Bhagavad Gita - As it actually is | Sanatana Dharma | Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada & Bhakti | Sringeri

[V Subrahmanian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRholdfu_GM

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Wonderful initiative; knowledgeable and pleasing to hear. Typically we see this type of scholarly discussion done in Sanskrit; but here it is a fresh approach with young erudite vidwans discussing in the English language. Looking into their page, I recall seeing episode 1 of the earlier series on Sanatana Dharma (which now has other videos on important topics). Ideally time-stamps can be added. 

The explanations on the importance of karma and the nature of advaita bhakti are presented clearly and convincingly. I have read people claim that adi shankara distorted Gita's meaning in order to push through his own siddhanta. These scholars not only took that claim head on but simply inverted it on its head - that it is shankara who took great care to convey the actual meanings without the least distortion.

I was not sure about the statement that Veda Vyasa wrote the Gita based on his knowledge of the Vedas. Is it not typically understood that Vyasa wrote the Gita that Krishna spoke to Arjuna? We think of the verses as if that is what Krishna actually uttered, and not as a paraphrasing into poetry by Vyasa - right?

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRholdfu_GM

--
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/CAKk0Te1LRgmn4H9%2BeGhQR8jdiP8JQb4GciH_Nc7ravresQBgQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 3:32 AM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

I was not sure about the statement that Veda Vyasa wrote the Gita based on his knowledge of the Vedas. Is it not typically understood that Vyasa wrote the Gita that Krishna spoke to Arjuna? We think of the verses as if that is what Krishna actually uttered, and not as a paraphrasing into poetry by Vyasa - right?

Dear Putran ji,

I think for the observation you make in the last paragraph, there can be three answers: 1. The entire Mahabharata, which includes the Bhagavad Gita upadesha, is a composition of Veda Vyasa.  2. Veda Vyasa actually reproduced the exact words of Krishna interspersed by Arjuna. 3. It was Sanjaya who narrated the Gita to Dhritarashtra and the words are his. And it is a part of the Mahabharata.  

All these positions would be correct. Shorn of all these, finally, it is the Vedantic message and the life lessons that the Gita offers to the readers that is of interest.     

regards

subbu  

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:32 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRholdfu_GM

--
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/CAKk0Te1LRgmn4H9%2BeGhQR8jdiP8JQb4GciH_Nc7ravresQBgQg%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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-riCY9pLM1rbHM%3DUAWNbA3REVkUKz4oqiZawwMf%2B_Ctzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Sri Bhagavatpada, in the Introduction (upOdghAta)   of his Bhashya on BG, states as follows.

// तं धर्मं भगवता यथोपदिष्टं वेदव्यासः सर्वज्ञो भगवान् गीताख्यैः सप्तभिः श्लोकशतैरुपनिबबन्ध ॥ //

//  taM dharmaM bhagavatA yathopadiShTaM vedavyAsaH sarvaj~no bhagavAn gItAkhyaiH saptabhiH shlokashatairupanibabandha || //

Translation //  VedavyAsa,  who was omniscient and possessed of godly qualities,  set forth in seven hundred verses under the name Gita, that dharma as it was instructed by the Bhagavan //.

Sri SSS, in a Foot Note, mentions as under.

//  2. ವ್ಯಾಸರೂ ನಾರಾಯಣನ ಅಂಶಸಂಭೂತರೇ ; ಆದ್ದರಿಂದಲೇ ಅವರು ಶ್ರೀಕೃಷ್ಣನು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವದಕ್ಕೂ ಸಂಜಯನಿಗೆ ಅದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಧೃತರಾಷ್ಟ್ರನಿಗೆ ಹೇಳುವ ದಿವ್ಯದೃಷ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಅನುಗ್ರಹಿಸುವದಕ್ಕೂ ಶಕ್ತರಾದರು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಸರ್ವಜ್ಞರಾದ, ಭಗವದ್ರೂಪರಾದ ಎಂಬ ವಿಶೇಷಣಗಳು ಸೂಚಿಸುತ್ತವೆ //.

Translation // The adjectives  Sarvajna/BhagavadrUpa  indicate that ;;  VyAsa is an incarnation of NarAyaNa only ; Hence  he  was able to assimilate whatever Sri Krishna instructed, and also had the ability to endow  Sanjaya with the Divine Vision  to understand and convey  the same to DhritarAshtra  as well //.

Regards

On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 3:32 AM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-riCY9pLM1rbHM%3DUAWNbA3REVkUKz4oqiZawwMf%2B_Ctzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji, Chandramouli-ji,

Thanks for the answers. Of course the bhashya reference is the clincher aligning with the standard viewpoint. I agree that when we prioritize the Vedantic message of the Gita, these nuances on how exactly it was revealed to us lose their independent significance.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNa9rqawE6BX66vEf%2Bqgj5%2BKjdrOFCxDRMzvgS2esqynA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

It appears to me that the 2 pandit-jis in the discussion seem to be making an artificial distinction between avataara-Krishna and Ishwara-Krishna, which again brings the theory of 2 Krishna-s.

However, a look at Gita indicates otherwise. There is only one Krishna.

स एवायं मया तेऽद्य योगः प्रोक्तः पुरातनः।

भक्तोऽसि मे सखा चेति रहस्यं ह्येतदुत्तमम्।।4.3।।

4.3 That ancient Yoga itself, which is this, has been taught to you by Me today, considering that you are My devotee and friend, For, this (Yoga) is a profound secret.

