Ishwara has no real authorship, kartrutvam, in the creation of the world - Srimad Bhagavatam

[V Subrahmanian]

When Paramashiva gave Darshan to Markandeya, he did a stuti:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः १२/अध्यायः १०

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ttl

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

Brahman created this world mentally and entered it. In a dream one feels as if he has done some or the other action but in reality he has no doership, kartrutva. He is just a witness to the dream, while only the three gunas do all the creation. This is how it is in the present context of Ishwara creating. Paramatma only appears as the creator of the world. Indeed, Ishwara does nothing.

Brahman nirguna, nishkriya, passive. Brahman is the cause of the world only by Maya association. This causality is not true.

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:

मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम् ।

हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते ॥10॥ 9.10

While I am a mere witness, nature, Prakruti, creates this world of all beings moving and unmoving.

Om

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Hrm. I don't know if that conceptualization works. Ishwara is already the concept of saguna brahman. If there is Ishwara, there is a world, and if there is a world, there is creation, and if there is creation, it is directed. By whom could it be directed but Ishwara?

I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that Ishwara can push the responsibility onto the gunas. The gunas are controlled by Ishwara.

Indeed in Swami Tapasyananda's translation of BG 9:10 Bhagavan says: 

"Under My direction and control, Nature brings out this mighty universe of living and non-living beings. Thus does the wheel of this world revolve."

Of course, if Ishwara is considered in its true nature as Brahman, then of course, there is no doing, no creation. But then, too, there cannot be said to be any separate world; in that case, the world is non-different from Brahman, and cannot be referred to as 'world' in our common language, nor can there be said to be time, space, events, or change; it is the unnameable, the unborn, the ajata.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0FD7YiWPKs_tjYbdTMkHhntGK0umsrDLgGmAcajOOXDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 12:38 AM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

Hrm. I don't know if that conceptualization works. Ishwara is already the concept of saguna brahman. If there is Ishwara, there is a world, and if there is a world, there is creation, and if there is creation, it is directed. By whom could it be directed but Ishwara?

I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that Ishwara can push the responsibility onto the gunas. The gunas are controlled by Ishwara.

Indeed in Swami Tapasyananda's translation of BG 9:10 Bhagavan says: 

"Under My direction and control, Nature brings out this mighty universe of living and non-living beings. Thus does the wheel of this world revolve."

Actually even for the jiva the Bhagavadgita denies any doership whatsoever:

प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः ।

अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ॥ २७ ॥  3.27

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

3.27 While actions are being done in every way by the gunas (alities) of Nature, one who is deluded by egoism thinks thus: 'I am the doer.'

In the commentary Shankara says:  All actions, worldly and scriptural are carried out by Prakriti.

If it is asked 'How can Prakriti which is jaDa do all that, including willing to do, etc.?' the answer is: Even willing etc. are the traits of the mind which is a product of prakriti.  

In fact Shankara in the commentary to BG 9.10 cites the Rg veda sukta and says 'The question and answer for What is the basis for creation? is beyond any reasoning and even cites Bhagavn in BG 5.15 where He says: Enveloped by ignorance the jivas are deluded'.  

किंनिमित्ता इयं सृष्टिः इत्यत्र प्रश्नप्रतिवचने अनुपपन्ने, ‘को अद्धा वेद क इह प्रवोचत् । कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः’ (ऋ. १० । १२९ । ६), (तै. ब्रा. २ । ८ । ९) इत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णेभ्यः । दर्शितं च भगवता — ‘अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः’ (भ. गी. ५ । १५) इति ॥ १० ॥    

It is exactly this that the Bhagavatam verse under discussion is saying in the context of Ishwara as well.

 The verse BG 5.14 says:

न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥

It is svabhAva, mAya, prakriti, that does everything and the Atman does nothing.

Even with reference to the Antaryami in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.3, Shankara says:

देवताकार्यकरणस्य ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन हि नियमेन प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ती स्याताम् ;

The body mind complex of the jiva is impelled by the mere passive presence of the Ishwarasakshi by default. 

