The Three states/types of Reality (sattaa-traividhyam) - Taittiriya Shankara Bhashya

[V Subrahmanian]

This post has the Bhashya, Sureshwarachar's Taittiriya Bh.Vartika, Vanamala and Sayana Bhashya:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

In the Bhashya, Shankara specifies three types of 'reality' based on the Taittiriya mantra: सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् . 

warm regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

I this  Karika bhashya Shankaracharya says  Among many truths this  truth is the highest:

न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः सम्भवोऽस्य न विद्यते ।
एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किञ्चिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥

सर्वोऽप्ययं मनोनिग्रहादिः मृल्लोहादिवत्सृष्टिरुपासना च उक्ता परमार्थस्वरूपप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन, न परमार्थसत्येति । परमार्थसत्यं तु न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता च नोत्पद्यते केनचिदपि प्रकारेण । अतः स्वभावतः अजस्य अस्य एकस्यात्मनः सम्भवः कारणं न विद्यते नास्ति । यस्मान्न विद्यतेऽस्य कारणम् , तस्मान्न कश्चिज्जायते जीव इत्येतत् । पूर्वेषूपायत्वेनोक्तानां सत्यानाम् एतत् उत्तमं सत्यं यस्मिन्सत्यस्वरूपे ब्रह्मणि अणुमात्रमपि किञ्चिन्न जायते इति ॥

The many truths are: the various means the Upanishad teaches like creation, the various Upasanas, the world, Karma, Karma Yoga etc. These are not the ultimate truth, but truth in that level, context: vyavaharika satyam.  The highest truth, however, is Brahman.

Shankaracharya admits of ontological truths. Shankara has stated elsewhere (adhyasa bhashya) that all that is taught as means to attain the knowledge of Brahman is in the realm of Avidya and therefore this avidya itself is 'satya', i.e. vyavaharika satya. Relative to this satya, Brahman is the Paramarthika satya. Gaudapada himself calls Brahman the Highest Truth. Hence Shankara's commentary thus stated.

regards

subbu 

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika Ssureshwaracharya says:

तस्मादविद्याव्युच्छित्तौ स्यादवस्थानमात्मनि ।
न चाविद्याप्रहाणं स्याद्ब्रह्मविद्यामृते क्वचित् ॥ ३३ ॥

तस्माद्विद्याप्तये ज्ञेया प्रारब्धोपनिषत्परा ।
सैवाविद्यापनुत्त्यर्था विद्या चैवात्मगामिनी ॥ ३४ ॥

Getting established in the Atman is with a view to annul Aditya. The Upanishad is for the purpose of helping one to acquire this Vidya.  This Atma Vidya is aimed at destroying avidya.

Thus Sureshwaracharya holds vidya to be avidya virodhi, the 'enemy' of avidya.  

warm regards

subbu

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

You wrote:

"

• Not a single Acharya of the Advaita sampradaya who has commented on the above passage/bhashyam has ever spoken about the kArya-kAraNa ananyatva.  On the other hand, all Acharyas are unanimous on the meaning the passage conveys: Three levels of reality.

"

What exactly is kArya-kAraNa ananyatva and (how) is it opposed to the "three levels of reality"? Is that theory upheld by dualistic schools?

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0DseuFQNgUOF%3DK-8L9UU0Xyapn82h2hCQFKvGRBwyErg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022, 12:47 am putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

You wrote:

"

• Not a single Acharya of the Advaita sampradaya who has commented on the above passage/bhashyam has ever spoken about the kArya-kAraNa ananyatva.  On the other hand, all Acharyas are unanimous on the meaning the passage conveys: Three levels of reality.

"

What exactly is kArya-kAraNa ananyatva and (how) is it opposed to the "three levels of reality"? Is that theory upheld by dualistic schools?

Namaste

Karya Karana Ananytva means non difference of the effect from the cause.  Advaita holds the pot is non different from clay. Hence the world is non different from bramhan the cause. 