Here, Ishwara-Krishna is Acharya-Krishna (the one who is teaching Arjuna) is equated with Arjuna's friend, who is avataara-Krishna. This verse conclusively shows there is only one Krishna. 

Best Regards

On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 11:02:43 pm UTC+5:30 v.subrahmanian wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRholdfu_GM

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 2:04 AM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

It appears to me that the 2 pandit-jis in the discussion seem to be making an artificial distinction between avataara-Krishna and Ishwara-Krishna, which again brings the theory of 2 Krishna-s.

However, a look at Gita indicates otherwise. There is only one Krishna.

स एवायं मया तेऽद्य योगः प्रोक्तः पुरातनः।

भक्तोऽसि मे सखा चेति रहस्यं ह्येतदुत्तमम्।।4.3।।

4.3 That ancient Yoga itself, which is this, has been taught to you by Me today, considering that you are My devotee and friend, For, this (Yoga) is a profound secret.

Here, Ishwara-Krishna is Acharya-Krishna (the one who is teaching Arjuna) is equated with Arjuna's friend, who is avataara-Krishna. This verse conclusively shows there is only one Krishna. 

Namaste

We have to consider these words of Bhagavan as reply to Arjuna's question:

अपरं भवतो जन्म परं जन्म विवस्वतः ।

कथमेतद्विजानीयां त्वमादौ प्रोक्तवानिति ॥ ४ ॥ 4.4

अपरम् अर्वाक् वसुदेवगृहे भवतो जन्म । परं पूर्वं सर्गादौ जन्म उत्पत्तिः विवस्वतः आदित्यस्य । तत् कथम् एतत् विजानीयाम् अविरुद्धार्थतया, यः त्वमेव आदौ प्रोक्तवान् इमं योगं स एव इदानीं मह्यं प्रोक्तवानसि इति ॥ ४ ॥

Arjuna asks: Vivasvaan was there before. You have taken birth now. How can we understand that it was You who taught that yoga to vivasvan? In the Bhashya it is said: in vasudeva's house you were born now, in this janma.

Bhagavan replies:

बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन ।

तान्यहं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परन्तप ॥ ५ ॥ 4.5

Many have been the births/lives/bodies that have come and gone for you and for me.

Bhashya: बहूनि मे मम व्यतीतानि अतिक्रान्तानि जन्मानि तव च हे अर्जुन । atikrAntNani = they have gone, passed away.

In the second chapter:

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।

न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥ १२ ॥

Bhagavan counts himself, that is, his body, Arjuna's and all other people in the battlefield. And says: we have all been before this body birth and will be after this body has gone too. 

Now taking all the above we have to conclude: Since Bhagavan himself says that 'many bodies of mine have come and gone', the avatara sharirams are not eternal. In Advaita, we do accept a nitya Ishwara, who has no niyata, default, body. That Ishwara is a saguna nirakara tattvam. For specific purposes it can take bodies and when the purpose is over that body disappears. This appearance and disappearance are what to be seen as coming and going of the avatara shariram on the words of Bhagavan himself. Just like there is a nitya jiva/Atman Arjuna, there is a nitya/Atma Ishwara. Arjuna's arjuna body is incidental, so is Ishwara's Krishna body.

Thus it would have to be understood as: There is One nitya Ishwara and many (anitya) Krishna, etc. bodies. It is in this sense one would talk of 'Two Krishna-s'.  At least in Advaita, this is how it is.  

Om Tat Sat

subbu

Best Regards

On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 11:02:43 pm UTC+5:30 v.subrahmanian wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRholdfu_GM

--

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/c556742c-aa55-4ecc-9efd-2dc8998a88d3n%40googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Kalyanji,

Lord Krishna is only one and he is the purna Brahman-Avatara. Lord Krishna

told the Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses to Arjun on the Kartika Ekadashi (Purnimanta month), which we observe as the Gita Jayanti day, and that was two days before the Mahabharata war started. Then 36 years and a few months later, Lord Krishna told the Uddhava Gita to Uddhava. But, when after the end of the Mahabharata war, Arjun told Lord Krishna that he  heard the Bhagavad Gita from the Lord but after the war, he did not remember the entire teaching, and he requested Lord to tell the Bhagavad Gita again. Lord Krishna told Arjun that earlier He could tell the Bhagavad Gita to Arjun, as He was in the Yoga state at that time (even though Lord Krishna was only one). Hope this clarifies your doubt.

With best wishes

--

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

I do not believe the pandit-jis are talking about nitya tattva-s and anitya sharira-s when they imply two Krishna-s.

They initially ask a question on what is so special about the Bhagavad Gita and they contrast it with Anu Gita. Their understanding is that Bhagavad Gita is special because it is taught by Ishwara-Krishna and they seem to imply that Anu-Gita is taught by Avtaara-Krishna, who is somehow different from Ishwara-Krishna. 

They explicitly say that Arjuna's Hey Krishna, Hey Yadava, is somehow different from the teacher of the Bhagavad Gita, who showed His Vishwaroopa. 

The specific Gita verse that I quoted, completely negates their theory. 

Best Regards

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Dear Sunil ji, Namaste

I am very well aware of that episode.

If Bhagawan Krishna can forget the Gita, then it goes completely against what the Gita itself says.

