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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Forwarding to group as well.


Thank for that Chandramouliji
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 6:21 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Raghav JI,
>>
>> Reg  // What, in the above framework would be the word for the relation
>> between Shakti (aka Ishvara) and inert mAyA? //,
>>
>> My understanding would be as under.
>>
>> Combination of mAyA and Shuddha Brahman  is Iswara.
>>
> Yes ji. The same was, for brevity’s sake, written as NB + mAyA = Ishvara,
>  by Subbuji at the beginning of this thread.
> Bhaskara Prabhu ji had a different take as he said earlier.
>
>
> mAyA vishishta Shuddha Brahman is Iswara. Needless to say , as per SDV.
>>
>> mAyA is a heterogeneous entity. Not a homogeneous one. It includes within
>> itself several parts. All the parts are triguNAtmikA/inert. The parts
>> provide the means for Creation jnAna/kriyA/IcchA shakti. (shakti here is
>> used in a different sense than above). As also the material needed for
>> Creation. Many of these parts  as also mAyA itself are also referred to by
>> terms like avidyA, avyakta,prakriti, avyakruta  etc at different places in
>> the Bhashya. Intended meaning is to be ascertained as per context. It is
>> best to refer to texts like Vichara Sagara, for example, for a detailed
>> understanding.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
> Namaste
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
>> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste ji
>>> A follow-up point
>>> “The ONLY Entity  what we understand as Shakti is Shuddha Brahman or
>>> NirguNa Brahman. All else are inert. When it is said that mayA is Shakti ,
>>> it should be understood  only in a figurative sense. mAyA which is inert
>>> derives its capacity to act as a shakti from Shuddha Brahman/Shuddha
>>> Chaitanya only. The ONLY Shakti or Shakta is Shuddha”
>>>
>>> I understand you to be saying -
>>> The word Shakti is being used as a synonym for Ishvara and this Shakti
>>> is non-different from shaktimat which is shuddha brahman
>>>
>>> You said “mAyA is Shakti” is only figurative.  (ie its actually
>>> triguNAtmikA/inert).
>>>
>>> What, in the above framework would be the word for the relation between
>>> Shakti (aka Ishvara) and inert mAyA?
>>>
>>> Om
>>> Raghav
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 2:36 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Raghav Ji,
>>>>
>>>> // mAyA can directly be equated as shuddha brahman who is shaktimat (by
>>>> shakti-shaktimat ananyatvaM) //,
>>>>
>>>> No. Not mAyA. Ishwara. As in the second paragraph of your mail.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally you have not addressed it to the Forums. Accordingly my
>>>> reply also is only to you.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:30 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
>>>> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Chandramouliji
>>>>>
>>>>> Noted the key points about BGB 14.27 that mAyA can directly be equated
>>>>> as shuddha brahman who is shaktimat (by shakti-shaktimat ananyatvaM)
>>>>>  carrying the meaning of jnAnaM (without necessarily having to bringing in
>>>>> Sagunam brahma or sopadhikam brahma as the intermediate concept or entity
>>>>> as a stepping stone).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also the phrase Ishvara-Shakti (at least in this context)
>>>>> is not Ishvarasya shakti, rather it is
>>>>> IshvaraH Eva Shakti who is non-separate from shuddha Brahma (the
>>>>> “shaktimat”).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Om
>>>>> Raghav
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 11:02 AM, H S Chandramouli <
>>>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Namaste Raghav Ji,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reg  // The word Brahman used in the above context, brahma
>>>>>> pratiShThate pravartate,
>>>>>> is saguNam brahma?
>>>>>> It might amount to saying IshvaraH shaktyA pravartatE. (as in saya, a
>>>>>> magician wields his magical power) //,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement here in BG14-27 is the Final say of Advaita SiddhAnta.
>>>>>> In my understanding what the Bhashya states is as under.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ONLY Entity  what we understand as Shakti is Shuddha Brahman or
>>>>>> NirguNa Brahman. All else are inert. When it is said that mayA is Shakti ,
>>>>>> it should be understood  only in a figurative sense. mAyA which is inert
>>>>>> derives its capacity to act as a shakti from Shuddha Brahman/Shuddha
>>>>>> Chaitanya only. The ONLY Shakti or Shakta is Shuddha Brahman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same observation applies to the term saguNam brahma also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this sense, Shakti is equivalent of  Jnanam  as in ** सत्यं
>>>>>> ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ।** (satyaM j~nAnamanantaM brahma |).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of my elaborating  further, it is much more enjoyable to just
>>>>>> ponder over this part of BGB 14-27 on these lines in your own way !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 7:33 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
>>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>