One more instance of Shankara specifying 'kAraNa shareeram'

[V Subrahmanian]

In the   Bh.Gita Bhashya 13.27, explaining the term Parameshwara, Shankara says: 

परमेश्वरं देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्यव्यक्तात्मनः अपेक्ष्य परमेश्वरः,    Brahman is Parameshwara in relation to the body, sense organs, manas, buddhi and avyakta  selves.  In other words it is the pancha kosha vyatirikta chaitanyam that is stated in this verse:

समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम् ।
विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं यः पश्यति स पश्यति ॥ २७ ॥  13.27

He sees who sees the supreme Lord as existing equally in all beings, and as the Imperishable among the perishable.

The word avyakta used by Shankara in the Bhashya along with the deha = sthUla shareeram, indriya, manas buddhi = sUkshma sharIram and avyakta = kAraNa shareeram comes out very clearly. 

In this very chapter, for the very last verse:

क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा ।
भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम् ॥ ३४ ॥

Those who know thus through the eye of wisdom the distinction between the field and the Knower of the field, and the annihilation of the Matrix of beings,-they reach the Supreme.

In the bhashya Shankara, for the term bhUta prakriti says:

भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या, 

the cause of all bhUtas is prakriti of the nature of avidya and adds 'called avyakta'.  Here are some instances where Shankara uses the term avyakta and gives the meaning prakriti/maya/avidya:

BSB 1.4.3:

अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुषु...अव्यक्ता हि सा माया, तत्त्वान्यत्वनिरूपणस्याशक्यत्वात् । अव्यक्तप्रभवत्वान्महतः,... महान् तदाप्यव्यक्ताधीनत्वाज्जीवभावस्य महतः परमव्यक्तमित्युक्तम् । अविद्या ह्यव्यक्तम्; अविद्यावत्त्वेनैव जीवस्य सर्वः संव्यवहारः सन्ततो वर्तते । तच्च अव्यक्तगतं महतः परत्वमभेदोपचारात्तद्विकारे शरीरे परिकल्प्यते ।

BSB 2.1.1:

 ‘तस्मादव्यक्तमुत्पन्नं त्रिगुणं द्विजसत्तम’(म॰भा॰ १२-३३४-२९,३०,३१) इत्याह । तथान्यत्रापि ‘अव्यक्तं पुरुषे ब्रह्मन्निर्गुणे सम्प्रलीयते’(म॰भा॰ १२-३३९-३१) इत्याह । 

BSB 2.2.42   योऽसौ नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात्प्रसिद्धः परमात्मा सर्वात्मा,   (we have the Gita Bhashya introduction verse where this reading occurs.)  Narayana is beyond avyakta (beyond prakriti/maya..)

BGB 12.3:

अव्यक्तत्वात् अशब्दगोचर इति न निर्देष्टुं शक्यते, अतः अनिर्देश्यम् , अव्यक्तं न केनापि प्रमाणेन व्यज्यत इत्यव्यक्तं पर्युपासते परि समन्तात् उपासते ।

BGB 13.5:

तत्कारणम् अव्यक्तमेव च, न व्यक्तम् अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृतम् ईश्वरशक्तिः ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ ।………

BGB 18.50:  This Bhashya is very supportive of the 13.27 bhashya we are considering.  Here too, like in 13.27, there is a fundamental error in taking the After listing those who take the gross body, the sense organs, the manas and buddhi, Shankara says some take the avyaktam, the state of avidya, as one's self.   

देहचैतन्यवादिनश्च लोकायतिकाः ‘चैतन्यविशिष्टः कायः पुरुषः’ इत्याहुः । तथा अन्ये इन्द्रियचैतन्यवादिनः, अन्ये मनश्चैतन्यवादिनः, अन्ये बुद्धिचैतन्यवादिनः । ततोऽपि आन्तरम् अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृताख्यम् अविद्यावस्थम् आत्मत्वेन प्रतिपन्नाः केचित् । 

BGB 7.4:  Avyakta as ahankara:  In this bhashya the avyaktam is stated to be the mUlakAraNam ahankara:

………कारणमहङ्कारो गृह्यते । बुद्धिः इति अहङ्कारकारणं महत्तत्त्वम् । अहङ्कारः इति अविद्यासंयुक्तमव्यक्तम् । यथा विषसंयुक्तमन्नं विषमित्युच्यते, एवमहङ्कारवासनावत् अव्यक्तं मूलकारणमहङ्कार इत्युच्यते, प्रवर्तकत्वात् अहङ्कारस्य । अहङ्कार एव हि सर्वस्य

In the Taittiriya Brahmananda valli beginning Bhashya, for the expression 'paramE vyOman', Shankara says: This great space means avyAkRtAkAsha. This is inside the body, in the heart region.  Inside this avyAkRtAkAsha is Brahman. It is this that is meant by avyakta by Shankara in the BGB 13.27 as part of the five sheaths beyond which is the Parameshwara. 