Moreover Sri Shankara Bhagavatpaada nowhere says that Krishna forgot the Gita later on. AchArya displays the highest regard for Krishna in his bhAshya. 

Krishna's statements before Anu Gita are merely to be taken as a sign of his frustration with Arjuna rather than literally. 

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

Krishna's statements before Anu Gita are merely to be taken as a sign of his frustration with Arjuna rather than literally

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If the episode is true then arjuna also not paramArtha jnAni and his declaration that nashtO mOha smutirlabdhvA etc. is just for the time being.  And bhAshyakAra wrongly said arjuna became brahma jnAni after hearing geeta 😊 arjuna needs to keep on practicing / repeating whatever he heard, a clear sign of prasaMkhyAna which bhAshyakAra himself refutes at various places😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Yes, exactly. Arjuna is clearly a jnani at the end of the Bhagavad Gita (probably also before, actually, but leave that aside 🙂 ).

Akilesh Ayyar

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625D23546E44F0F764C9B6884BC2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji

Leave alone Arjuna, even Bhagavan Krishna's jnAna is being questioned by some. This is when our bhagavatpAda himself clearly mentions the following in his introduction to Gita bhAshya - 

स च भगवान् ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजोभिः **सदा** सम्पन्नः त्रिगुणात्मिकां स्वां मायां मूलप्रकृतिं वशीकृत्य, अजोऽव्ययो भूतानामीश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽपि सन् , स्वमायया देहवानिव जात इव च लोकानुग्रहं कुर्वन् लक्ष्यते ।

As the above shows, our AchArya says that BhagavAn is ever endowed with jnAna. 

How is it possible for BhagavAn to lose His jnAna at a later point of time and forget the Bhagavad Gita???

Best Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 10:38 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

//  Now taking all the above we have to conclude: Since Bhagavan himself says that 'many bodies of mine have come and gone', the avatara sharirams are not eternal //.

BGB 4-6 states as follows

//  कथं तर्हि तव नित्येश्वरस्य धर्माधर्माभावेऽपि जन्म इति, उच्यते //

// kathaM tarhi tava nityeshvarasya dharmAdharmAbhAve.api janma iti, uchyate //

Translation  // 'In that case, how, in spite of the absence of righteousness and unrighteousness, can there be any birth for You who are the eternal God?' That is beng answered //.

 

//तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य सम्भवामि देहवानिव भवामि जात इव आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया, न परमार्थतो लोकवत् //

// tAM prakRRitiM svAm adhiShThAya vashIkRRitya sambhavAmi dehavAniva bhavAmi jAta iva AtmamAyayA AtmanaH mAyayA, na paramArthato lokavat //

Translation  // by subjugating that Prakrti of Mine, sambhavami, I take birth, appear to become embodeid, as though born; atma-mayaya, by means of My own Maya; but not in reality like an ordinary man// .

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/dae4fafb-8f6b-4573-bb52-80e25dbaf7a1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Leave alone Arjuna, even Bhagavan Krishna's jnAna is being questioned by some. This is when our bhagavatpAda himself clearly mentions the following in his introduction to Gita bhAshya - 

 

स च भगवान् ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजोभिः **सदा** सम्पन्नः त्रिगुणात्मिकां स्वां मायां मूलप्रकृतिं वशीकृत्य, अजोऽव्ययो भूतानामीश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽपि सन् , स्वमायया देहवानिव जात इव च लोकानुग्रहं कुर्वन् लक्ष्यते ।

 

Ø     Again, svamAyayaa is the word needs more contemplation by the prabhuji-s who see absolutely no difference between mAyA and avidyA 😊  bhAshyakAra saying svamAyayA dehavAniva jAta eva cha etc. As per them since wherever the mAyA is occurring that can be smoothly replaced with avidyA, here too bhagavAn admitting that it is his own avidyA (i.e. sva-mAyayA) he appears like he is embodied one etc.  BTW, according to some, Krishna with upAdhi, his geetOpadesha, arjuna with upAdhi, Kurukshetra battle field etc. are just grand imagination / manufactured in the conditioned mind factory of tiny jeeva i.e. me!! The entire universe is just avidyAkalpita.   The version of DSV is more or less like this. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Here point to be noted is the the lord krishna tells arjuna: you and me have taken many janma-s and I know them all. Because I am of ever eternal (nitya)-pure(Shuddha)-free (mukta)-divine buddha svarUpa.  He continues to clarify his power of Knowledge (jnAna shakti) does not wane or fade. Whereas arjuna being a mortal does not know this.  Because his knowledge is affected by the defects of dharmAdharma further clarifies Lord. Here he insists that the mAyA under which all jeeva-s are, is under his control. And he says by this mAyA he appear to be born etc. The same paramArtha jnAna will be realized by the paramArtha jnAni, hence bhAshyakAra says jnAni though for the bystanders looking like sashareeri he is just appearing like that ( dehavAniva lakshyate) but in truth he is ashareeri only since ashareeratvam is svAbhAvikaM for the Atman/jnAni.  Though jeeva-Ishwara bheda quite conspicuous in these verses it is important to note that Ishwara is always avidyA vinirmukta!!

