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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Alternatively,  the conclusion presented in BGB 14-27 could be understood
as the Final Conclusion of the Siddhanta while other understandings could
be considered as intermediate stagewise understandings.

Regards

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 1:18 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Ji,
>
> Reg // I am once again posting my doubt, if possible kindly clarify in
> simple terms and if possible with suitable bhAshya quote //
>
> I can only try my best.
>
> Reg  // At one place you said Ishwara is the possessor of avidyA and here
> you say Ishwara itself as shakti and this Ishwara is ananya with Shuddha
> Brahman //,
>
> Contexts are different. When I said ** Ishwara is the possessor of avidyA
> **, the context is Iswara is the possessor of Knowledge concerning jIva.
> Here avidyA refers to this Knowledge. It is necessary for Iswara to possess
> this Knowledge in order to dispense appropriate phala for the jIva to
> experience.
>
> In BGB 14-27, context is that it is in fact Shuddha Brahman which carries
> this out via Iswarashakti. I have explained this in my other posts. Because
> it is ONLY Shuddha Brahman which is shakti as well as shakta.
>
> As I said earlier, it is best to ponder over this part of BGB 14-27 in
> one’s own way, befitting one’s own knowledge, background  and preferences,
> to appreciate and enjoy  this part of the Bhashya. Explanations and
> wordings or ideas from others may not always be appropriate.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:57 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>    - We are talking about avyAkruta (beeja rUpa) or mUla prakruti and
>>    vyAkruta (manifested jagat) in the srushti prakriya.  Here bhAshyakAra says
>>    avyAkruta is brahman itself hence avyAkruta and brahma used
>>    interchangeably.  yA mUlaprakrutiH abhyupagamyate tadeva cha nO brahma.  So
>>    if at all we consider mUlaprakruta, mAya, shakti, akshara, avyAkruta etc.
>>    it is non-different from brahman.
>>
>>
>>
>> An effect maybe  nondifferent from cause. But it cannot be said cause is
>> nondifferent from effect.
>>
>> Ø     Yes, definitely it is agreed prabhuji, nowhere I said kAraNa is
>> nondifferent from effect…but emphasis here is only effect does not exists
>> apart from its cause and this kArya-kAraNa prakriya is just to drive home
>> the point of Atmaikatva darshana, I have said this umpteen times when we
>> are talking kArya-kAraNa prakriya the journey does not stop then and there
>> and there is something else needs to be understood😊 …bhAshyakAra too
>> very categorically said : anyanyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasyakAraNAtmatvaM
>> na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM….Though we speak a lot about ornaments
>> non-difference from its substance gold, we never ever say gold is
>> non-different from ornaments.
>>
>> Jagat is neither different nor nondifferent from  Shuddha Brahman. mAyA
>> also is neither different nor nondifferent from Shuddha Brahman.
>>
>>    -  Yes, hence nAma rUpa or mAya is called anirvachaneeya.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>    -  I am still unable to make it clear to my mind.  At one place you
>>    said Ishwara is the possessor of avidyA and here you say Ishwara itself as
>>    shakti and this Ishwara is ananya with Shuddha brahman.  I am once again
>>    posting my doubt, if possible kindly clarify in simple terms and if
>>    possible with suitable bhAshya quote :
>>
>> //quote // !!  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)!!??  //unquote//
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> bhaskar
>>
>>