[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste all,

I wish to give these two points to give more clarity to my earlier post:

1.   Sri Shankara bhAshya for BSB for 1.4.3 highlighted below identifies
mAyA as परमेश्वराधीना -dependent on parameshwara (SB).

तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥
भाष्यम्
अत्राह — यदि जगदिदमनभिव्यक्तनामरूपं बीजात्मकं प्रागवस्थमव्यक्तशब्दार्हमभ्यु
पगम्येत, तदात्मना च शरीरस्याप्यव्यक्तशब्दार्हत्वं प्रतिज्ञायेत, स एव तर्हि
प्रधानकारणवाद एवं सत्यापद्येत ; अस्यैव जगतः प्रागवस्थायाः
प्रधानत्वेनाभ्युपगमादिति । अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां
काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा
प्रधानकारणवादम् ; परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते,
न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या ; अर्थवती हि सा ; न हि तया विना
परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति, शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः ।
मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् ।
अविद्यात्मिका हि सा बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया
मायामयी महासुषुप्तिः,
यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो जीवाः ।

Here Shankara is saying that a shakti is definitely to be admitted, but as
subservient, adhīnā, to Brahman.

2. When we admit māyāyāḥ māyā, as kāraṇakāraṇam, Brahman is vivartopādāna
kāraṇam of māyā as well as its products. It is then alone, on the analogy
of यद्रजतं सा शुक्तिः, it is बाधायां सामानाधिकरण्यम् - where only when the
adhyasta is negated, it can be 'equated' with the adhiṣṭhānam, just as in
the example, only when the rajatam is negated, it is 'equated' with shukti.
Here, the understanding is: (what was wrongly seen as) rajatam is shukti
(alone). What was wrongly comprehended as kārya-kāraṇātmikā
prakrti/māyā/avidyā is none other than Brahman. The Sureshwara verse that
conveys this implicitly is:

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसम्यग्धीजन्ममात्रतः
अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ।

The right knowledge arising from the instruction 'Tat tvam asi', etc.
instantly renders avidyā along with its effects as non-existent in all
three periods of time. This is a fine application of the
jnānanivartyavastu, avidyā, having no existence in all periods of time in
its locus, Brahman. It is in this sense alone 'avidyā is Brahman'.  माया
बाधिता सती ब्रह्मणा सह एकत्वं भजते ।



regards
subbu

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:31 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Praveen Ji and Subrahmanian Ji,
>
> My interest in asking the question in the first place was only with a view
> to get the idea concerning mAyA and avidya  in a sutra like form similar to
> shrotrasya shrotram which is easy to recall from memory whenever the terms
> are encountered, and immediately highlights all the implications. That is
> what the interpretation of shrotrasya shrotram in kenopanishad does. Since
> such a sutralike format is aprasidha, I sought an answer here. Thanks for
> the positive result as far as I am concerned. It serves my purpose.
>
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:04 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Praveen Ji,
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << unless your statement is "shakti is synonymous with brahman
>> itself">>,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I am definitely not saying that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << Similarly,Maya can neither be separated from brahman, nor can it
>> exist apart from brahman, but brahman is not Maya.>>,
>>
>>
>>
>> In my understanding, << Similarly,>> is not correct. Rest of it is
>> correct. In respect of तेजसः उष्णवत्, both tejas and ushna enjoy the
>> same level of Reality. Not so with Brahman and mAyA. They enjoy different
>> levels of Reality. Hence similarity between the two statements does not
>> exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_5690715313385595909_m_2234091848299836333_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:25 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Reg  << In the strict analysis, I cannot see brahman being अधिष्ठान as
>>>> the same as meaning माया as अध्यस्त, else it will amount to say that
>>>> the holder of शक्ति is the cause for that शक्ति।>>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the term for mAyA as shakti in sidhanta is not
>>>> in the sense of power (to be wielded by another person shakta), but is
>>>> synonymous with mAyA itself. In other words the term shakti is used in the
>>>> sense of a  vastu, just like mAyA/avidya is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I'm not saying anything different than "shakti is synonymous with
>>> mAyA", unless your statement is "shakti is synonymous with brahman
>>> itself".​ If you are indeed saying the latter, that is also true, yet only
>>> in the sense of तेजसः उष्णवत्, the heat/ burning power of fire is
>>> non-different from fire, that is it can neither be separated from fire nor
>>> can exist without fire, but fire is not heat. Similarly, Maya can neither
>>> be separated from brahman, nor can it exist apart from brahman, but brahman
>>> is not Maya.
>>>
>>> Kind rgds,
>>> --Praveen R. Bhat
>>> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
>>> know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>>> ​
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>