[Bhaskar YR]

tAM prakRRitiM svAm adhiShThAya vashIkRRitya

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

If I am right prakruti, mAya, avidyA, avyAkruta, avyakta are all synonyms as per mUlAvidyA books.  But as per bhAshya lord is endowed with parA and aparA prakruti-s which is in other words, is the sign of Ishwara and Ishwara is always Ishwara and therefore Ishwara’s prakruti also always exists in its vyaktAvyakta rUpa.  (prakrutiM purushaM chaiva verse in 13^th Chapter and bhAshya)  Does it mean prakruti (avidyA) always exists in Ishwara!!??  If that is the case how bhAshyakAra says : Ishwara is always nitya Shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa That Lord is always endowed with jnAna, Ishwarya, shakti, veerya and tejas!!  (kalyan prabhuji quoted from introduction to geeta bhAshya) !!??

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg  // Does it mean prakruti (avidyA) always exists in Ishwara!!?? //,

Indeed Yes.

But this will take us back to familiar ground which we have covered several times without reaching any agreement. I on my side would like to avoid a repetition. Maybe others may like to continue.

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/AM7PR06MB6625684C682295BAF8B6A81F84BC2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

In continuation, as a clarification, Prakriti is always available with and to iswara for deployment in any way He deems fit. I am not sure what exactly you mean by ** exists in Ishwara **.

Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Reg  // Does it mean prakruti (avidyA) always exists in Ishwara!!?? //,

Indeed Yes.

But this will take us back to familiar ground which we have covered several times without reaching any agreement. I on my side would like to avoid a repetition. Maybe others may like to continue.

• There is no qualms from my side either if we say prakruti like Ishwara eternal (nitya).  But when someone say prakruti and avidyA synonyms and both can be used interchangeably, that makes Ishwara as permanent avidyAvanta 😊 because of the fact that there is no difference between shakti and shakta.  Two fold prakruti is my mAya asserts Lord in geeta and further clarifies with these two I am sarvajna and I am the cause of the jagat!!  The power (mAyAshakti) is brahman that is ME, this power and its possessor are not different says Lord.  If the lord possessing avidyA then there is no difference between avidyA and brahman and he would become avidyAvAn brahman like mAyin (parameshwara) as he is having the mAyA / prakruti as his power. 

[Bhaskar YR]

In continuation, as a clarification, Prakriti is always available with and to iswara for deployment in any way He deems fit. I am not sure what exactly you mean by ** exists in Ishwara **.

 

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Exists in Ishwara means mAyA is his own svarUpa, mama svarUpa mAya declares Lord.  This means mAyA is ananya from brahman.  This ananyatvaM only describes the sarvAtmabhAva, samyaK drushti.  sA shaktiH brahmaiva ahaM shakti shaktimatOH ananyatvAt..says Lord in geeta.  It is in this sense I have said prakruti is eternally existing in Ishwara, before creation and after pralaya in avyAkruta rUpa and during sthiti in vyAkruta rUpa.  Like veda-s having pravAha nityatva, prakruti too having pariNAmi nityatva in Ishwara / brahman.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

I am fine with the position that BhagavAn Krishna, Geeta, Arjuna, Kurukshetra, Mahabharata itself are products of a conditioned jeeva's imagination.

But even this imagination follows some rules! BhagavAn is always a jnAni, He is Guru, Geeta is His teaching, that the jeeva can access and come out of samsAra. BhagavAn does not forget His teaching even in this imagination! 

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

 

But even this imagination follows some rules! BhagavAn is always a jnAni, He is Guru, Geeta is His teaching, that the jeeva can access and come out of samsAra. BhagavAn does not forget His teaching even in this imagination! 

 

• That rules which are inevitable shows we don’t have any control over our ‘socalled’ imagination, even though we are dare enough to announce these are all my own mind’s product 😊 I would like to imagine that Krishna should grant mOksha to each and everyone irrespective of characters of participants in Kurukshetra and I would also like to imagine that why Kurukshetra battle??  Why should not all, all of a sudden should get enlightenment??  See these are all not in our control, had it been possible to have absolute control over one’s own imagination, people would have definitely created/imagined what is convenient for them and destroyed, what is inconvenient. Then every

individual would rather cherish his avidyA through that he can imagine whatever he wants 😊. Why I should try to ry to get rid of it when I am comfortable with this avidyA and resultant imaginations??  NO!!  that is not what shAstra teaches us. 

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji

You raise an interesting and important point.

I think you are saying - If all this is product of my imagination, why is it that I do not have control over it? I hope I correctly represented your position. If not, please feel free to correct me.

My response is that, we don't have control over our dreams, though dreams are also our imagination. So, please think of this situation as similar to dream. 

In the end, I am not very particular about SDV or DSV frameworks. Only point, I am particular about is brahma satyam, jagan mithyam, jeeva is brahman. When both frameworks are teaching the same thing, this should be fine, in my humble opinion. 

Best Regards 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg  // Exists in Ishwara means mAyA is his own svarUpa, mama svarUpa mAya declares Lord.  This means mAyA is ananya from brahman.  This ananyatvaM only describes the sarvAtmabhAva, samyaK drushti.  sA shaktiH brahmaiva ahaM shakti shaktimatOH ananyatvAt..says Lord in geeta.  It is in this sense I have said prakruti is eternally existing in Ishwara //,

I had thought of continuing with this in the other thread. But since we are partially through this here, I will complete it here with my understanding of your citation from BG 14-27, which sentiment you have repeated quite often in your earlier posts as well. My understanding of this citation is very different. 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 | //

Translation (Prof Mahadeva Shastri)  //  …..The  meaning of the passage may be explanined as follows : It is through His Isvara·Sakti,---through the power He has to manifest Himself as Isvara or the Lord  of the universe---that Brahman shews His grace to His devotees, and so on. I am only that power or Sakti in manifestation,  and am therefore Brahman Himself ; for Sakti---power, potentiality, energy---cannot be  distinct from  the one in  whom it inheres  //.

