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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Chandramouliji
Thank you for the discussion on BGB 14.27
यया च ईश्वरशक्त्या भक्तानुग्रहादिप्रयोजनाय ब्रह्म प्रतिष्ठते
 प्रवर्तते, सा शक्तिः ब्रह्मैव अहम् , शक्तिशक्तिमतोः अनन्यत्वात्
इत्यभिप्रायः । //

The word Brahman used in the above context, brahma pratiShThate pravartate,
is saguNam brahma?

It might amount to saying IshvaraH shaktyA pravartatE. (as in say, a
magician wields his magical power).

Can you please clarify?
Thank you

Om
Raghav


On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 5:42 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Ji,
>
> Reg // And when it has been well established that the jagat which is an
> effect of Brahman is itself non-different from Brahman //,
>
> //  another synonym of this mAya i.e. avyAkruta also clearly said brahman
> and nothing but brahman before creation and there is no difference between
> these two!! //.
>
> 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.
>
> An effect maybe  nondifferent from cause. But it cannot be said cause is
> nondifferent from effect. Jagat is neither different nor nondifferent from
>  Shuddha Brahman. mAyA also is neither different nor nondifferent from
> Shuddha Brahman.
>
> 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.
>
> But I do agree that we have addressed  this issue several times earlier
> without agreement.
>
> Regards
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 5:01 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It does not posit ananyatvam as between Brahman and mAyA. On the other
> > hand, it presents Shuddha Brahman and Iswara as ananya.
> >
> > BGB  14-27 // … यया च ईश्वरशक्त्या भक्तानुग्रहादिप्रयोजनाय ब्रह्म
> > प्रतिष्ठते प्रवर्तते, सा शक्तिः ब्रह्मैव अहम् , शक्तिशक्तिमतोः
> अनन्यत्वात्
> >  इत्यभिप्रायः । //
> >
> > // …..yayA cha IshvarashaktyA bhaktAnugrahAdiprayojanAya brahma
> > pratiShThate pravartate, sA shaktiH brahmaiva aham , shaktishaktimatoH
> > ananyatvAt ityabhiprAyaH | //
> >
> > praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
> >
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > For the sake of brevity I have deleted rest of your message (Kannada
> > translation as well).  If the Ishwara tattva is clear then I think
> > ananyatvaM between Ishwara and brahman and Ishwara and his shakti (mAya)
> > can easily be understood.  Here you are saying that brahman and Ishwara
> as
> > ananya but brahman and mAya are different.  I am not able to understand
> > this.  Is this  Ishwara without shakti or with shakti??  With shakti
> > (sarvashakta) jnAna (sarvajna) brahman itself called Ishwara is it not??
> > When it is called Ishwara (brahman) and his shakti NOT different, I am
> > really not able to understand anyatvaM (difference) between mAya and
> > brahman.  The mAya carries synonym ‘mUlaprakruti’ and it has been said
> that
> > it is brahman, another synonym ‘akshara’ has again been equated with
> > brahman, and another synonym of this mAya i.e. avyAkruta also clearly
> said
> > brahman and nothing but brahman before creation and there is no
> difference
> > between these two!!  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)!!??
> >
> > And when it has been well established that the jagat which is an effect
> of
> > Brahman is itself non-different from Brahman, does it not follow
> > automatically that Brahma mAyA too is not different from Brahman? Or am I
> > missing something here??
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> >
> > bhaskar
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>