In this Mantra of the Upanishad the world is stated to be of two types - the oceans forest etc world is vyavaharika and the rope - snake experienced is pratibhasika. Brahman the paramarthika Satya has become, transfigured, विवर्त vivarta, the above two realities.

Dualistic schools all do not accept this. Sankhya accepts this in a way different from Advaita. While for the latter the effect is mithya, the former holds it real.

Regards

subbu 

thollmelukaalkizhu

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:31 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

This post has the Bhashya, Sureshwarachar's Taittiriya Bh.Vartika, Vanamala and Sayana Bhashya:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

In the Bhashya, Shankara specifies three types of 'reality' based on the Taittiriya mantra: सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् . 

warm regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0DseuFQNgUOF%3DK-8L9UU0Xyapn82h2hCQFKvGRBwyErg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q8HkW9n3dVzvVvxAJh3khnetKftYfCp070mOzsvL0aKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

I have one question here:

In Advaita, jagat in the form of kArya is a product of ajyAna and therefore mithya. So how can it be considered the same as Brahman which is of the 

nature of jnAna? If it is in the form of pratIkOpAsana, then it makes sense. Appreciate if you could explain more.

  

BTW, in V.Advaita kArya-KaraNA ananyatva (material cause) is accepted. Here is a screenshot from the VedArthasaMgraham of Sri rAmAnuja.

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 9:45 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] The Three states/types of Reality (sattaa-traividhyam) - Taittiriya Shankara Bhashya

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3wuH-7Km7aGVax%3DAUYsvr5yHh1_4XDVSsyf8oaBPT-Ow%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, 1:59 am suresh srinivasamurthy, <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

I have one question here:

In Advaita, jagat in the form of kArya is a product of ajyAna and therefore mithya. So how can it be considered the same as Brahman which is of the 

nature of jnAna? If it is in the form of pratIkOpAsana, then it makes sense. Appreciate if you could explain more.

In Advaita jagat is the kaarya of Brahman and so ananya from Brahman. By ananya, by the same Shruti passage Ramanuja cites, the karya is mithya because it is vacharambhanam, mere word,  namadheyam, and hence mithya. The Shruti itself says the upadana Karanam alone is satyam.

So no issues in Advaita.

Regards

subbu 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516A81495A3C1C3BAE5734CA9159%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In Advaita, jagat in the form of kArya is a product of ajyAna and therefore mithya. So how can it be considered the same as Brahman which is of the nature of jnAna?

 

• Strictly speaking jagat in the form of kArya for which brahman is the nimitta and upAdAna kAraNa is not ajnAna janya jagat nor it is mithyA though jagat is vyaktAvyakta in its nature (avyAkruta before srushti and vyaakruta after srushti) it has brahman as its adhishtAnaM. It is because of this reason bhAshyakAra asserts in sUtra bhAshya : just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect the world, never deviates from existence in all the three periods (of creation sustenance and dissolution).  And existence again is ONLY ONE.  So for this reason also, the effect is none other than the cause.  Though kArya-kAraNa prakriya here not to be considered ultimate as per AV it is just a pedagogical tool to drive home the point i.e. AtmaikatvaM, we should not say jagat is avidyAtmaka that too when you accepting the existence of jagat (jagat Astitva) This astitvaM ( existence) verily the common factor between kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM.  If we say this jagat (mAya) is avidyAtmaka or a product of avidyA (avidyAkruta/avidyAparikalpita etc.) then it is as good as saying avidyA has the equal reality like brahman ( trikAla abhAdita satya), mUlAvidyAvAdins say this avidyA which is a shakti has the Ashraya in brahman and which is also the cause for the jagat (jagat beeja shakti) etc. hence there is every room to believe that their theory of mUlAvidyA is as satya as parabrahman. 

 

If it is in the form of pratIkOpAsana, then it makes sense. Appreciate if you could explain more.