Hence the Atma, whether jiva or Saguna Ishwara, is an absolutely non-performing passive participant in the cosmic as well as individual functions. It is with regard to the saguna Ishwara alone the Bhagavatam says that.  It even gives the analogy of a jiva thinking that he is the doer in a dream, while   he is a mere witness to the dream.  

The "Under My direction and control' means the mere passive presence as per Shankara. . 

warm regards

subbu

  Of course, if Ishwara is considered in its true nature as Brahman, then of course, there is no doing, no creation. But then, too, there cannot be said to be any separate world; in that case, the world is non-different from Brahman, and cannot be referred to as 'world' in our common language, nor can there be said to be time, space, events, or change; it is the unnameable, the unborn, the ajata.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:21 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

When Paramashiva gave Darshan to Markandeya, he did a stuti:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः १२/अध्यायः १०

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ttl

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

Brahman created this world mentally and entered it. In a dream one feels as if he has done some or the other action but in reality he has no doership, kartrutva. He is just a witness to the dream, while only the three gunas do all the creation. This is how it is in the present context of Ishwara creating. Paramatma only appears as the creator of the world. Indeed, Ishwara does nothing.

Brahman nirguna, nishkriya, passive. Brahman is the cause of the world only by Maya association. This causality is not true.

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:

मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम् ।

हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते ॥10॥ 9.10

While I am a mere witness, nature, Prakruti, creates this world of all beings moving and unmoving.

Om

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0FD7YiWPKs_tjYbdTMkHhntGK0umsrDLgGmAcajOOXDw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsEpGXDcSf5m1qJU2_x1Q%2BVT5Gpn5718yB2h4d%2BktiCeSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

The fact that Ishwara exercises power through mere witnessing does not make Ishwara any less the doer-in-chief. Mere witnessing is not incompatible with control. It is simply that Ishwara has no body of its own, consisting instead of the entire universe, so its control is not as of one limited entity affecting another, but of the entire cosmos working in total. 

It makes perfect sense for the jiva not to be the doer, the jiva being a mere fragment. A drop of water cannot choose what direction to turn. But the jiva is steered by the gunas, which are themselves controlled by Ishwara.

In BG 9:10 Shankara refers to the gunas as “My Maya” — it is the Lord’s power which is exercised. Though the Lord is but the witness, the power of the gunas is His power. He therefore is responsible for them.

The Shankara quote about Rg Veda is not about how creation is performed by insentient prakriti but why it has been created by the Sentient Self: "Of what purpose is this creation by the One, the Divine, the pure all-witnessing Spirit or Consciousness, having really no concern with any enjoyment whatever?” Shankara writes before mentioning the sukta. 

Indeed in the very question Shankara mentions creation by the One, the Divine. Not creation by jada prakriti.

This is very clear in BG 9:7: "All beings, O son of Kunti, go into My Prakriti at the end of a kalpa. I send them forth again at the beginning of (the next) kalpa.” 

Shankara comments: "Resorting to My Prakriti, I again and again send forth this whole multitude of beings, powerless under the control of the Prakriti. With the help of the Prakriti, i.e., of Avidya, which is subject to Me, I cause all these beings we now see to emanate again and again from the Prakriti…”

The Lord sends the beings forth. The Lord resorts to His prakriti. His Prakriti, is subject to Him, per Shankara.

In BG 5:14 which you cite, Shankara is talking about the Atman, not as Ishwara, but as the individual witness which in its deepest truth is of course nirguna Brahman. We know that because of this Q&A he writes:

Q: If the Self in the body does not Himself act nor cause others to act, what then is it that acts and causes others to act?

A: Listen. It is Nature, Svabhava, Prakriti, Maya, 'the Divine Maya made up of gunas.”

The Divine Maya — the Maya that, as we have seen, is subject to Ishwara. So this Atman cannot be Ishwara. 

There is no Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.3 that I can find — probably you mean 3.7.3? That mentions the antaryami or inner ruler.

