[Advaita-l] Ishwara srushti - shruti bhAshya sammata
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Aug 8 07:03:13 EDT 2017
In addition to the Chandogya Bhāṣya instance shown below, there is also the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.5.19 instance where the avidyā element is stated by
Shankara in Īśwara sṛṣṭi:
इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति ।
इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः मायाभिः प्रज्ञाभिः नामरूपभूतकृतमिथ्याभिमानैर्वा न तु
परमार्थतः, पुरुरूपः बहुरूपः, ईयते गम्यते — एकरूप एव प्रज्ञानघनः सन्
Translation by Swami Mādhavānanda:
The same Lord, in the process of manifesting name and form. 'transformed
Himself in accordance with each form.' Why did He come in so many forms?
That form of His was for the sake of making Him known. Were name and form
the transcendent nature of this Self as Pure Intelligence would not be
known. When, however, name and form are·manifested as the body and organs, it
is possible to know Its nature. The Lord on account of Māyā or diverse
knowledge, or (to give an alternative meaning) the false identifications
created by name, form and the elements, not in truth - is perceived as
manifold, because of these notions superimposed by ignorance, although He
is ever the same Pure Intelligence.
Sri SSS in his Kannada translation for the above says:
Indranu, Parammeśwaranu, māyegalinda prajñegaḷinda, athavā,
nāmarūpabhūtakṛtavāda mithyābhimānagaḷinda - iṣṭe horatu nijavāgiyalla -
pururūpanāgi bahurūpanāgi kāṇisuttāne tiḷiya baruttāne. prajñāna ghanavāgi
onde rūpadilliddukoṇḍe avidyāprajñegaḷinda (bahuvāgi kāṇisuttāne).
Sri SSS gives a footnote:
māyegaḷu endare 'indriya prajñegaḷinda' endu ondu
artha.'nāmarūpagaḷindāgiruva bere bereya kāryakaraṇasanghātagaḷa (body-mind
complexes) abhimānadinda' endu innondu artha.
After saying the above, which is a clear translation of the bhāṣya, the
author cites the GK 3.24 bhāṣya in the footnote. This is shown below:
नेह नानेति चाम्नायादिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि ।
अजायमानो बहुधा जायते मायया तु सः ॥ २४ ॥
कथं श्रुतिनिश्चय इत्याह — यदि हि भूतत एव सृष्टिः स्यात् , ततः सत्यमेव
नानावस्त्विति तदभावप्रदर्शनार्थ आम्नायो न स्यात् ; अस्ति च ‘नेह नानास्ति
किञ्चन’ (क. उ. २ । १ । ११)
द्वैतभावप्रतिषेधार्थः ; *तस्मादात्मैकत्वप्रतिपत्त्यर्था कल्पिता
सृष्टिरभूतैव* प्राणसंवादवत् । ‘इन्द्रो मायाभिः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९)
*इत्यभूतार्थप्रतिपादकेन मायाशब्देन व्यपदेशात् *। ननु प्रज्ञावचनो मायाशब्दः
; सत्यम् , इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाया अविद्यामयत्वेन मायात्वाभ्युपगमाददोषः । मायाभिः
इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभिरविद्यारूपाभिरित्यर्थः । ‘अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते’ (तै. आ.
३ । १३) इति श्रुतेः । तस्मात् जायते मायया तु सः ; तु —शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः
माययैवेति । न ह्यजायमानत्वं बहुधाजन्म च एकत्र सम्भवति, अग्नाविव
शैत्यमौष्ण्यं च । फलवत्त्वाच्चात्मैकत्वदर्शनमेव श्रुतिनिश्चितोऽर्थः, ‘तत्र
को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (ई. उ. ७)
इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात् ‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति’ (क. उ. २ । ४ । १०)
निन्दितत्वाच्च सृष्ट्यादिभेददृष्टेः ॥
Sri SSS brings out the following salient features of the above bhāṣya;
1. If creation were real, then the shruti would not say 'neha nānāsti
kinchana' to deny the real created manifoldness.
2. Therefore the creation concocted by the shruti with a view to teach
realization of identity, is unreal, abhūtā eva. 'āddarinda sṛṣṭiyu,
prāṇasamvādadante, ātmaikatvavannu tiḷisuvudakke kalpitavāgide; nijavallavE
Thus, in both the places, Br.up. and Mā.kā. translations, Sri SSS is
clearly saying that the creation taught in the shruti, through Parameshwara
becoming many, is not at all real; it is an appearance due to
avidyā/indirya. The shruti itself is using the word 'māyā' to inform us
that it is an unreal creation.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:08 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,
>> If the Bhāṣyakāra's abhiprāya about creation is that it is brought out by
>> sarvajna, sarvashakta Ishwara alone, we have this Chandogya bhashya where
>> Shankara uses the rope-snake example for explaining that Chetana's
>> sankalpa: bahu syām:
>> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
>> Hare Krishna
>> Anyway, just to respect your effort, here is my thoughts which obviously
>> I know you are not part with it J
>> Though I am not able to read the Sanskrit ( I am facing this problem
>> whenever Sanskrit quotes come from you and other prabhuji-s but some
>> other’s quote I can read J ) From your explanation in English, I can say
>> that you are unnecessarily jumping from samashti buddhi to vyashti to prove
>> the bhrAnta jeeva srushti. Elsewhere bhAshyakAra himself clarifies that
>> this jagat srushti is NOT like seeing the sarpa in place of rajju. And we
>> have discussed those bhAshya quotes with our own viewpoints. Here also the
>> explanations you have given clearly says this jagat is brahma mAnasa
>> pratyaya only at any stretch of our imagination we cannot attribute this
>> jagat srushti to avidyAbhrAnta jeeva by holding these bhAshya quotes.