तस्यां परमे प्रकृष्टे व्योमन् व्योम्नि आकाशे अव्याकृताख्ये ; तद्धि परमं व्योम, ‘एतस्मिन्खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाशः’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ । ११) इत्यक्षरसंनिकर्षात् ; ‘गुहायां व्योमन्’ इति वा सामानाधिकरण्यादव्याकृताकाशमेव गुहा ; तत्रापि निगूढाः सर्वे पदार्थास्त्रिषु कालेषु, कारणत्वात्सूक्ष्मतरत्वाच्च ; तस्मिन्नन्तर्निहितं ब्रह्म ।

We have one commentator, Sri Bellankonda Ramaraya Kavi in his BhashyArka deepika who says the avyakta in the BGB bhashya 13.27 that we are considering is avidyA:


परिकल्पितेभ्यो देहात्मेन्द्रियात्ममनआत्मबुद्ध्यात्माव्यक्तात्मभ्य उत्कृष्टः | अहमज्ञः इति प्रतीतिया अज्ञानस्याप्यात्मत्वमवगम्यते  इत्यभिप्रेत्योक्तम् अव्यक्तात्मेति। न त्वज्ञानमहमिति साक्षादज्ञाने आत्मत्वप्रतीतिः कस्यापि | काणोऽहं बधिरोऽहमित्यादिप्रतीत्या त्विन्द्रियस्यात्मत्वमिति बोध्यम्। न कोऽपि चक्षुरहं श्रोत्रमहमिति प्रत्येति। देहो हि घटपटादीनामीशनशीलः देहपरतन्त्रत्वात् तेषाम् | स च इन्द्रियपरतन्त्रः, इन्द्रियव्यापारपूर्वकत्वाद्देहव्यापारस्येति देहस्य ईशनशीलानीन्द्रियाणि | तेषां मनः ईश्वरम्। तस्य  बुद्धिरीशनशीला | तस्या अज्ञानम् | अमीषामपि ईशनशील आत्मेति परमेश्वरत्वमात्मन इति भावः | न चाज्ञानस्येशनशीलः परमात्मैव, न त्वात्मेति वाच्यम्: आत्मन एव परमात्मत्वात् परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तः इति ह्युक्तम् |

Bellankonda has given a very fine explanation to the Bhashya passage under consideration.  He is strictly sticking to the Adhyasa bhashya and Shankara's opinions in this matter. 'aham ajnaH' is the experience and thereby ajnAnam is also stated to be atma by Shankara by the use of the word avyakta in the bhashya 13.27. No one thinks that 'I am ignorance' but thinks I am ignorant'. Hence avyakta too qualifies to be Atma, erroneously though. 

Thus, we have here a very irrefutable instance of Shankara admitting a kAraNa sharIram for which we have Shankara's own usage of the term avyakta in the sense of ajnanam/avidya.  His bhashyam for 18.50 where the very term avyakta is used by him, that too in the same context as 13.27 while listing the various aspects of gross body, sense organs, etc. are taken as the Atma.  

The other very explicit instance is the IshAvaasya bhashya: 

स पर्यगाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम् ।
कविर्मनीषी परिभूः स्वयम्भूर्याथातथ्यतोऽर्थान्व्यदधाच्छाश्वतीभ्यः समाभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

In the bhashya for this, Shankara says, Atman/Brahman is bereft of three bodies: gross, subtle and causal:

। अव्रणमस्नाविरमित्येताभ्यां स्थूलशरीरप्रतिषेधः । शुद्धं निर्मलमविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः । 

warm regards

subbu  

[Rajhoou Upreti]