Translation (Sri  SSS in kannada)  // …. ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವ ಈಶ್ವರಶಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಭಕ್ತರಿಗೆ ಅನುಗ್ರಹವನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವದೇ ಮುಂತಾದ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವು ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠತೇ ಮುಂಬರಿಯುವದೋ ಆ ಶಕ್ತಿಯಾದ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವೇ ನಾನು ; ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಶಕ್ತಿ, ಶಕ್ತಿಯುಳ್ಳ (ಬ್ರಹ್ಮ) - ಇವೆರಡೂ ಬೇರೆ(ಬೇರೆ)ಯಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ.

Foot Note 5 ;;  'ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠೆಯು' ಎಂಬ ವಾಕ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯಗಾತ್ಮನೇ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವೆಂದು ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರದಿಂದ ನಿಶ್ಚಿತವಾಗುವದು ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು. ಈಗ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮದ ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠೆಯು, ಎಂದರೆ ಶಕ್ತಿಯು ನಾನೇ ; ಬೆಂಕಿಯ ಬಿಸಿಯಂತೆ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವೂ ಶಕ್ತಿಯೂ ಅಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿರುತ್ತವ - ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ //.

Kannada translation of Sri SSS practically reflects the same meaning as the English translation of  Prof Mahadeva Shastri copied above.

Hence it is not correct, in my understanding, to conclude from this quote that ** Exists in Ishwara means mAyA is his own svarUpa, mama svarUpa mAya declares Lord.  This means mAyA is ananya from brahman **.

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/AM7PR06MB66258E7A659DBD6D8DB98FBE84BF2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Got the following message. Hence resending

Your message to adva...@googlegroups.com has been blocked. See technical details below for more information

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Bhagavad Gita - As it actually is | Sanatana Dharma | Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada & Bhakti | Sringeri
To: <adva...@googlegroups.com>, Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>

Namaste.

In continuation, while the translation of the main body of the kannada version of Sri SSS cited earlier corresponds to the English version of Prof Mahadeva Shastri, there could be some different understandings of the Foot Note by Sri SSS. Hence I am giving  translation  of the Foot Note also to avoid any controversies later.

Foot Note by Sri SSS (English translation, mine) //  Previously it was ascertained  from Shastra that  the meaning for the sentence ** ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाहम  (brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham) **  (in the verse 14-27) to be  **  PratyagAtman is Brahman **. Now  its meaning is ascertained as  ** Brahma’s pratiShTha , meaning Shakti, is Myself ; akin to heat of Fire, Brahma and Shakti are abhinna ** //.

In the above, ** previously ** means the first (immediately preceding)  version presented in the Bhashya.

Regards.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think you are saying - If all this is product of my imagination, why is it that I do not have control over it? I hope I correctly represented your position. If not, please feel free to correct me.

• Yes, when we don’t have any control over waking state’s existing objects and its cognition how can we say it is just my imagination!!  Don’t we have atleast rope to imagine there is snake!!?? 😊  If that is not the case, one would have imagined anything without any substratum.  Hence whatever we see in jAgrat has been described as vaishNavi mAya of Ishwara.  It is the stage set by Ishwara for the sake of jeeva-s to experience their karma phala.  If we simply equates the Svapna with jAgrat, there is no mAyA satkAryavAda, no Ishwara, no karma.  Stands like this would definitely lead us to ‘atheism’.  No need to say vijnAnavAda is nAstika vAda which denies Ishwara’s role in creation.  For that matter, don’t we, as a mortal, tiny embodied soul knows that this object world is not just our whims and fancies!!??  Don’t you think my karma is unique and different from that of yours but still we are experiencing the same jagat??  abhAvAdhikaraNa in sUtra bhAshya would throw more light on this though it is a refutation of kshaNika, paramANu and vijnAnavAda by vedAnti. 
• Ofcourse there are all transactions in dreams as in our waking world. There is the whole world. There are computers, bikes, houses, human beings, relations etc. etc. But they are visible only for the one who is dreaming, not for others. “Then does it mean that the dream Jagat is same as jAgrat prapancha?? No, it is NOT!!  Clarifies bhAshyakAra. Here the Svapna prapancha is not objective like the AkAsha etc. seen in waking world which is nothing but creation of Ishwara for which brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  In sUtra bhAshya 3^rd adhyAya there is discussion about it.  Here the conclusion is this when compared to jAgrat prapancha the dream world is false. There is not even a trace of objectivity in it. The stuff of Svapna prapacha is only the mental modifications of the sleeper and it is not the paNchabhUta-s created by Ishwara which are experienced by one and all in vyAvahArika prapancha.  It is because of this reason, the dreaming jeeva (the sleeper jeeva who is dreaming) is untouched by the puNya and pApa done there 😊  No accumulation of fresh karma phala there he would see ONLY his karma phala, hence Svapna prapancha is also called vAsanA prapancha. 

My response is that, we don't have control over our dreams, though dreams are also our imagination. So, please think of this situation as similar to dream. 