There is no contradiction there between what has been said above. Shankara writes, "Since He is by nature given to doing things for others, the body and organs of the latter serve as His: He has no body and organs of His own.” So the antaryami does. He also writes: “The body and organs of the deity of the earth are regularly made to work or stop work by the mere presence of the Lord as witness. Such an Isvara... controls the deity of the earth, i.e. directs her to her particular work…”

So, again, the fact that — just because Ishwara works, because Ishwara has no separate body, though the power of mere witnessing, does not make it a non-doing. Shankara calls it doing.

The witnessing power of the Lord is in itself direction, control, and this is doing. In fact all the doing is His.

Further clarification can be found in BG Chapter 18.

Swami Tapasyananda:

BG 18:60: “O Son of Kunti! Duties which your natural tendencies have imposed upon you, but which out of delusion you refuse to do, even them you will have to perform by the compulsion of Nature.”

The compulsion of Nature. And who controls Nature? 

18:61 explains: “O Arjuna! The Lord dwells in the heart of all beings revolving them all by His mysterious power Maya, as if they were objects mounted on a machine.” 

The Lord revolves them. The gunas are a function of Maya, itself the Lord’s mysterious power. A power, again, He controls. This is consistent with all the other passages cited above.

Shankara’s commentary on 18:61 simply says: "He causes all beings to revolve as if—'as if' being understood—mounted on machines, like wooden dolls mounted on a machine.”

He causes, writes Sankara. That is, Ishwara causes. Again, that cannot be the Atman of 5:14 since that Atman, Shankara says, does not cause others to act.

In BG 9:17 Bhagavan repeats this truth: “I am the father of this world, the mother, the dispenser, and grandsire; I am the knowable, the purifier, the syllable 'Om,' and also the Rig, the Saman, and the Yajus also.” Shankara clarifies -- "The dispenser ; of the fruits of action.” The karma-phala-data. Ishwara dispenses. These are doings.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1Ek6oG4UagqzEUCHHuH%2BtpZvVTUFuuRZ0h79MpZYoQSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 10:48 AM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

The fact that Ishwara exercises power through mere witnessing does not make Ishwara any less the doer-in-chief. Mere witnessing is not incompatible with control. It is simply that Ishwara has no body of its own, consisting instead of the entire universe, so its control is not as of one limited entity affecting another, but of the entire cosmos working in total. 

He causes, writes Sankara. That is, Ishwara causes.

As to how Ishwara 'causes', the answer is there from Shankara himself in the BUB 3.7.3 (6 was a typo) that it is   ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन .  For this the Vedanta gives the analogy of a magnet in whose range the iron filings move.  So this is the absolutely passive presence that Shankara means by that term sAkshi-mAtra-sAnnidhyena.  The element mAtra says it all. Also he has said that Ishwara does not have a separate body-mind complex of his own; it is the body mind complexes of all the jivas that is His. And just like the magnet, the mere presence of Brahman is enough for prakriti to perform the actions. Nor is there anything for Ishwara to 'control'.  It is not that prakriti goes awry for someone to really control it.  That's why he says svabhAvastu pravartate. Shankara says in 5.15:

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः ।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

न आदत्ते न च गृह्णाति भक्तस्यापि कस्यचित् पापम् । न चैव आदत्ते सुकृतं भक्तैः प्रयुक्तं विभुः । किमर्थं तर्हि भक्तैः पूजादिलक्षणं यागदानहोमादिकं च सुकृतं प्रयुज्यते इत्याह — अज्ञानेन आवृतं ज्ञानं विवेकविज्ञानम् , तेन मुह्यन्ति ‘करोमि कारयामि भोक्ष्ये भोजयामि’ इत्येवं मोहं गच्छन्ति अविवेकिनः संसारिणो जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

Ishwara does not cognize even the devotee's punya or paapa karma. Why  then do bhaktas engage in punya prada actions? It is due to ajnana replies Bhagavan. The ajnana is articulated: I do, I cause something to be done, enjoy, make others enjoy'.  This delusion is what makes jivas engage in acts. 