 

• bhAshyakAra says whenever we talk about kArya jagat we are talking about kArya brahman/upAsya brahman / sOpAdhika brahman / Ishwara but it also to be noted that this brahman is NOT different from jneya brahman / nirupAdhika / nirvishesha / kAraNa brahman.  Hence for the pratIkOpAsana there is krama mukti and with IshwarAnugraha sAdhaka would get paramArtha jnana as well. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Gaudapada karika 2nd chapter and Bhashya it is clearly stated that the world is an imagination, kalpana, due to the maya of the Atman.  Here, the word maya is used as a synonym for Avidya:

कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया ।
स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥

स्वयं स्वमायया स्वमात्मानमात्मा देवः आत्मन्येव वक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन् , स्वयमेव च तान्बुध्यते भेदान् , तद्वदेवेत्येवं वेदान्तनिश्चयः । नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः । न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः ॥

What is the 'bhedAn', variegated things that the Atma concocts to form the world?

विकरोत्यपरान्भावानन्तश्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान् ।
नियतांश्च बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभुः ॥ १३ ॥

सङ्कल्पयन्केन प्रकारेण कल्पयतीत्युच्यते — विकरोति नाना करोति अपरान् लौकिकान् भावान् पदार्थाञ्शब्दादीनन्यांश्च अन्तश्चित्ते वासनारूपेण व्यवस्थितानव्याकृतान् नियतांश्च पृथिव्यादीननियतांश्च कल्पनाकालान् बहिश्चित्तः सन् , तथा अन्तश्चित्तो मनोरथादिलक्षणानित्येवं कल्पयति, प्रभुः ईश्वरः, आत्मेत्यर्थः ॥

Those 'things' are the outside world of sound, touch, etc. which were within himself as avyAkruta/avyakta (now made vyAkrita, vyakta), the tattvas such as prithivi and the mithya objects like manoratha, etc. (which are prathibhasika).

Thus, perfectly in tune with his bhashya for the Taittiriya shruti 'satyam cha anrutam cha satyam ahavat' where Shankara named the three levels of existence, here too in the Karika bhashya we can see the same categorisation of sattaa.

Thus, the waking world too is kalpita, like dream world, says the karika, and the bhashya:

अव्यक्ता एव येऽन्तस्तु स्फुटा एव च ये बहिः ।
कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषस्त्विन्द्रियान्तरे ॥ १५ ॥

यदपि अन्तरव्यक्तत्वं भावानां मनोवासनामात्राभिव्यक्तानां स्फुटत्वं वा बहिश्चक्षुरादीन्द्रियान्तरे विशेषः, नासौ भेदानामस्तित्वकृतः, स्वप्नेऽपि तथा दर्शनात् । किं तर्हि ? इन्द्रियान्तरकृत एव । अतः कल्पिता एव जाग्रद्भावा अपि स्वप्नभाववदिति सिद्धम् ॥ 

Here again the kalpita nature of the world is reiterated:

जीवं कल्पयते पूर्वं ततो भावान्पृथग्विधान् ।
बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चैव यथाविद्यस्तथास्मृतिः ॥ १६ ॥

Shankara uses the rope-snake analogy for this kalpana of the jagat: अनेवंलक्षण एव शुद्ध आत्मनि रज्ज्वामिव सर्पं कल्पयते पूर्वम् । This is evidence for Shankara holding the world to be mithya. If otherwise he should not have used this analogy. Not only Shankara, Gaudapada too does that in the very next verse:

अनिश्चिता यथा रज्जुरन्धकारे विकल्पिता ।
सर्पधारादिभिर्भावैस्तद्वदात्मा विकल्पितः ॥ १७ ॥