 

Ø     Yes, that is the reason why I said like jagrat prapancha, we are not the kartru-s of our Svapna-s, we just ‘see’ Svapna but we are not the creators of Svapna as it is not in our control.  Who is Svapna kartru, what is the Jyoti that exists in dream to see the Svapna, how karma in Svapna is not accrue the karmaphala etc. have been elaborately discussed in bruhadAraNyaka.  Ofcourse mAndUkya and kArika strikes the similarity between jAgrat and Svapna prapancha but it is not meant to discard the Ishwara srushti that we are experiencing in jAgrat prapancha in the name of vyavahAra.  Again above mentioned adhikaraNa gives more details. 

 

In the end, I am not very particular about SDV or DSV frameworks. Only point, I am particular about is brahma satyam, jagan mithyam, jeeva is brahman. When both frameworks are teaching the same thing, this should be fine, in my humble opinion. 

 

Ø     Jaganmithyatvam should be understood without omitting or sacrificing the Ishwara srushti.  If we ignore Ishwara and his srushti we are just ignoring more than 75% of shruti verdicts. 

[Bhaskar YR]

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??

[H S Chandramouli]

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

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

The Upanishad says  'Neti' 'Neti'. In the 'Chapter of Jnana', towards the end of  the 'Uddhava Gita', Lord Krishna said that there  was nothing before  the creation and there will be nothing at the end of the creation, this shows that all that exists in the creation does not have any permanent reality. In the 'Original Bhagavad Gita' too,  Lord Krishna said the same thing in the very beginning, but some mischievous people removed a number of verses from the Bhagavad Gita, and circulated the Bhagavad Gita without that verse. Lord Budddha, stated that he was teaching the 'Sanatana dharma' and he too stated  that everything in this world is essentially "Shunya". But nobody denied the existence of the Creator  of this universe.

Moreoverm none of the above stalwarts denied the existence of the 'Vyavaharika satya', and we should not try to give the 'Vyavaharika satya, the same  status as the 'Chirantan satya', by using any magic of the beautiful languages. Hope you will gladly agree.

Best wishes

Sunil KB

--

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/AM7PR06MB66250F078FD8872A2FE6C8A784B82%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Moreoverm none of the above stalwarts denied the existence of the 'Vyavaharika satya', and we should not try to give the 'Vyavaharika satya, the same  status as the 'Chirantan satya', by using any magic of the beautiful languages. Hope you will gladly agree.

 

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, vyAvahArika satya is not pAramArthika satya but it is anyway satya only as it (vyAvahArika jagat) is mAyA satkArya and its svarUpa is nothing but its kAraNa.  Hence Upanishad says : satyaNchAnrutaM cha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiNcha.  So it must be accepted that brahman is the prakruti that is the material cause and also the efficient cause.  Ishwara hetuka srushti and accepting this truth is ‘VEDANTA MARYAADA’ emphasizes bhAshyakAra.  It is because of the simple fact that the changing world is panchabhUtAtmaka which we observe through pancha jnAnedriya.  The computer is seen as computer only by everyone or rope is seen as rope only seeing it differently is adhyAsa due to saMskAra and lack of yathArtha jnAna (jnAnAbhAva).  This uniformity in understanding the things is the basis of all transactions with the world…No one would go to railway station to catch the flight there😊 The basis for this vyAvahArika satya ( transactional world) is again brahman only, hence it is called vyAvahArika SATYA.  Since the satyasya satya brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for this vyAvahArika jagat, it deserves the suffix ‘satya’ 😊

[H S Chandramouli]

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 say, 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 <adva...@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

> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> listm...@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:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

The ONLY Entity  what we understand as Shakti is Shuddha Brahman or NirguNa Brahman. All else are inert.

Ø     Yes, I am in agreement with you prabhuji as there is no difference between shakti and shaktivanta. 

When it is said that mayA is Shakti , it should be understood  only in a figurative sense.

Ø     mAya is the term used just to show the active brahman mAya is not separate from brahman nor it is identical with brahman hence it is also called anirvachaneeya.  And this anirvachaneeyatva of mAya is implicit in the non-difference sambandha between shakti-shakta. 

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.

•  Yes prabhuji.  mAya is the shakti through which brahman become creator, without which brahman is incapable of doing anything.  Hence it would be better to go by siddhAnta that shakti or shakta is Shuddha brahman only.  In the bhAshya there is discussion about how at one place avyAkruta itself became vyAkruta and at another place the paramAtma parabrahman himself made this avyAkruta as vyAkruta…for this answer that vedAnti gives is that : the avyAkruta jagat (the jagat in unmanifested form) is paramAtma himself hence no problem in saying this. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

Reg  // mAya is the shakti through which brahman become creator, without which brahman is incapable of doing anything.  Hence it would be better to go by siddhAnta that shakti or shakta is Shuddha brahman only //,

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. In my understanding, in the first sentence, mAyA should be stated as  the **entity** and not **shakti**. That it is a **shakti** is adhyAsa only. I am not sure if you have meant the same.

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/AM7PR06MB6625A0C7EFF5B8C0923C240D84BB2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

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//

[H S Chandramouli]

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

[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

[H S Chandramouli]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Bhagavad Gita - As it actually is | Sanatana Dharma | Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada & Bhakti | Sringeri
To: Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <raghav...@gmail.com>

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 <raghav...@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 <hschand...@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

//,

[Bhaskar YR]

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 !!!

