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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg // I am once again posting my doubt, if possible kindly clarify in
simple terms and if possible with suitable bhAshya quote //

I can only try my best.

Reg  // 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 //,

Contexts are different. When I said ** Ishwara is the possessor of avidyA
**, the context is Iswara is the possessor of Knowledge concerning jIva.
Here avidyA refers to this Knowledge. It is necessary for Iswara to possess
this Knowledge in order to dispense appropriate phala for the jIva to
experience.

In BGB 14-27, context is that it is in fact Shuddha Brahman which carries
this out via Iswarashakti. I have explained this in my other posts. Because
it is ONLY Shuddha Brahman which is shakti as well as shakta.

As I said earlier, it is best to ponder over this part of BGB 14-27 in
one’s own way, befitting one’s own knowledge, background  and preferences,
to appreciate and enjoy  this part of the Bhashya. Explanations and
wordings or ideas from others may not always be appropriate.

Regards

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:57 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>