole essential requirement of Hinduism is to follow one's 'dharma'.