[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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

//  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 //.

• I am just wondering where exactly we both are singing two different songs!! I don’t think we are disputing and discussing this issue.  Rather we need more clarity on Ishwara as shakti and Ishwara’s shakti which is different from mAyA as an inert thing. 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Bhaskar JI,

The BUBV verse  mentions  AjnAta Atma  as being addressed as Shakti. In my understanding that corresponds to Iswarashakti of BGB 14-27. That is the context.

Regards

Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

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. 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

On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 2:55 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <raghav...@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 <hschand...@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 <raghav...@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 <hschand...@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

//,

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Due to some urgent family work, I will be inactive here for a little while. The discussion has certainly helped me to improve my understanding of the topic. Thanks

Regards

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskarji

I am confused by your message.

Are you suggesting that Swapna Karthru is saguNa brahman and not the jIva-Atman?

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

 

I am confused by your message.

 

Are you suggesting that Swapna Karthru is saguNa brahman and not the jIva-Atman?

 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I wanted to have the dream wherein I should interact with brahma jnAni-s like bhagavatpAda, Sri ramaNa maharshi , Sri SSS, my ishtadevata etc. for that I tried very hard like reading about them, consciously remembering them, picturizing my interaction with them in my mind etc. , before getting sleep or before going to bed,  but my efforts are in vain sofar I hardly got even a glimpse of them!!  Tena vina truNamapi na chalati, we are just seers of pictures on the screen, director is there and reel is there, the director edits what we want to see or what we are eligible to see...is it not??  Though we are the creators of dream what we see in our dream is not as per our wish.  Hence shruti involves all three jeeva, Ishwara and mind when it comes to swapna creation.  The light in which we see the dream is Atma jyOti  tameva bhAntamanubhAti sarvaM tasya bhAsA sarvamidaM vibhAti says shruti, the content will be decided by him (Ishwara) as per our (jeeva’s) vidyAvidyA saMskAra and the projector of the dream that picture is mind.  In this sense yes it is jeeva’s creation, he creates Svapna prapancha for himself.  Because it is ONLY vAsana of the jeeva that appears as the dream world.  Even though he himself seeing the dream he has no control over his dreams, as I said above instead of getting the darshana of saints and sages what I get in dreams are all weird things and unwanted things, so many times I cursed myself for having the bad and unwanted dreams.  The throwing of selective pictures from our saMskAra / vAsana bank is Ishwara, in this sense we can say svapa kartru is that divine brahman only, the Jyoti of Svapna and what is fed in our dream is completely in his control.  Hence shruti says : ya yeshu supteshu jAgarti kAmaM kAmaM purushO nirmimANaH tadeva shukraM tad brahma tadevAmrutamuchyate. Hence, even though I myself see / create cars and aeroplanes, palaces and resorts in my dream the stock and its selected delivery on the stage come from something else.  Since all these gymnastics happening within the individual jeeva based on his vAsana with the helf of his mind it is said there no nothing paramArtha in dream objects.  The dream world indeed unreal there is not even an iota of reality in it.  And creation of Ishwara universally perceived by each and everyone in the waking state such as AkAsha etc. are objective and for this brahman is the nimittOpadAna kAraNa and transactionable whereas Svapna srushti is not objective and transactionable, clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Further I would like to recall bhAshya vAkya where bhAshyakAra indicates that dream is also an indicator of our future events, like one’s guru appearing in dream and giving maNtrOpadesha and giving him some suggestions etc.  these are all cannot happen without IshwarAnugraha.  Likewise, some apashakuna (bad omen) in dream would indicate future event / happening of that dreamer.  If one sees black man with black teeth it is an indication of his death!! Likewise the person who engaged in sakAmakarma even though he is not at all thinking about a woman he would get the sight of beautiful woman in the dream as a sign of fruition of that karma etc.  These are all what Ishwara throws at the dreamer which is beyond the stocks of his vAsana-s, so we cannot categorically conclude that dream is entirely mere jeeva’s mental creation. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

'Maya' itself means 'ma- yah' i.e.,'something like not what we see' or 'not what we know well'. Though the 'Jeevatma' is no different from the 'Paramatma', we as individuals do have different degrees of spiritual awakening. Depending on how much spiritually awakened we are, we individuals act differently.

'Mother Parvati' created this world in her form of 'Mother Kali', and she appears coloured as she has all the three gunas. 'Lord Krishna' is coloured too, as He is   the male form of 'Mother Kali'. He is fully awakened and we the Jeevas are in the path of being awakened, so that we can eventually be one with Him. Lord Krishna or Mother Kali  (and our Jnani gurus or our  elders, to start with) guide us in our spiritual journey either in the awakened state or even in the dreams. This process continues till we reach our goal of being one with the Lord.

We have to be steady in our progress, and nothing can be done overnight. Hope you remember how Gargi was warned by Yajnvalkya that her head will fall off, if she pursues the spiritual discussions beyond a limit.

What do you say?

Good wishes,

Sunil KB

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625144D38269380E249DDF584BA2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

'Maya' itself means 'ma- yah' i.e.,'something like not what we see' or 'not what we know well'.