 "avyakta too qualifies to be Atma, erroneously though". Interesting, I once read Geeta Bhasya of Sridhara Teertha, past sankaracharya of puri.  he also has given bhasya in 9.11,, That fool thinks  I, paramishvara, who is avayakta as tortoise, fish, etc, not knowing my param bhava (nature ) ...I do not remember it correctly. Still, it was similar to this,, So both prakriti and atman are referred to by this according to context.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0wD%3D6HSqVj4-Phjsf_e3ogMiB12k5YHkwfLDJucvaEQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:46 AM Rajhoou Upreti <rajho...@gmail.com> wrote:

 "avyakta too qualifies to be Atma, erroneously though". Interesting, I once read Geeta Bhasya of Sridhara Teertha, past sankaracharya of puri.  he also has given bhasya in 9.11,, That fool thinks  I, paramishvara, who is avayakta as tortoise, fish, etc, not knowing my param bhava (nature ) ...I do not remember it correctly. Still, it was similar to this,, So both prakriti and atman are referred to by this according to context.

Thanks.  Sridhara Swami says for this verse 7.4 (not 9.11):

मूल श्लोकः

अव्यक्तं व्यक्ितमापन्नं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धयः।  परं भावमजानन्तो ममाव्ययमनुत्तमम्।।7.24।।  

ननु च समाने प्रयासे महति च फलविशेषे सति सर्वेऽपि किमिति देवान्तरं हित्वा त्वामेव न भजन्ति तत्राह अव्यक्तमिति। अव्यक्तं प्रपञ्चातीतं मां व्यक्तिं मनुष्यमत्स्यकूर्मादिभावं प्राप्तमल्पबुद्धयो मन्यन्ते। तत्र हेतुः। मम परं भावं स्वरूपमजानन्तः। कथंभूतम्। अव्ययं नित्यम्। न विद्यत उत्तमो यस्मात्तं भावं। अतो जगद्रक्षार्थं लीलयाविष्कृतनानाविशुद्धोर्जितसत्त्वमूर्तिं मां परमेश्वरं स्वकर्मनिर्मितभौतिकदेहं देवतान्तरसमं पश्यन्तो मन्दमतयो मां नातीवाद्रियन्ते प्रत्युत क्षिप्रफलं देवतान्तरमेव भजन्ति ते चोक्तप्रकारेणान्तवत्फलं प्राप्नुवन्तीत्यर्थः।

I am yet to get a correct understanding of what Sridhara Swamin says here.

regards

subbu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B_usDyhFmfzFmwA5KajcU9gy0VpX7xkhzGbK5pV41O-iVeW1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t know why, topics like this (i.e. avidyA=avyakta) would rise its head in on or the other form, though these topics have been done and dusted 😊 Do we have to say equating avyakta / mAya with avidyA is just kalpanAdhikyaM of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s coz. bhAshyakAra himself bifurcating these two quite categorically!!??  With these same bhAshya references we discussed this issue extensively (for example 1.4.2 & 1.4.3 in sUtra bhAshya where bhAshyakAra differentiates jeeva and hiraNyagarbha to explain the two possible explanations of the term avyakta).  Howsoever, by equating mAya/avyakta with avidyA and treating avyakta as synonymous with avidyA we are making paramEshwara as ‘mahAn avidyAvanta’ in the shwetAshwatara mantra : mAyinantu maheshwaraM’ or we are making avidyA as svarUpa of Ishwara when lord said : daivi hyesha guNamayee mama mAyA 😊  And it is bhAshyakAra himself quite unambiguously said while explaining the term ‘ahaMkAraM’  : ahamkara eti avidyA ‘saMyuktaM’ avyaktaM…in sUtra bhAshya it is further explained : avidyAprayupasthApita nAmarUpamAyAvesha vashena (Sri SSS often quotes this sUtra bhAshya to differentiate how contextually it has been said by bhAshyakAra that avidyAkruta is nAmarUpa in the light of adhyAsa) And when mAya is considered as Ishwara shakti, in this shakti seeds of saMsAra like avidyA etc. of the jeeva-s are hidden, if both mAya/avyakta and avidyA both are one and the same these bhAshya vAkya-s, saMyukta (coupled with) etc. does not make any logical sense.  It is true that avyakta and avidyA finely blended together in bhAshya but it is also true that there is valley of difference between these two if one cautiously examine some bhAshya vAkya-s without exercising their own superficial assumptions.  I know some tArkikA-s tried to explain the saMyukta, visha-anna (where visha is avidyA and anna is mAya / avyakta) in their own logical way but it has to be pushed aside as these explanations are just their grand imagination and quite contrary to simple and straightforward explanations by bhAshyakAra.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[V Subrahmanian]

This is not regarding avyakta - maya question.  The BGB 13.27 enumerates sthUla sharira, sukshma sharira and avyakta -  all together and says Brahman/Parameshwara is distinct from those.  Hence the question of what Bhashyakara means by the word avyakta in that samAsa means is taken up for study.