>> HiraNyagarbha will have the ahamkAra which consists of avidyAsaMyukta
>> avyakta and vyAkruta nAma rUpa are brahmamAnasa pratyaya (perhaps this is
>> what you are quoting from chAndOgya) There is a reference to this either in
>> mundaka or chAndOgya that hiraNyagarbha projects the world which is
>> aprakatita earlier for the sake of jeeva-s ( Sri SSS somewhere says in
>> Kannada : “ jeevarugaLa bhOgyakkaagi hiraNya garbhanu ee lokagaLannu,
>> jagattannu ghaneebhUtavaagi etti nillisuttaane) to experience / enjoy their
>> karma phala. The virAt purusha who originates from hiraNyagarbha will have
>> this jagat as his hrudaya or antaHkaraNa says mundaka too….Hence the
>> jaagrat vishaya which we see in waking state is sadbrahma’s projected
>> (eekshaNa) tejObanna vikAra-s only. …And to maintain this there come the
>> mareechi etc. prajaapati-s emerge (see introduction to geeta bhAshya),
>> further bhrugu nArada etc. too would come into existence, they too called
>> brahma mAnasa putra-s. So, buddhi parikalpitena etc. which you are
>> insisting nothing but projected world for the sake of jeeva-s. And in this
>> world abrahma pratyaya is like serpent in place of rope. bhAshyakAra
>> clarifies the same in mundaka ‘brahmaivedaM vishvaM’ mantra by saying :
>> brahmaiva uktalakshaNam idaM yat purastAt agre abrahmaiva avidyAdrushteenAM
>> pratyavabhAsamAnaM…brahmaivedaM vishwaM samastaM ….abrahmapratyayaH
>> sarvaH avidyAmAtraH rajjvAmiva sarpa pratyayaH.
> Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,
> Sri SSS's translation of the passage I cited is here, which is quite
> contrary to what you have said above,:
> This is on p.710 of the Chandogyopanishat of APK publication:
> sattu yochisi noḍitu. hege? bahaLavāgi āguvenu. prakarṣadinda huṭṭuvenu.
> hege maṇṇu ghaṭave muntāda ākāradinda huṭṭuvudo, athavā haggave muntādaddu
> buddhiparikalpitavāda (3) hāve muntādaddara ākāradinda huṭṭuvudo hāge(4).
> Sat deliberated. How? I shall become many, be born immensely. Just as clay
> is born in the form of pot, etc. or rope etc. due to imagination is born as
> sake, etc. so too..
> Sri SSS gives two footnotes for the above translation:
> 3. ī viśeṣaṇavu hindakkū anvayisutte; kāryavū buddhikalpitave, adu
> kāraṇakkinta bEreyāguvudE illa.
> [This adjective (imagined by the intellect) applies to the earlier (stage)
> too; the effect too is an imagination. That is not different from the
> cause. (By this remark, Sri SSS accepts that the cause-effect relation in
> advaita is not any pariṇāma but vivarta.)]
> 4. bErondu padārthavu sEradiddarū bahaLavāguvudu hEge? emba ākṣepakke idu
> uttara. sadrUpavāgiyE iddukoṇḍu bErebEreyāgi tOruvudE bahutva.
> [How can X become many without any external thing joining it? To this
> objection, the bhāṣya gives the answer. 'manifoldness is nothing but
> remaining as Existent alone, just appearing as many. See Taittiriya
> From this translation, it is clear that your thinking: (1) creation is a
> projection of brahman's mind/hiraṇyagarbha, virāt's projection... is not
> what SSS says. (2) that the jīva not cognizing the underlying Brahman is
> what is stated by the bhāṣya as erroneous perception like rajju sarpa - is
> also not endorsed by Sri SSS. He does not separate the two aspects of the
> bhāṣya: buddhiparikalpitena and rajjusarpavat. He takes the two as
> conveying the cause as imagining and the effect as error as rope-snake.
> This alone I wanted to convey through the particular bhāṣya: even the
> sarvajna brahman's creation, that is, becoming many, is held to be
> 'imagination like rope-snake'.
> I know these quotes or my understanding is not palatable to you and it is
>> ‘jarred’ interpretation of the bhAshya vAkya J Since you asked me I
>> clarified my stand. And you can clarify your stand with more bhAshya
>> quotes for the benefit of other prabhuji-s who are willing to endorse the
>> bhrAnta jeeva srushti.
>> You have to excuse me if you don’t get any further mails from me on this
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list