तत्र जीवकल्पना सर्वकल्पनामूलमित्युक्तम् ; सैव जीवकल्पना किंनिमित्तेति दृष्टान्तेन प्रतिपादयति — यथा लोके स्वेन रूपेण अनिश्चिता अनवधारिता एवमेवेति रज्जुः मन्दान्धकारे किं सर्प उदकधारा दण्ड इति वा अनेकधा विकल्पिता भवति पूर्वं स्वरूपानिश्चयनिमित्तम् । यदि हि पूर्वमेव रज्जुः स्वरूपेण निश्चिता स्यात् , न सर्पादिविकल्पोऽभविष्यत् , यथा स्वहस्ताङ्गुल्यादिषु ; एष दृष्टान्तः । तद्वद्धेतुफलादिसंसारधर्मानर्थविलक्षणतया स्वेन विशुद्धविज्ञप्तिमात्रसत्ताद्वयरूपेणानिश्चितत्वाज्जीवप्राणाद्यनन्तभावभेदैरात्मा विकल्पित इत्येष सर्वोपनिषदां सिद्धान्तः ॥

Shankara expatiates on the rope-snake analogy of the karika.

Thus the karya-karana ananyatvam is established as the karya is mithya since it does not have an existence separate from the karana. While the jagat is badhita, the Atma is never.

regards

subbu  

[Bhaskar YR]

Thus the karya-karana ananyatvam is established as the karya is mithya since it does not have an existence separate from the karana.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for saying this, yes kArya is mithya when it is to be believed that it has its own existence ‘separate from’ the kAraNa.  When one sees this jagat / kArya as abrahma, anAtma it is called mithyAjnAna and he who has this mithyAjnAna and for that mithyAjnAni what is available through his mithyAjnAna as jneya prapancha  is mithyA prapancha (mithyA jagat) which is entirely different from what is actually there as or in  kArya rUpa for which brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and that which is NOT separate from kAraNa.  Brahmaiva ukta lakshaNam edam yat purastAt agre abhrmeva avidyAdrushteenaam pratyavabhAsamAnaM , brahmaivedaM vishvaM samastaM, abrahma pratyayaH sarvaH avidyAmAtraH tajjvAmiva sarpapratyayaH says bhAshyakAra in mundaka shruti.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

[V Subrahmanian]

But in the Karika and Bhashya I have cited, it is not a case of a jiva 'perceiving the world wrongly'.  On the other hand it is a case of the very creation of the world. And that is what is stated as mithya, giving the rajju sarpa analogy. It is a mithya srishti and not mithya prateeti of an already existing jagat. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581C1F79DF2100326853BA084149%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I thought there is some rare agreement between you and me, hence I wrote that mail violating the agreement between you and me 😊 And you have proved how wrong I am again!!.  OK prabhuji, let us not discuss this any further. 

 

For us pAmaraa-s, ajnAni-s, bhAshyakAra words are pramANa :  the vedAnta maryAda as per bhAshyakAra is parasmAccha brahmaNaH prANAdikaM jagat jAyate eti vedAnta maryAdaa.  And if we don’t accept this nAma rUpa and if we declare it is mere imagination in the conditioned minds of jeeva-s like vijnAnavAdins or kshaNIkavAdins,  we cannot derive the ultimate siddhAnta of nirupAdhika brahma.  Yadi hi nAma rUpe na vyakreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhika rUpaM prajnAna ghanAkhyaM ‘na pratikhyAyeta’ says bhAshyakAra.  But at the same time our praNAms to the other Advaita jignAsu-s, who are categorically advocating there is absolutely no creation it is mere mthyaa srushti, kalpita by avidyA jeeva etc. Perhaps they are uttama adhikAri-s when compared to us hence they have this conviction.  _/\_

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 1:35 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] The Three states/types of Reality (sattaa-traividhyam) - Taittiriya Shankara Bhashya

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1t3tGKwVXKqaCrsmzmtLrqSSszseS0Fa6%3Dk%2BNePFNVPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Karka bhashya Shankara cites the Bh.Gita Lord's statement: mama maayaa duratyayaa (My Maya is hard to cross over) while describing how the world of the prana, etc. pancha koshas and the outside world of sound, etc,. is imagined, vikalpitah, by the power of Maya. The Maya is so powerful that it deludes the one who wields that maya, as it were:

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।
मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥

यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैर्भावैरेतैः संसारलक्षणैर्विकल्पित इति ? उच्यते शृणु — मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य । यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्युक्तम् ॥

In line with the karika and bhashya below:

कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया ।
स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥

स्वयं स्वमायया स्वमात्मानमात्मा देवः आत्मन्येव वक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन् , स्वयमेव च तान्बुध्यते भेदान् , तद्वदेवेत्येवं वेदान्तनिश्चयः । नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः । न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः 

By one's own Maya shakti one imagines oneself, by oneself and becomes the knower, pramaatru of what one has created. The analogy Shankara gives is: rope-snake. 

The inviolable rule is: Wherever the rope-snake analogy is given it is to show that the superimposed one is really not there but is imagined to be present there. atasmin tad buddhih is adhyasa Shankara says in the Adhyasa bhashya. 

Shankara has cited a verse, source unknown, in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama bhashya:  

स्वमायया स्वमात्मानं मोहयन्द्वैतमायया । 

गुणाहितं स्वमात्मानं लभते च स्वयं हरिः ॥ 

[By his own Māyā, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari Himself comes to see himself endowed with guṇas.] 

It is interesting to note that Shankara uses the rope-snake analogy even while explaining the creation by Sat, Brahman in the Chandogya 6th chapter:

तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तदपोऽसृजत ।..

तत् सत् ऐक्षत ईक्षां दर्शनं कृतवत् । अतश्च न प्रधानं साङ्ख्यपरिकल्पितं जगत्कारणम् , प्रधानस्याचेतनत्वाभ्युपगमात् । इदं तु सत् चेतनम् , ईक्षितृत्वात् । तत्कथमैक्षतेति, आह — बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन । असदेव तर्हि सर्वम् , यद्गृह्यते रज्जुरिव सर्पाद्याकारेण । न, सत एव द्वैतभेदेन अन्यथागृह्यमाणत्वात् न असत्त्वं कस्यचित्क्वचिदिति ब्रूमः । यथा सतोऽन्यद्वस्त्वन्तरं परिकल्प्य पुनस्तस्यैव प्रागुत्पत्तेः प्रध्वंसाच्चोर्ध्वम् असत्त्वं ब्रुवते तार्किकाः, न तथा अस्माभिः कदाचित्क्वचिदपि सतोऽन्यदभिधानमभिधेयं वा वस्तु परिकल्प्यते । सदेव तु सर्वमभिधानमभिधीयते च यदन्यबुद्ध्या, यथा रज्जुरेव सर्पबुद्ध्या सर्प इत्यभिधीयते, यथा वा पिण्डघटादि मृदोऽन्यबुद्ध्या पिण्डघटादिशब्देनाभिधीयते लोके । रज्जुविवेकदर्शिनां तु सर्पाभिधानबुद्धी निवर्तेते, यथा च मृद्विवेकदर्शिनां घटादिशब्दबुद्धी, तद्वत् सद्विवेकदर्शिनामन्यविकारशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते..

Brahman resolved: bahu syaam: let me become many. prajaayeya: let me be born as many.

Shankara explains this becoming/being born as many is akin to the rope being mistaken to be snake, etc.  Just like the clay is mistaken to be pot, etc.  Thus Shankara is using the bhrama analogy even while explaining the creation by Brahman, not jiva. This clinches the issue: Creation is vikalpa, imagination and not real. There is absolutely no other way than this to explain the employment of the rope-snake analogy by Shankara in the creation by Brahman, not jiva. Shankara should not have employed this analogy, not once, but multiple times, even in that short bhashya selected above, if his siddhanta was not to teach mithya srishti. 