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB663892AFAE99FC6B8A3DA84E84D62%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji, Bhaskar ji.

One line caught my attention (IshAvAsyOpanishad BhAshya, Mantra 8):

अकायम् अशरीरं लिङ्गशरीरवर्जित इत्यर्थः । अव्रणमस्नाविरमित्येताभ्यां स्थूलशरीरप्रतिषेधः ।  शुद्धं निर्मलमविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः ।

Clearly AchArya accepts three sharIra; namely sthUla, sUkshma and kAraNa sharIra. And all three are being denied for Atman.

Let us see how AchArya denies kAraNa sharIra - by negating avidyA.

Clearly avidyA is accepted by AchArya as kAraNa sharIra.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• First, my heartfelt condolences for your recent loss (came to know through FB).  My sincere prayers to her Sadgati. 

 

 

Clearly avidyA is accepted by AchArya as kAraNa sharIra.

 

• Yes, kAraNa shareera is avidyA and Atman is deha trayAteetaH.  Since avidyA is destroyable by knowledge, it is appropriate to call it a shareera/ body.  In this sense avidyA is called kAraNa shareera in this ishAvAsya .Bh.8.  For identifying oneself with stUla and sUkshma shareera the kAraNa is avidyA and that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera since ignorance about himself is the basic cause for janana-maraNa chakra.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Clearly AchArya accepts three sharIra; namely sthUla, sUkshma and kAraNa sharIra. And all three are being denied for Atman.

Let us see how AchArya denies kAraNa sharIra - by negating avidya.

Clearly avidyA is accepted by AchArya as kAraNa sharIra //.

Concerning kAraNa SharIra here in Bhashya, Sri SSS translates the Bhashya as under.

//  शुद्धं निर्मलमविद्यामलरहितमिति कारणशरीरप्रतिषेधः । //

//  shuddhaM nirmalamavidyAmalarahitamiti kAraNasharIrapratiShedhaH | //

Sri SSS  // ಶುದ್ಧನಾಗಿರುವವನು, ಅವಿದ್ಯೆಯೆಂಬ ಕಶ್ಚಲವಿಲ್ಲದವನು ; ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾರಣಶರೀರವು ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದಿವೆ //.

Translation (Mine)  // Is Pure. Devoid of impurity termed avidyA ; Hence it is stated as being devoid of kAraNa SharIra //.

Sri SSS adds a Foot Note for this part of Bhashya as under.

//  4. ಶರೀರವೆಂದರೆ ನಾಶವಾಗತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ಆತ್ಮಜ್ಞಾನದಿಂದ ಸಾಶವಾಗುವದರಿಂದಲೂ ನಮಗೆ ಶರೀರಾದಿಗಳಿವೆಯೆಂಬ ಅರಿವಿಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿರುವದರಿಂದಲೂ ಅವಿದ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾರಣಶರೀರವೆಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದು - ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. 'ಕಾರಣಶರೀರ' ಎಂಬ ಮಾತು ಪ್ರಸ್ಥಾನತ್ರಯಭಾಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತೆಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಇರುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ ; ಇದೇಕೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಬಲ್ಲವರು ವಿಚಾರಮಾಡಬೇಕು //.

Translation (Mine)  // SharIra means what is subject to destruction. Since it is subject to destruction by AtmajnAna,  as also is the cause for our understanding that we are endowed with SharIra etc, it is necessary to assume (or imagine)  that avidyA is termed kAraNa SharIra on that account. The term ** kAraNa SharIra** is not to be found anywhere else in PTB ; Scholars need to investigate the reasons for this //.

For information, without comments.

Regards 

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBC6zSgHqqyOf6gJih5s_GZCs-Ye8d5sDesZpcgJg-bG-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji, Chandramouli ji.

 First, my heartfelt condolences for your recent loss (came to know through FB).  My sincere prayers to her Sadgati. 