The Bhagavata uses the words: While it is Gunas that do all, Ishwara 'appears' to be the doer.  It gives the analogy of dream: the dreamer at the time of dreaming thinks he is the one who does actions in the dream. But upon waking knows that he did not do those things at all; he was a mere witness to them,.  Similar is the case with Ishwara's doership, says Veda Vyasa.  In the case of the jiva's dream, the jiva himself realizes that he did not do anything indeed. But in the case of Ishwara, the jivas think that he is the one who does everything while in truth it is Prakriti that does everything.  It is this wrong thinking on the part of jivas with regard to Ishwara that Veda Vyasa wants to correct by this verse: 

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

The usage  'AbhAti kartA iva' (appears as though he is the doer) with regard to Ishwara would be wrong on the part of Veda vyasa if he meant something else.  If Ishwara was really the doer in Veda Vyasa's view, he should not be using the 'AbhAti kartA iva' at all.

regards

subbu       

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Nov 11, 2023 at 12:59:47 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 10:48 AM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

The fact that Ishwara exercises power through mere witnessing does not make Ishwara any less the doer-in-chief. Mere witnessing is not incompatible with control. It is simply that Ishwara has no body of its own, consisting instead of the entire universe, so its control is not as of one limited entity affecting another, but of the entire cosmos working in total. 

He causes, writes Sankara. That is, Ishwara causes.

As to how Ishwara 'causes', the answer is there from Shankara himself in the BUB 3.7.3 (6 was a typo) that it is   ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन .  For this the Vedanta gives the analogy of a magnet in whose range the iron filings move.  So this is the absolutely passive presence that Shankara means by that term sAkshi-mAtra-sAnnidhyena.  The element mAtra says it all. Also he has said that Ishwara does not have a separate body-mind complex of his own; it is the body mind complexes of all the jivas that is His. And just like the magnet, the mere presence of Brahman is enough for prakriti to perform the actions. Nor is there anything for Ishwara to 'control'.  It is not that prakriti goes awry for someone to really control it.  That's why he says svabhAvastu pravartate. Shankara says in 5.15:

And yet in 3.7.3 the whole commentary is indeed about the inner controller, whose controlling Shankara himself calls in that verse calls a “doing.” The magnet analogy is fine, if we realize that the difference between ishwara and a magnet is that it is not the iron filings that ishwara causes to move, but the very law of magnetism itself, and deeper still, the idea of any law at all. The act of “mere witnessing” is for God an act of profound creativity that brings into existence what God cognizes. It is not that something exists outside of God “pre-made” by something else and that God merely witnesses. God is all the things, and all the movements of all the things are in God’s intelligence.

 

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः ।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

न आदत्ते न च गृह्णाति भक्तस्यापि कस्यचित् पापम् । न चैव आदत्ते सुकृतं भक्तैः प्रयुक्तं विभुः । किमर्थं तर्हि भक्तैः पूजादिलक्षणं यागदानहोमादिकं च सुकृतं प्रयुज्यते इत्याह — अज्ञानेन आवृतं ज्ञानं विवेकविज्ञानम् , तेन मुह्यन्ति ‘करोमि कारयामि भोक्ष्ये भोजयामि’ इत्येवं मोहं गच्छन्ति अविवेकिनः संसारिणो जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

Ishwara does not cognize even the devotee's punya or paapa karma. Why  then do bhaktas engage in punya prada actions? It is due to ajnana replies Bhagavan. The ajnana is articulated: I do, I cause something to be done, enjoy, make others enjoy'.  This delusion is what makes jivas engage in acts. 

Nirguna Brahman does not accept them or cognize them, but Ishwara does. This is why this verse refers to ignorance and delusion; it is speaking of the difference between Ishwara as it seems and Ishwara as it really is (it really is nirguna). But in the provisional view, Ishwara is the accepter and enjoyer of all acts. E.g. in BG 9:26: “Whoever makes an offering to Me with devotion…I accept with joy.”

The Bhagavata uses the words: While it is Gunas that do all, Ishwara 'appears' to be the doer.  It gives the analogy of dream: the dreamer at the time of dreaming thinks he is the one who does actions in the dream. But upon waking knows that he did not do those things at all; he was a mere witness to them,.  Similar is the case with Ishwara's doership, says Veda Vyasa.  In the case of the jiva's dream, the jiva himself realizes that he did not do anything indeed. But in the case of Ishwara, the jivas think that he is the one who does everything while in truth it is Prakriti that does everything.  It is this wrong thinking on the part of jivas with regard to Ishwara that Veda Vyasa wants to correct by this verse: 

Waking up does not mean that “prakriti” did everything, but rather that there cannot be said to have ever been anything to have been done. In that world of objects and doings, time and space, it is a supreme Intelligence which decides what happens.

