Advaita terminology

Shrinivas Gadkari sgadkari2001 at YAHOO.COM
Thu Feb 14 18:34:45 CST 2002

>> kutastha = lika mountain (i.e. highest) or all-pervading.
>I thought "kUTa iva tishtatI" that is unchanging like the anvil.


Kutastha is a very intriguing concept. Some time ago
when I was desperately trying to understand Vedanta
Yoga etc, I remember being obsessed by the three Purushas
of chapter 15 Gita: kshara, akshara and uttama. The most
convincing explanation (in my opinion) is found in the
commentary of Shri Jnaneshwar.

Consider Chapter 15 Gita:

In this chapter Shri Krishna uses the symbolism of a tree
to explain the universe. However this tree is different from
an ordinary tree. The root (and seed) of this tree is "situated at the
top". This is the kutastha. This is the state of deep sleep.
In this state the creation is contained in a seed state.
>From this state the consciousness branches and spreads into
the dream state and then into wake up state. Then it again
goes back into deep sleep. This deep sleep is the unchanging
state, always stays the same. Thus kutastha is referred to as
the akshara purusha.

However, akshara purusha is not the same as uttama purusha.
Had this been the case, the state of deep sleep would have
been the state of Self realization. But this is not so.

Best regards
Shrinivas Gadkari

p.s. Chapter 26, of Book 3, Bhagvatam also equates kutashta
to deep sleep.
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Fri Feb 15 00:01:17 2002
Message-Id: <FRI.15.FEB.2002.000117.0500.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:01:17 -0500
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Ramana Maharshi on the Buddha
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

>D: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent; when asked if >there
>is no ego, he was silent; asked if there is God, he was silent; >asked if
>there is no God, he was silent. Silence was his answer to all >these.
>Mahayana and Hinayana schools have both misinterpreted his >silence because
>they say that he was an atheist...His interpreters are >wrong. Is it not
>M: You are right.

The mind is one and reality is another. The philosophies expounded by
jnaanis is based on what their intellects make out of their spiritual
experience. But they are all unanimous about one thing - reality is beyond
the reach of the intellect. So all philosophy is at best only relative and
not absolute. So each jnaani according to his level of intellect and his own
psycho/physical inclinations/preferences tries to teach people about

The concerns of Buddha are different from the concerns of Mahaaveera which
again is different from the concerns of Baadaraayana. While the Buddha was
more concerned about removing suffering in the world, the Jina was more
interested in taming the body and mind, while the great Vedaantic sage was
more interested in structuring a path to liberation based on the traditional
Upanishadic path using intelligence and theism. Thus the difference in their

It is naive to hold that Buddhist philosophers like Naagaarjuna or
Vaasubandhu or Dharmakirti who were closer in time to the historical Buddha
and were also preservers of his tradition were "misinterpreting" him. These
three stand out as some of the greatest intellects in the Indian
philosophical/spiritual tradition - recognized even so by their rivals -
including Advaita philosophers like Gaudapaada, Sri Harsha and Citsukha.

Ramana was neither a Buddhist philosopher nor is he known to have studied
Buddhist philosophy - so his words about Buddha or Buddhism are atbest to be
taken with a pinch of salt. He was atbest reacting to the popular
misconceptions about Buddhist philosophy who he too in all probability

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list