[Advaita-l] Question on Kaopanishad bhashyam (v 1-3-10)

[Murali Karamchedu]

Dear List Members,

I need help in understanding Anandagiri’s TIka on Sankara bhAshyam. in 
katOpanishat.

The kaTOpanishat verse in question is 1-3-10:

indriyebhya: parAhyarthA arthebhyashca param. manaha |
manasastu parA buddhir-buddherAtmA mahAnparaha ||

Here the progressive conceptualization of each entity as more subtle to the
prior one is talked of. The entities being indriyAs (operative & sense 
organs,
arthA (in-formed meaning), manas (the aspect of mind that intends and 
conceptualizes),
buddhi(the discriminating and determining aspect of mind),
and mahat (this gets trickier to translate).

Sankara in his bhAshyA while elaborating on manas says:

Tebhyo’pyarthebhyaSca param. sUkshmataram. mahatpratyagAtmabhUtam. ca manaha 
|
Manaha SabdavAcyam. Manasa Arambhakam. bhUtasUkSmam |


Anandagiri first considers the appropriateness of mutually considering these 
entities
as more sUkhmam that the prior and says:

kAryApekSaya hyupAdanam-upacitAvayavam vyApakamanapAyisvarUpam. ca 
prasiddham. |
yathA ghaTadermrdAdihi | na ceha bhUtasUkSmANAm. parasparakAryakAraNabhAve 
mAnamasti |
satyam, tathA’pi vishayendriyavyavahArasya manodhInatadarSanAt 
manastAvadvyApakam. kalpyate |

( Loosely – Because of the codependent nature of ‘cause’ and ‘effects’,
it is not appropriate to consider manas as sUkSma to arthA or 
vishayendriyAs.
However, because in their operation the indriyAs demonstrate subordination 
to manas;
we conceive of manas as the vyApakA – pervader.)

Then he says:

tacca para evA’’tmabhUtamiti keshAncidbhramaha tannirAsayoktam. manaha 
SabdavAcyam bhUtasUkSmamiti |
‘annamayam hi somya mana’ 
ityadiSruter-bhoutikatvAvagamAd-annabhAvAbhAvAbhyAm-upacayApacaya
darSanAd-bhoutikatvameva tat|

1.	What is the specific confusion of the ‘keshAncit’ that is being refuted?
2.	How is the annamayatvam related to the sUkSmatvam of manas?


Regards,
Murali Manohar