Advaita : Some Basic Explanations - 13 (The last)
narayana at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN
Thu Mar 21 18:14:33 CST 2002
On 20 Mar 2002, at 22:04, Shrinivas Gadkari wrote:
> >Wonderful! I do not know what you are trying to achieve.
> >But all said and done Sankara does say koo.tastha is maayaa.
> >Gita says "koo.tasthoekshara ucyatae"
> >This means "koo.tastha is said to be akshara or indestructible."
> >Then Sankara says
> >apara.h purusha.h ak.sara.h tadvipareetoe bhagavata.h
> >maayaa"sakti.h k.saraakhyasya puru.sasya utpattibiijam
> >ak.sara.h puru.sa ucyatae.
> >The other puru.sa, in opposition to the previous (k.sara puru.sa),
> >is ak.sara (indestructible), is Lord's maaya"sakti, and is the
> >seed of origination of k.sara puru.sa and also is the shelter
> >for the samskaaraas (imprints) of the desires and actions of
> >the many worldly beings. That is called ak.sara puru.sa.
> >If koo.tastha is ak.sara and ak.sara is maayaa then koo.tastha
> >is maayaa.
> Dear Shri Sarma,
> Here is my understanding:
> What is being referred to here is akshara purusha. Now purusha,
> in a dualistic darshana would mean Being. However, from a non-dual
> viewpoint, we have to interpret purusha as a STATE OF BEING.
> It is very important to note that prakriti/maya lacks consciousness
> and can never be termed purusha be it a dualistic or non-dualistic
> viewpoint. In light of this fact, identifying kutasatha with maya
> shakti is very serious error. Unfortunately my ability at sanskrit
> is very limited and hence am not in a position to understand what
> shri Sankara says in his commentry. I will be really surprised to
> learn that indeed shri Shankara has referred to prakriti/maya as
> a purusha.
> What Shri Dave said earlier makes much more sense. If kuta (heap)
> is to be understood as maya, then kutastha is that state of
> being which is situated in maya. In that case equating kutastha
> with 1. sakshi, OR 2. sakshi + maya in seed form, seems appropriate.
> Best regards
> Shrinivas Gadkari
Dear Sri Gadkari,
First of all the question here is what Sankara has said
and I think that has been made clear in my quotation
Next thing is your claim that Sri Dave has improved
on Sankara and avoided a serious error.If koo.tastha
is the saak.si residing in maayaa and is
indestructible and puru.soettama is brahman,
where is your nonduality? Does not this make
jiva permanent? As a matter of fact dualistic
schools interpret koo.tastha as jiva.
About the claim that puru.sa must be a conscious
being, I do not think that gita is using the word puru.sa
in that sense. Gita is catagorising all that is there
into three parts namely k.sara puru.sa, ak.sara puru.sa
and puru.soettama. This includes conscious as well as
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list