🙏

//Yes, kAraNa shareera is avidyA and Atman is deha trayAteetaH.  Since avidyA is destroyable by knowledge, it is appropriate to call it a shareera/ body.  In this sense avidyA is called kAraNa shareera in this ishAvAsya .Bh.8.  For identifying oneself with stUla and sUkshma shareera the kAraNa is avidyA and that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera since ignorance about himself is the basic cause for janana-maraNa chakra.//

Now, once avidyA is admitted as kAraNa sharIra, would it not ipso facto imply that it is within the purview of kshetra vide the shlOka: इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रम् इति अभिधीयते।

And once kshetra, it is ज्ञेय also. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:52 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji, Chandramouli ji.

 

//Yes, kAraNa shareera is avidyA and Atman is deha trayAteetaH.  Since avidyA is destroyable by knowledge, it is appropriate to call it a shareera/ body.  In this sense avidyA is called kAraNa shareera in this ishAvAsya .Bh.8.  For identifying oneself with stUla and sUkshma shareera the kAraNa is avidyA and that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera since ignorance about himself is the basic cause for janana-maraNa chakra.//

Now, once avidyA is admitted as kAraNa sharIra, would it not ipso facto imply that it is within the purview of kshetra vide the shlOka: इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रम् इति अभिधीयते।

And once kshetra, it is ज्ञेय also. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar 

The jneyatva of avidya has been very explicitly demonstrated in the Gita Bhashya 13.2 through that pithy dialogue.

अत्र आह — सा अविद्या कस्य इति । यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव । कस्य दृश्यते इति । अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते ? ’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः । कथम् ? दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि । न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नो युक्तः । न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने ‘गावः कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति । ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः । गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्सम्बन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इति प्रश्नो निरर्थकः । न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ, यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात् । अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासम्बन्धे ज्ञाते, किं तव स्यात् ? अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात् । यस्य अविद्या, सः तां परिहरिष्यति । ननु ममैव अविद्या । जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम् ।  

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAt_zCQqWPB1xcbYYOzf13GzmsGjS-ohYNikGObAWec%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

There is a small but, in my view, significant difference between what Sri SSS has stated and what Bhaskar Ji has stated.

Bhaskar Ji states, I quote, // that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera //.

Whereas Sri SSS states, I quote,  //  it is necessary to assume (or imagine)  that avidyA is termed kAraNa SharIra on that account. The term ** kAraNa SharIra** is not to be found anywhere else in PTB ; Scholars need to investigate the reasons for this //.

Bhaskar Ji is very sure about contextuality. Sri SSS on the other hand suggests that we should assume  or imagine such contextual understanding  presumably based on other parts of the Bhashya. But that would perhaps be so only if the other parts of the Bhashya are also interpreted the way he has done. If other parts of the Bhashya are interpreted differently, then this contextual understanding here also would be different.  He (Sri SSS) also observes that this needs further investigation by scholars.

Above is my view.

Regards

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:52 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAt_zCQqWPB1xcbYYOzf13GzmsGjS-ohYNikGObAWec%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Now, once avidyA is admitted as kAraNa sharIra, would it not ipso facto imply that it is within the purview of kshetra vide the shlOka: इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रम् इति अभिधीयते।

 

And once kshetra, it is ज्ञेय also. 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The appropriateness of usage of shareera to the avidyA needs to be understood in line with for adhyAsa jnAnAbhAva is the ‘cause’.  It does not anyway mean kAraNAvidyA is kshetra and jneya (knowable).  When the mahAn Atma (like in katha shruti) explained as jeeva avidyA hi avyaktaM i.e. avyakta is his avidyA only that is his kAraNa shareera.  One more Upanishad vAkya comes to my mind kAraNarUpa makAra parabrahmOm in this Upanishad nArayaNa is the source of each and everything, he is the parama / ultimate kAraNa 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

Bhaskar Ji states, I quote, // that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera //.

Whereas Sri SSS states, I quote,  //  it is necessary to assume (or imagine)  that avidyA is termed kAraNa SharIra on that account. The term ** kAraNa SharIra** is not to be found anywhere else in PTB ; Scholars need to investigate the reasons for this //.