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

The usage  'AbhAti kartA iva' (appears as though he is the doer) with regard to Ishwara would be wrong on the part of Veda vyasa if he meant something else.  If Ishwara was really the doer in Veda Vyasa's view, he should not be using the 'AbhAti kartA iva' at all.

Ishwara is not “really” the doer, but then again, neither is there anything at all really done. If we accept things done, then Ishwara certainly is their doer.

regards

subbu       

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1RDx9u6-WWHQp86jNU44ZLMZU%2BO5h9uUuRROC7h8bNLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 5:09 PM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

On Nov 11, 2023 at 12:59:47 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 10:48 AM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

The fact that Ishwara exercises power through mere witnessing does not make Ishwara any less the doer-in-chief. Mere witnessing is not incompatible with control. It is simply that Ishwara has no body of its own, consisting instead of the entire universe, so its control is not as of one limited entity affecting another, but of the entire cosmos working in total. 

He causes, writes Sankara. That is, Ishwara causes.

As to how Ishwara 'causes', the answer is there from Shankara himself in the BUB 3.7.3 (6 was a typo) that it is   ईश्वरसाक्षिमात्रसान्निध्येन .  For this the Vedanta gives the analogy of a magnet in whose range the iron filings move.  So this is the absolutely passive presence that Shankara means by that term sAkshi-mAtra-sAnnidhyena.  The element mAtra says it all. Also he has said that Ishwara does not have a separate body-mind complex of his own; it is the body mind complexes of all the jivas that is His. And just like the magnet, the mere presence of Brahman is enough for prakriti to perform the actions. Nor is there anything for Ishwara to 'control'.  It is not that prakriti goes awry for someone to really control it.  That's why he says svabhAvastu pravartate. Shankara says in 5.15:

And yet in 3.7.3 the whole commentary is indeed about the inner controller, whose controlling Shankara himself calls in that verse calls a “doing.”

In fact that 'doing', which the Upanishad itself uses the verb 'antaro yamayati' is explained by Shankara as mere presence as the witness and not any activity on the part of the Antaryami. 

.   

The magnet analogy is fine, if we realize that the difference between ishwara and a magnet is that it is not the iron filings that ishwara causes to move, but the very law of magnetism itself, and deeper still, the idea of any law at all. The act of “mere witnessing” is for God an act of profound creativity that brings into existence what God cognizes. It is not that something exists outside of God “pre-made” by something else and that God merely witnesses. God is all the things, and all the movements of all the things are in God’s intelligence.

If such is the case, the scripture would be wrong to make any distinction between Ishwara and prakriti.   

 

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः ।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

न आदत्ते न च गृह्णाति भक्तस्यापि कस्यचित् पापम् । न चैव आदत्ते सुकृतं भक्तैः प्रयुक्तं विभुः । किमर्थं तर्हि भक्तैः पूजादिलक्षणं यागदानहोमादिकं च सुकृतं प्रयुज्यते इत्याह — अज्ञानेन आवृतं ज्ञानं विवेकविज्ञानम् , तेन मुह्यन्ति ‘करोमि कारयामि भोक्ष्ये भोजयामि’ इत्येवं मोहं गच्छन्ति अविवेकिनः संसारिणो जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

Ishwara does not cognize even the devotee's punya or paapa karma. Why  then do bhaktas engage in punya prada actions? It is due to ajnana replies Bhagavan. The ajnana is articulated: I do, I cause something to be done, enjoy, make others enjoy'.  This delusion is what makes jivas engage in acts. 

Nirguna Brahman does not accept them or cognize them, but Ishwara does. This is why this verse refers to ignorance and delusion; it is speaking of the difference between Ishwara as it seems and Ishwara as it really is (it really is nirguna). But in the provisional view, Ishwara is the accepter and enjoyer of all acts. E.g. in BG 9:26: “Whoever makes an offering to Me with devotion…I accept with joy.”