In the Karika bhashya, again, Shankara uses this rope-snake analogy while explaining the creation of the whole world by this Atman:

सतो हि मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतः ।

तत्त्वतो जायते यस्य जातं तस्य हि जायते ॥ २७ ॥ 3.27

In the commentary Shankara says:

न तु तत्त्वत एव आत्मनो जन्म युज्यते । अथवा, सतः विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनो रज्ज्वादेः सर्पादिवत् मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतो यथा, तथा अग्राह्यस्यापि सत एवात्मनो रज्जुसर्पवज्जगद्रूपेण मायया जन्म युज्यते । न तु तत्त्वत एवाजस्यात्मनो जन्म । यस्य पुनः परमार्थसदजमात्मतत्त्वं जगद्रूपेण जायते वादिनः, न हि तस्य अजं जायत इति शक्यं वक्तुम् , विरोधात् ।

The 'birth' of Atman is only due to Maya and not real. The birth of atman means the One Atman appearing as the whole creation, jagadrUpeNa.  This is not just the imagining of someone to be a jiva. On the other hand, it is the entire world being created, out of Maya. Again here Shankara uses the rope-snake analogy, for the bhrama that One has become many. If Shankar had intended a real creation of the world, he should not have used the bhrama analogy. He would be at fault by using it. But his intention is clear that in multiple times across the prasthana traya bhashya that he uses this bhrama analogy while explaining creation by Brahman. Wherever he has not used this analogy, it is implied, on the strength of his using it so many times.  

Thus, the clincher is the rajju-sarpa analogy Shankara uses for the maayaa creation.

In the Sixth ch. Chandogya, Shankara says:

यस्मिन्सर्वमिदं वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमनृतं रज्ज्वामिव सर्पादिविकल्पजातमध्यस्तमविद्यया, तदस्य जगतो मूलम् ; अतः सन्मूलाः सत्कारणाः हे सोम्य इमाः स्थावरजङ्गमलक्षणाः सर्वाः प्रजाः । 

The entire creation that has come from Sat, Brahman, rests in it just like the snake in the rope that has been imagined out of avidya. 

Thus, both in the case of avidya (avidyayaa) and maya (maayayaa), Shankara uses the rope-snake analogy alike, without any distinction. This proves that for Shankara avidya and maya are non-different, synonymous. The clincher is: the rajju sarpa analogy employment. If he had held avidya and maya to be different, he should not have used the rajju sarpa analogy in both the instances. He should be held to be at fault for doing this, in case he were to be held to differentiate between avidya and maaya. Thus, the analogy employment is the clincher here. 

Om tat sat.       

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

In the Karka bhashya Shankara cites the Bh.Gita Lord's statement: mama maayaa duratyayaa (My Maya is hard to cross over) while describing how the world of the prana, etc. pancha koshas and the outside world of sound, etc,. is imagined, vikalpitah, by the power of Maya. The Maya is so powerful that it deludes the one who wields that maya, as it were:

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।
मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥

यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैर्भावैरेतैः संसारलक्षणैर्विकल्पित इति ? उच्यते शृणु — मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य । यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्युक्तम् ॥

Swami Gambhirananda's translation: As the magical spell created by the magician makes the clear sky appear as though filled with leafy trees in bloom, similar is this Maya of the self-effulgent One, by which He Himself seems to have become influenced like a man under delusion. It has been said, 'My Maya is difficult to get over' (BG. VII.14).

My thought on this:

The phrases "seems to have" and "appear as though" are clarifications by Shankara to Gaudapada's terse statement: "This is the Maya of that self-effulgent One, by which He Himself is deluded."

The connotation of delusion typically applies to the karmi jiva (and not the karmaphaladaata Ishvara) within the appearance/movie projected by Maya. Therefore we can say Brahman, the wielder of Maya, appears to be deluded as it were, in the context of that jiva-identification. As for ishvara and jnanis, the "appears" would have a more emphatic significance even in vyavaharika standpoint since they have knowledge of Reality and so only appear to believe and participate in the movie just like ajnanis.

Both Ishvara and Jiva are "as it were" manifestation/appearance of Brahman in conjunction with Maya. So, the (iccha-jnana-kriya) shakti of jiva (call it avidya-shakti impelling ajnanis) and of Ishvara (call it maya-shakti) are non-different from the unitary shakti (call it Maya or Avidya) associated with Brahman that manifests as it were the jiva and Ishvara. This association of Maya with Brahman will have to remain so long as there is any sort of identification of duality (name-form), as if separate of Self; because implicit in any such identification of nama-rupa (whether in ignorance or knowledge) is the fact that the non-dual Self appears as it were to be dual, as witness of not-self - and this necessitates the association of Maya in Brahman.

In the paramarthika standpoint, in the context of advaita-jnana or in pure advaita-drishti, there is no divide of seer and seen, of self and nama-rupa; and therefore no association of Maya in Brahman. It should be understood here that the adjunct of Maya (along with the nama-rupa&sakshi divide/appearance in Self) is what is present/true in vyavaharika and absent in paramarthika, whereas Brahman denoted by Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam or Sat-chit-Ananda is constant reality in all standpoints and realized as reality by the jnanis in vyavaharika itself. Therefore maya (jagat) is mithya and Brahman is sathya.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3bYeUZt7XVC6QXmZETkShQzLUCUJLKw4Lb_o966bTpLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

In the paramarthika standpoint, in the context of advaita-jnana or in pure advaita-drishti, there is no divide of seer and seen, of self and nama-rupa; and therefore no association of Maya in Brahman. It should be understood here that the adjunct of Maya (along with the nama-rupa&sakshi divide/appearance in Self) is what is present/true in vyavaharika and absent in paramarthika, whereas Brahman denoted by Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam or Sat-chit-Ananda is constant reality in all standpoints and realized as reality by the jnanis in vyavaharika itself. Therefore maya (jagat) is mithya and Brahman is sathya.

I expressed this thought in the other thread using the light-movie analogy:

The movie is in no way whatsoever different or apart from Light, and yet there is a standpoint of reflected awareness where the movie is seen as if dual and known in that context as the Play of Light - without contradicting the substratum-knowledge that there is only Light. Light in that standpoint has inherent power to project the movie. But it is also accepted that there is the higher or real (paramarthika) Standpoint 1 where the "movie" is entirely sublated in awareness of Reality Light - and in this standpoint, there is no question of "power" adjunct to Light.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

I want to give some more references where Maya, Prakriti is referred as avidyAlakshanA in BG Bhashya

In BG Bh 5.14  स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा

In BG bh 8.20 पूर्वोक्तात् भूतग्रामबीजभूतात् अविद्यालक्षणात् अव्यक्तात् ।

In BG bh 9.8 referring to prakrti एवम् अविद्यालक्षणाम्

In BG bh 9.10 मम माया त्रिगुणात्मिका अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः सूयते उत्पादयति सचराचरं जगत् ।

In BG bh 13.21 पुरुषः भोक्ता प्रकृतिस्थः प्रकृतौ अविद्यालक्षणायां कार्यकरणरूपेण परिणतायां स्थितः प्रकृतिस्थः ...... एतत् उक्तं भवति — प्रकृतिस्थत्वाख्या अविद्या, गुणेषु च सङ्गः कामः, संसारस्य कारणमिति ।

In BG bh 13.34 भूतानां प्रकृतिः अविद्यालक्षणा अव्यक्ताख्या

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for these references.

Regards

subbu 

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-GP2x1JTWFQu%3Db3qoGu6_r2sFOx8LAQQbpMnjcqJYSSWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Jaishankarji,

What I was pointing out was that there was no reference to the Bhagavad Gita  in the Shankara-bhashya on theMandukya karika.

Hope this clears your doubts, if you have any.