 

praNAms Sri Chandramouli prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Pardon my ignorance, I don’t see any significant ‘stand change’ in whatever I said and whatever you shared.  I shared my understanding,  in what context the avidyA can be contextually called as kAraNa shareera which supports whatever you shared as Sri SSS’s words:  ( I am quoting your own translation here )

 

//quote//

SharIra means what is subject to destruction. Since it is subject to destruction by AtmajnAna,  as also is the cause for our understanding that we are endowed with SharIra etc, it is necessary to assume (or imagine)  that avidyA is termed kAraNa SharIra on that account.

//unquote//

 

And I am quoting my words which I said with regard to my view :

 

// quote //

Since avidyA is destroyable by knowledge, it is appropriate to call it a shareera/ body.  In this sense avidyA is called kAraNa shareera in this ishAvAsya .Bh.8. For identifying oneself with stUla and sUkshma shareera the kAraNa is avidyA and that avidyA can be here contextually called as shareera since ignorance about himself is the basic cause for janana-maraNa chakra

//unquote//

 

I am really unable to understand where I deviated from Sri SSS here.  Please educate me.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

It seems I have now given you a new word to berate the 'later vyAkhyAnakAra-s' :-) 

But where one unmanifest (avyakta / avidya) would do to explain srishti, samsara etc you are postulating two entities. So you are the one who can be charged with kalpanAdhikyaM.

Regarding Isvara becoming avidyAvantam - what is mAyA for Isvara is avidya for jIva - like what is magic for Magician appears real for onlookers. So Ishvara is always mAyAvI and jIvas are avidyAvAns and to explain that one mAyA/avidya is good enough.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar 

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:49 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t know why, topics like this (i.e. avidyA=avyakta) would rise its head in on or the other form, though these topics have been done and dusted 😊 Do we have to say equating avyakta / mAya with avidyA is just kalpanAdhikyaM of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s coz. bhAshyakAra himself bifurcating these two quite categorically!!?? 

...

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

I am not suggesting you deviated from Sri SSS. I am only emphasizing that Sri SSS has taken that stand  specifically suggesting that  such a stand is in line with his (Sri SSS) interpretation of other parts of Bhashya. Interpretation given by Sudhanshu Ji (about jneya, kshetra etc) is based on a different interpretation of the Bhashya. Hence the two cannot be mixed up. You have in your succeeding post clarified to the same effect as well.

Sri SSS has himself suggested that it needs to be investigated by scholars as to why the term kAraNa SharIra is not found elsewhere in the Bhashya. Well. The other side as well argues why should the same term be used. On the other hand,  other parts of the Bhashya should be interpreted in a way consistent with usage of the term kAraNa SharIra here as well. They can claim that is what they have done.

That is all what I have suggested.

Regards

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638BD915CFCF21497424AF884D62%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Respected praNAms Sri Jaishankar Acharya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It seems I have now given you a new word to berate the 'later vyAkhyAnakAra-s' :-) 

 

Ø    mahA prasAdaM prabhuji though I don’t deserve that exalted title 😊

 

But where one unmanifest (avyakta / avidya) would do to explain srishti, samsara etc you are postulating two entities. So you are the one who can be charged with kalpanAdhikyaM.

 

Ø     Not so prabhuji, I am just echoing what bhAshyakAra quite conspicuously saying by saying avidyA as visha and mAya as anna.  So you can blame bhAshyakAra for this for not equating mAya with avidyA 😊

 

Regarding Isvara becoming avidyAvantam - what is mAyA for Isvara is avidya for jIva - like what is magic for Magician appears real for onlookers. So Ishvara is always mAyAvI and jIvas are avidyAvAns and to explain that one mAyA/avidya is good enough.

 

• Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I beg to differ here.  The contention observation that mAyA is NOT avidyA is quite clear here, as you explained mAya belongs to Ishwara and it is not in jeeva and avidyA is in jeeva whereas Ishwara is nitya buddha mukta svarUpa.  tAnyahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vetta paraNtapa, clarifies Lord to arjuna.  For this Jagat brahman is the abhinna nimittopadAna kAraNa, and mAya is Ishwara shakti hence jagat is the effect of this Ishwara shakti mAyA which is transactionally the same for everyone.  If your goodself and myself stand on the same stage every sane person would identify both of us as male bodies. That is the mAyA / Ishwara srushti.  Whereas you one is vedAnta Acharya and  another one is loukika can be known only by one’s own mind it cannot be known by others.  Hence avidyA and resultant adhyAsa exists only in one’s mind that is, it cannot be known by others. If we see the strangers in male and female bodies we can say there is Man and woman whereas their personal relationship (like husband and wife, brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter etc.) is known only to themselves. In this sence mAya is divine. It is showing us the brahman in the form of jagat.  OTOH avidyA is  tuccha, neecha and anartha hetu. It causes grief through the samsAra, jeeva suffers due to avidyA.  mAya as effect not different from its cause (trishu kAleshu) it would carry the status of pariNAmi nityatva like veda carries the pravAha nityatvaM.  whereas complete annihilating of avidyA is possible with the dawn of paramArtha jnAna.  With all this it is quite evident that there is a world of difference between avidyA and mAya.  somehow, there is reason unknown, scholars and sampUrNAvadhi vedAntins like your goodself carrying and entertaining a wrong impression that they are synonymous just because it is said so in traditional later vyAkhyAnakAras’ works.
• Kindly pardon me if I am crossing my limits to share my opinion. 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Both jIva-srshti and Ishvara-srshti can be explained with one avidyA / mAyA. Multiple effects do not necessarily imply multiple causes. Being TrigunAtmaka mAya / avidyA can have both annAmsha and vishAmsha as mentioned by bhAsyakAra in BG 7.4 Bhashya. What is 'visha' for you, is just 'anna' for a snake.  So no need for two different entities - avidyA and avyakta. In fact if you propose a separate avidyA and say it is in samyoga with avyakta, you will have more problems - how can an abhAva have any samyoga with anything?

As already discussed there are any number of places where bhAshyakAra, GaudapAdAcArya and vArtikakAra have used mAya, avidya etc terms as equivalent. So no need of this kalpanAdhikyaM

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Acharya Sri Jaishankar prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Both jIva-srshti and Ishvara-srshti can be explained with one avidyA / mAyA. Multiple effects do not necessarily imply multiple causes.

 

• By saying this i.e. Ishwara and jeeva,  we are already bifurcating the things, what belongs to Ishwara and what is the problem of jeeva.  In that realm, Ishwara is not avidyAvanta, he is /was/will always be avidyA vinirmukta.  That is the reason why Ishwara upAdhi is not avidyA kruta (mAyAvishishTa upAdhi, sAdhakAnugrahArthaM) whereas jeeva’s upAdhi is karma janita.  So mAya belongs to Ishwara and through mAyAshakti ( please note not through avidyAshakti) he becomes creator and creates the jagat, a stage for the sake of jeeva-s to experience / enjoy their karma phala. Ishwara is eternal pure, ever free by nature, and all-knowing (sarvajna) and all-powerful (sarva-shakta). Because of this reason we should not treat mAyA and avidyA equally.  One is visha-another one is anna.   

 

 

Being TrigunAtmaka mAya / avidyA can have both annAmsha and vishAmsha as mentioned by bhAsyakAra in BG 7.4 Bhashya.

 

• NO!! here mAya is anna and avidyA is visha…visha saMyukta anna is not one and the same. 

 

 

What is 'visha' for you, is just 'anna' for a snake. 

 

• Sorry, that is not the context / contention here. 

 

So no need for two different entities - avidyA and avyakta.

 

• Avyakta / avyAkruta is parabrahman in its svarUpa whereas avidyA is mere antaHkaraNa dOsha. 

 

In fact if you propose a separate avidyA and say it is in samyoga with avyakta, you will have more problems - how can an abhAva have any samyoga with anything?

 

Ø     vyaktAvyaktAtmaka prakruti is nitya like Ishwara (vide geeta bhAshya, not different from its cause vide sUtra bhAshya) but avidyA can be completely eradicated through vidyA. 

 

As already discussed there are any number of places where bhAshyakAra, GaudapAdAcArya and vArtikakAra have used mAya, avidya etc terms as equivalent. So no need of this kalpanAdhikyaM

 

Ø     Not so IMHO.

[Dr. B. Joshi]

Namaskaram,and dhanyavaad for sharing Adi Shankar's Geet Bhashyam explaining Parabraham.In one kiran of wisdom said so succinctly paramacgarya has uplifted my thought level that makes me feel blessed were those disciples who had the fortune to listen to him face to face.
It is my wish if only I could in some birth could  sit and listen to the Sringeri Guru maintaining the great sanatan tradition.
Bhuvaneshwar Joshi

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--
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 visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-E4fivCcxLXSsXXNkwqVVn_j-5yXCf3%2BtwMhgWFpnoQ4g%40mail.gmail.com

.