In fact in the 13th chapter 'anumantA', permitter, Shankara as one of the meanings, explains अथवा, प्रवृत्तान् स्वव्यापारेषु तत्साक्षिभूतः कदाचिदपि न निवारयति इति अनुमन्ता । : the witness of the activities never prevents anyone (from what one has commenced or proposes to do).  

The Bhagavata uses the words: While it is Gunas that do all, Ishwara 'appears' to be the doer.  It gives the analogy of dream: the dreamer at the time of dreaming thinks he is the one who does actions in the dream. But upon waking knows that he did not do those things at all; he was a mere witness to them,.  Similar is the case with Ishwara's doership, says Veda Vyasa.  In the case of the jiva's dream, the jiva himself realizes that he did not do anything indeed. But in the case of Ishwara, the jivas think that he is the one who does everything while in truth it is Prakriti that does everything.  It is this wrong thinking on the part of jivas with regard to Ishwara that Veda Vyasa wants to correct by this verse: 

Waking up does not mean that “prakriti” did everything, but rather that there cannot be said to have ever been anything to have been done. In that world of objects and doings, time and space, it is a supreme Intelligence which decides what happens.

In the siddhanta, however, it is the jiva that is accepted to be the creator of dream and not Ishwara.  

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

The usage  'AbhAti kartA iva' (appears as though he is the doer) with regard to Ishwara would be wrong on the part of Veda vyasa if he meant something else.  If Ishwara was really the doer in Veda Vyasa's view, he should not be using the 'AbhAti kartA iva' at all.

Ishwara is not “really” the doer, but then again, neither is there anything at all really done. If we accept things done, then Ishwara certainly is their doer.

The verse is there to deny any doership to Ishwara.  Hence alone the dreamer example is given. The similarity with the BG verse - 

 प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः । (of the Gita with regard to the jiva) and the cited Bhagavata verse: गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिः (with regard to Ishwara) is too striking to ignore. 

regards

subbu       

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1RDx9u6-WWHQp86jNU44ZLMZU%2BO5h9uUuRROC7h8bNLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHThSu%3DzNmZUV46Etnttj5nqfSs%2BQ9DGWU5RbpHDZaCpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 7:25 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 5:09 PM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

On Nov 11, 2023 at 12:59:47 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 10:48 AM Akilesh Ayyar <aki...@siftingtothetruth.com> wrote:

The magnet analogy is fine, if we realize that the difference between ishwara and a magnet is that it is not the iron filings that ishwara causes to move, but the very law of magnetism itself, and deeper still, the idea of any law at all. The act of “mere witnessing” is for God an act of profound creativity that brings into existence what God cognizes. It is not that something exists outside of God “pre-made” by something else and that God merely witnesses. God is all the things, and all the movements of all the things are in God’s intelligence.

If such is the case, the scripture would be wrong to make any distinction between Ishwara and prakriti.   

The distinction is between an instrument and the one who wields it. Maya abides in Ishwara, but the reverse is not true. Thus the need for a distinction. 

 

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः ।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

न आदत्ते न च गृह्णाति भक्तस्यापि कस्यचित् पापम् । न चैव आदत्ते सुकृतं भक्तैः प्रयुक्तं विभुः । किमर्थं तर्हि भक्तैः पूजादिलक्षणं यागदानहोमादिकं च सुकृतं प्रयुज्यते इत्याह — अज्ञानेन आवृतं ज्ञानं विवेकविज्ञानम् , तेन मुह्यन्ति ‘करोमि कारयामि भोक्ष्ये भोजयामि’ इत्येवं मोहं गच्छन्ति अविवेकिनः संसारिणो जन्तवः ॥ १५ ॥

Ishwara does not cognize even the devotee's punya or paapa karma. Why  then do bhaktas engage in punya prada actions? It is due to ajnana replies Bhagavan. The ajnana is articulated: I do, I cause something to be done, enjoy, make others enjoy'.  This delusion is what makes jivas engage in acts. 

