[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Bhagavad Gita - As it actually is | Sanatana Dharma | Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada & Bhakti | Sringeri

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The term avyAkruta  is understood differently in different contexts in the Bhashya. In some places it addresses Atman itself. In some other places it addresses Iswara (Shuddha Brahman or Atman with mAyA). In yet other places it addresses just mAyA or jagat. This is stated so in the Bhashya itself.

  *   We are talking about avyAkruta (beeja rUpa) or mUla prakruti and vyAkruta (manifested jagat) in the srushti prakriya.  Here bhAshyakAra says avyAkruta is brahman itself hence avyAkruta and brahma used interchangeably.  yA mUlaprakrutiH abhyupagamyate tadeva cha nO brahma.  So if at all we consider mUlaprakruta, mAya, shakti, akshara, avyAkruta etc. it is non-different from brahman.

An effect maybe  nondifferent from cause. But it cannot be said cause is nondifferent from effect.

Ø     Yes, definitely it is agreed prabhuji, nowhere I said kAraNa is nondifferent from effect…but emphasis here is only effect does not exists apart from its cause and this kArya-kAraNa prakriya is just to drive home the point of Atmaikatva darshana, I have said this umpteen times when we are talking kArya-kAraNa prakriya the journey does not stop then and there and there is something else needs to be understood😊 …bhAshyakAra too very categorically said : anyanyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasyakAraNAtmatvaM na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM….Though we speak a lot about ornaments non-difference from its substance gold, we never ever say gold is non-different from ornaments.
Jagat is neither different nor nondifferent from  Shuddha Brahman. mAyA also is neither different nor nondifferent from Shuddha Brahman.

  *    Yes, hence nAma rUpa or mAya is called anirvachaneeya.
I have given the Bhashya reference BGB 14-27 for your earlier citation and the implications thereof. That Bhashya part does not state mAyA or jagat as nondifferent from Shuddha Brahman. But it does state Shakti to be understood as Iswara Shakti (meaning thereby Iswara itself as Shakti and not Iswara’s Shakti) . This is ananya with Shuddha Brahman.

  *    I am still unable to make it clear to my mind.  At one place you said Ishwara is the possessor of avidyA and here you say Ishwara itself as shakti and this Ishwara is ananya with Shuddha brahman.  I am once again posting my doubt, if possible kindly clarify in simple terms and if possible with suitable bhAshya quote :
//quote // !!  So, I am really unable to understand your equation i.e. Ishwara=brahman BUT mAya is NOT equal to brahman.  Here what exactly is the difference between Ishwara (with  mAya) and brahman to say they are different and what strikes the equality between brahman and ishwara (without mAya)!!??  //unquote//
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar