ADVAITA-L Digest - 21 Mar 2002 to 22 Mar 2002 (#2002-71)

[D.V.N.Sarma]

On 22 Mar 2002, at 12:32, hbdave wrote:



>
> D.V.N.Sarma wrote:
>
> > On 20 Mar 2002, at 17:21,  hbdave wrote:
> > >
> > > Coming to posting by Shri D.V.N. Sharma, where he wrote :
> > > > > As I have already pointed out according to Sankara
> > > > > kUTastha is mAyA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maya is Kutastha and not other way round. The refered
> > > passage by Shankaracharya is as follows :
> > >
> > > [Giita : XV-16]
> > > {\skt  dvaavimau puru.sau loke k.sara"scaak.sara eva ca |}
> > > {\skt  k.sara.h sarvaa.ni bhuutaani kuu.tastho .a k.sara ucyate ||}
> > >
> > > Shankar commentary :
> > > {\skt bhagavata.h maayaa"sakti.h k.saraakhyasya puru.sasya utpattibiijam
> > > |
> > > kuu.tastha.h kuu.to raa"si.h eva sthita.h athavaa kuu.ta maayaa
> > > va~ncanaa jihmataa ku.tilataa iti paryaayaa anekamaayaadiprakaare.na
> > > sthita.h kuu.tastha.h |}
> > >
> > > The Mayashakti of the brahman is the  origin of the Purusha called
> > > Kshara.
> > > Kutastha means one which is staying steady as anvil or Kuta means Maya,
> > > deception, hiding, wikedness, etc. One who stays with many such form of
> > > Maya is Kutastha.
> > >
> > > There was a king who liked to observe his kingdom in guize of a beggar.
> > > When his minister saw him on the road, he said "this beggar is the
> > > king."
> > > He would not say "This king is beggar", because then it has a different
> > > meaning.
> > >
> > > Thus Maya is Kutastha and not the other way round. As shown above
> > > Adi Shankara did not say that Kutastha is Maya.
> > >
> > Wonderful! I do not know what you are trying to achieve.
>
> I have very little  left to achieve  [I have reached the level of my
> inefficiency -
> as Peterson would have said :-)],
> but, here I am trying to clarify the confusion that statement can create.
>
> >
> >
> > But all said and done Sankara does say koo.tastha is maayaa.
> >
>
> That is your derivation and NOT actual words of Acharya.
>
> >
> > Gita says "koo.tasthoekshara ucyatae"
> >
> > This means "koo.tastha is said to be akshara or indestructible."
> >
>
> This is baadhasaamaanyaadhikara.nyam
> Just as all the attributes of the beggar are not to be conveyed to
> the king in the sentence "this beggar is the king", in saying
> this Kutastha is said to be akshara, all attributes that you
> apply to akshara are not necessarily applicable to Kutastha.
>
> >
> > Then Sankara says
> >
> > apara.h purusha.h ak.sara.h tadvipareetoe bhagavata.h
> > maayaa"sakti.h k.saraakhyasya puru.sasya utpattibiijam
> > anaekasamsaarijamtukaamakarmaadisamskaaraasraya.h
> > 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.
> >
>
> This is your derivation. What is the meaning of the word "is"
> in your above equation?
>
> >
> > I request you to peruse the many subcommentaries on
> > Sankarabhaashya, e.g., goodhaarthadeepika of madhusoodana
> > sarswati etc.
>
> Thanks, but one need to consult subcommentaries, sub-subcommentaries
> etc only if one is not clear in his mind. No disrespect meant to swamiji.
>
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Sarma.
>
> OK.
Dear List members,
                                                I feel that no useful purpose will be served
by continuing this discussion. Fortunately many of the list
member, if not all, know sanskrit and they can read and ascertain
what Sankara has said in commentary for themselves.

regards,

Sarma.