Nirguna Brahman does not accept them or cognize them, but Ishwara does. This is why this verse refers to ignorance and delusion; it is speaking of the difference between Ishwara as it seems and Ishwara as it really is (it really is nirguna). But in the provisional view, Ishwara is the accepter and enjoyer of all acts. E.g. in BG 9:26: “Whoever makes an offering to Me with devotion…I accept with joy.”

In fact in the 13th chapter 'anumantA', permitter, Shankara as one of the meanings, explains अथवा, प्रवृत्तान् स्वव्यापारेषु तत्साक्षिभूतः कदाचिदपि न निवारयति इति अनुमन्ता । : the witness of the activities never prevents anyone (from what one has commenced or proposes to do).  

Well that’s fine, because it is the very witness that has ultimately commenced or proposed these activities. How can the controller prevent itself from doing what it itself has chosen?

The Bhagavata uses the words: While it is Gunas that do all, Ishwara 'appears' to be the doer.  It gives the analogy of dream: the dreamer at the time of dreaming thinks he is the one who does actions in the dream. But upon waking knows that he did not do those things at all; he was a mere witness to them,.  Similar is the case with Ishwara's doership, says Veda Vyasa.  In the case of the jiva's dream, the jiva himself realizes that he did not do anything indeed. But in the case of Ishwara, the jivas think that he is the one who does everything while in truth it is Prakriti that does everything.  It is this wrong thinking on the part of jivas with regard to Ishwara that Veda Vyasa wants to correct by this verse: 

Waking up does not mean that “prakriti” did everything, but rather that there cannot be said to have ever been anything to have been done. In that world of objects and doings, time and space, it is a supreme Intelligence which decides what happens.

In the siddhanta, however, it is the jiva that is accepted to be the creator of dream and not Ishwara.  

The jiva is the creator of the dream in the sense that jiva’s ignorance is the chief pre-requisite. But what seems to be ignorance from the jiva’s perspective is Maya from the Lord’s perspective. 

सृष्ट्वेदं मनसा विश्वं आत्मनानुप्रविश्य यः ।

गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिराभाति कर्तेव स्वप्नदृग् यथा ॥ ३१ ॥

The usage  'AbhAti kartA iva' (appears as though he is the doer) with regard to Ishwara would be wrong on the part of Veda vyasa if he meant something else.  If Ishwara was really the doer in Veda Vyasa's view, he should not be using the 'AbhAti kartA iva' at all.

Ishwara is not “really” the doer, but then again, neither is there anything at all really done. If we accept things done, then Ishwara certainly is their doer.

The verse is there to deny any doership to Ishwara.  Hence alone the dreamer example is given. The similarity with the BG verse - 

I agreed that Ishwara is not really the doer. As you quote Veda Vyasa, He appears to be so. That does not mean things are really done but Ishwara is not the doer — but rather that things at all only appear to be done. 

 प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः । (of the Gita with regard to the jiva) and the cited Bhagavata verse: गुणैः कुर्वद्‌भिः (with regard to Ishwara) is too striking to ignore. 

regards

subbu       

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1RDx9u6-WWHQp86jNU44ZLMZU%2BO5h9uUuRROC7h8bNLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsHThSu%3DzNmZUV46Etnttj5nqfSs%2BQ9DGWU5RbpHDZaCpA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3HqQEjme62eGUm7Js1SDMCU%3D0qR7qY_somyCrC2Eno6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Akilesh Ayyarji,

These discussions are really good.  The Sankhya also says that Ishwara is the observer. The Bhagavad Gita says that while Lord Krishna does observe, if there be real need he does appear from time  to time.  Once he did  appear  as Kapila too,  to speak out about  the principles  of Sankhya, where he said that he is the Jna, the Purusha  or the divine consciousness, the 25th principle.   

Unfortunately, Knut A. Jacobsen, who brought out a hot-selling book  on "Kapila-Asuri Samvada", he wrote that this  text of 25 tattvas is atheistic, and unfortunately nobody appeared to have protested so far. I wonder why the Indian scholars are sleeping.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsE-KigRSXe56PPkyaYRN%3DX11cRJ9QM-DETMn8h53Otxng%40mail.gmail.com.