reposting again

[Vidyasankar]

>>in the Swetaaswatara Up. and even there also contextually if one
>>examines, it is not exactly the same, says Shreeman Chari.
>>
>>He also mentions, of course, given the adviatic position that
>>Brahman alone is real as sat, one has to bring in Maaya to account
>>for the appearance of jada prakR^iti/ jagat. In that case it becomes
>>shrutit based anupalabdhi pramaaNa, rather than direct shruti
>>pramaaNa.

I am a little confused about the above. Is the claim that mAyA is
postulated because of Sruti-based anupalabdhi pramANa, or is it
that the appearance of jagat is based on the anupalabdhi?

Note that mAyA as triguNAtmikA prakRti is mentioned throughout gItA.
It is not something new invented by Sankaracarya or borrowed from
some Buddhist school. If any other school is to be identified in this
context, we have to look for prakRti according to sAMkhya and/or yoga.

Vidyasankar