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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

The word Shakti may have been  used in different contexts in the Bhashya.
The colloquial meaning also is there. We are now concerned with the sense
in which it is used in BGB 14-27. In this context the following verse from
the vArtika may also be of help.

BUBV 4-3-1787

//  तस्मादज्ञात आत्मैव शक्तिरित्यभिधीयते ||
आकाशादेस्ततो जन्म यस्माच्छ्रुत्याऽभिधीयते || १७८७ || //

//  tasmAdaj~nAta Atmaiva shaktirityabhidhIyate ||

AkAshAdestato janma yasmAchChrutyA.abhidhIyate || 1787 || //

Translation  // Therefore the (earlier)  unknown Atman itself is called
that  Shakti  (of creating everything), since the origin of ether etc is
stated by the Shruti as from that //.

Reference to Shruti is Tai Up 2-1.

Just for information.

Regards

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:39 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> I am just sharing my thoughts, not sure whether it is in alignment with
> your perspective i.e. shakti is something different from mAya.  As per my
> understanding shakti is synonymous with prakruti and prakruti is synonymous
> with mAyA, the causal potentiality of the world.  Which is explained as
> mAyA as somany places in PTB.  In that mAya state the jeevaatma-s are
> enveloped in ignorance of their true nature.  And this mAyA (the causal
> potentiality) has been explained and admitted as a previous state of the
> world dependent on the brahman (here again mAyA is mUlaprakruti /
> avyAkruta) and NOT independent of him.  As I said it would serve the
> definite purpose in explaining the srushti prakriya as bhAshyakAra says
> without it brahman cannot be a creator since without this power HE cannot
> be active.  So again as per my understanding there is no difference between
> brahman and its shakti and no difference between this shakti and its
> kArya.  Again here the concept of mAya is to be understood as causal
> potentiality of the world and a special aspect of brahman which evolves
> itself into  the world.  But brahman in its true and real nature is above
> all causation.  This is what I have understood from kArya-kAraNa prakriya
> and mAya as the causal potentiality (shakti) of brahman.
>
>
>
> With this understanding I would like to address your objection here :
>
>
>
> I am not sure I understood  this correctly. In the first sentence you are
> saying mAyA is the shakti. In the second sentence you are saying  ** shakti
> or shakta is Shuddha brahman only **. The two appear to me to be
> contradictory.
>
>
>
>    - Not so IMO, because as I have already said mAyA is shakti and this
>    shakti is not different from shakta.  In the kArya-kAraNa prakriya the
>    shakti which we inhere in the cause cannot be different from cause as the
>    bhAshya says the power  is identical with the cause and the effect is
>    identical with the power.  BTW, this is not my own theory bhAshyakAra
>    himself saying this in sUtra bhAshya.
>
>
>
>    - I am yet to understand how this shakti is something different from
>    mAyA and Shuddha Chaitanya is shakti but not mAyA !!!
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>