 

• Yes, sA cha mAyA na vidyate mAyA iti avidyAmanasya AkhyA says bhAshyakAra in kArikA bhAshya.  mAyA relates to something that is non-existing.  A bread and butter to avidyAkalpita or bhrAnti jagat vAdins 😊 But they have to realize that when it is said mAyA is something non-existing, it is said there that the mAyA is not something that is existing apart from brahman.  There is brahman alone, there is nothing like entiry called mAyA different from brahman. Further,  knowledge, means the knowledge that one is himself that non-dual brahman. With the acquirement of vidyA, one realizes that he is everywhere. Afterwards there is nothing to distinguish and say this is mAyA and that is Ishwara, this is jagat and that is jeeva etc. In this way, when the difference is completely lost. what remains is ekamevAdviteeya brahma, ekatva darshana, it is in this sense only ruler, being ruled, Ishwara and his upAdhi etc. termed as avidyAkalpita.  mAya is Ishwara shakti and this shakti is not different from shakta hence non-duality prevails without sacrificing the brahma svarUpa that is shakti, jnAna etc. 

 

Though the 'Jeevatma' is no different from the 'Paramatma', we as individuals do have different degrees of spiritual awakening. Depending on how much spiritually awakened we are, we individuals act differently.

 

Ø     Yes this is very much true prabhuji, shwetaketu needs upadesha 9 times from uddAlaka to get the jnAna ‘tattvamasi’, where as ramaNa maharshi (an attyuttama adhikAri) got this jnAna by simple self-enquiry and Arjuna needed more than 500 upadesha shloka-s from lord to finally declare himself that he is free from shOka-mOha 😊

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

Yes, there are also other terms such as Mahamaya or Parashakti or Mahadevi or Mula Prakriti etc. who can control Maya. Mother Kamakshi or Mother Lalita or  Mother Tripurasundri is also the names of Mahamaya. We have to pray and surrender to Mahamaya for our Mukti, as Lord Krishna suggested. Lord Krishna is also no different from Mahamaya or Ishwara.

Sri Gaudapadacharya advised Adi Sankara to worship Mother Kamakshi, so that other Advaitins also can learn and worship Mother Kamakshi for attaining Mukti.

Best wishes,

Sunil KB

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625A9BCF37EC76CDBAA326284852%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, there are also other terms such as Mahamaya or Parashakti or Mahadevi or Mula Prakriti etc. who can control Maya. Mother Kamakshi or Mother Lalita or  Mother Tripurasundri is also the names of Mahamaya. We have to pray and surrender to Mahamaya for our Mukti, as Lord Krishna suggested.

 

Ø     Yes,she is as well jaganmAte, mOksha svarUpiNi, bhukti-mukti pradAyini…mithyAjagadadishtAna muktidaa mukti rUpiNi says lalitaa sahasranaame.  But some people think it is tuccha-asat-absolutely non-existing thing or brahman’s deluding force (avidyA shakti) to cheat the jeeva-s.   JaganmAte never tolerate these types of blasphemy and never ever pardon them. 

 

Lord Krishna is also no different from Mahamaya or Ishwara.

 

• Jagajjananyai jagadekapitre namaH shivaayai cha namaH shivAya..shakta-shakti ananyatvaM proved here as well.

 

Sri Gaudapadacharya advised Adi Sankara to worship Mother Kamakshi, so that other Advaitins also can learn and worship Mother Kamakshi for attaining Mukti.

 

Ø    Srichakraarchana / upAsana is one of the very powerful upAsana vidhi-s to propitiate devi mAta, and even today at Sringeri we have the pundits who are daily doing srichakrArchana and Jagadguru-s also doing this with utmost devotion. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Sunil KB

 

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:46 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

'Maya' itself means 'ma- yah' i.e.,'something like not what we see' or 'not what we know well'.

 

• Yes, sA cha mAyA na vidyate mAyA iti avidyAmanasya AkhyA says bhAshyakAra in kArikA bhAshya.  mAyA relates to something that is non-existing.  A bread and butter to avidyAkalpita or bhrAnti jagat vAdins 😊 But they have to realize that when it is said mAyA is something non-existing, it is said there that the mAyA is not something that is existing apart from brahman.  There is brahman alone, there is nothing like entiry called mAyA different from brahman. Further,  knowledge, means the knowledge that one is himself that non-dual brahman. With the acquirement of vidyA, one realizes that he is everywhere. Afterwards there is nothing to distinguish and say this is mAyA and that is Ishwara, this is jagat and that is jeeva etc. In this way, when the difference is completely lost. what remains is ekamevAdviteeya brahma, ekatva darshana, it is in this sense only ruler, being ruled, Ishwara and his upAdhi etc. termed as avidyAkalpita.  mAya is Ishwara shakti and this shakti is not different from shakta hence non-duality prevails without sacrificing the brahma svarUpa that is shakti, jnAna etc. 

 

Though the 'Jeevatma' is no different from the 'Paramatma', we as individuals do have different degrees of spiritual awakening. Depending on how much spiritually awakened we are, we individuals act differently.

 

Ø     Yes this is very much true prabhuji, shwetaketu needs upadesha 9 times from uddAlaka to get the jnAna ‘tattvamasi’, where as ramaNa maharshi (an attyuttama adhikAri) got this jnAna by simple self-enquiry and Arjuna needed more than 500 upadesha shloka-s from lord to finally declare himself that he is free from shOka-mOha 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--
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/AM7PR06MB6625A9BCF37EC76CDBAA326284852%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9-rkNOd2OMLjS38DvpCL07Ki%2B_om9Mt0e7sbZq-L4viUA%40mail.gmail.com.