Regards,

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-GP2x1JTWFQu%3Db3qoGu6_r2sFOx8LAQQbpMnjcqJYSSWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

IIn the Mandukya karika bhashya Shankaracharya equates Maya with Avidya:

सङ्घाताः स्वप्नवत्सर्व आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः ।
आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा नोपपत्तिर्हि विद्यते ॥ १० ॥ 3.10

घटादिस्थानीयास्तु देहादिसङ्घाताः स्वप्नदृश्यदेहादिवन्मायाविकृतदेहादिवच्च आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, (Atman's maya = avidya) तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः।  (Unreal from the absolute standpoint, paramarthika).

While Kalika uses the word Maya (Atma maya) Shankaracharya explains it as Avidya.

In another Karika Bhashya Shankaracharya cites the Bhagvad Gita words of Bhagavan'Maya:

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।

मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥  2.19

यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैर्भावैरेतैः संसारलक्षणैर्विकल्पित इति ? उच्यते शृणु — मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य । यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्युक्तम् ॥

One can see the similarity in both the verses: the first one is very patently about the jivatma concocting the world. The second cited instance, below, gives us the idea that this is Ishwara created one. Shankaracharya in both the cases holds the creation to be e unreal and not existent from the paramarthika point of view. In the first bhashya Shankara says: आत्मनो माया अविद्या,(Atman's Maayaa = Avidya). In the second cited Bhashya Shankara says: मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य. Thus for Shankara, whether it is Atman's maya or Atman's avidya, it makes no difference. In both the Bhashyas, Shankaracharya says that the creation is like that of a magician's presentation: 1.स्वप्नदृश्यदेहादिवन्मायाविकृतदेहादिवच्च  2. यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं ...

Om Tat Sat  

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Well put. Maya makes no sense except as (seeming to) instantiate duality. But duality is certainly ignorance. 

Akilesh Ayyar

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1M9BijvoYpGN_rRi1ARFApCF4_6LpQKiL_7EJ_9HaaaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Bhagavadgita 7th chapter the Lord says:

त्रिभिर्गुणमयैर्भावैरेभिः सर्वमिदं जगत् ।
मोहितं नाभिजानाति मामेभ्यः परमव्ययम् ॥ १३ ॥

त्रिभिः गुणमयैः गुणविकारैः रागद्वेषमोहादिप्रकारैः भावैः पदार्थैः एभिः यथोक्तैः सर्वम् इदं प्राणिजातं जगत् मोहितम् अविवेकितामापादितं सत् न अभिजानाति माम् , एभ्यः यथोक्तेभ्यः गुणेभ्यः परं व्यतिरिक्तं विलक्षणं च अव्ययं व्ययरहितं जन्मादिसर्वभावविकारवर्जितम् इत्यर्थः ॥ १३ ॥

The entire world is deluded by the (effects of Maya) three gunas. Shankara says 'the effects of the three gunas are raaga, dvesha and moha - due to loss of discrimination.  Surely this is a defect in the Jiva and not the Lord (The Lord can't be stated to have raaga, dvesha, etc.).  Despite the word Maya being used here in the next verse, it is clear that this effect is of the Jiva alone.

Shankara introduces the next verse thus:

कथं पुनः दैवीम् एतां त्रिगुणात्मिकां वैष्णवीं मायामतिक्रामति इत्युच्यते —

How indeed is one going to transcend this Vaishnavi Maya three gunas:  

The adjective Vaishnavi to Maiya makes it very clear that it is the power in the hands of the lord alone and not something to do with the Jiva.

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया ।
मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥ १४ ॥

The lord says 'my Maya' is difficult to overcome. Those who take refuge in me or realise me will be  able to transcend this Maya. 

Surely if this power Maya is that of the Lord (with which he creates the world), the Jiva can never ever transcended or destroy it. However contrary to the normal ignorant thinking, the lord and Shankara assert that Maya is undoubtedly the power of the lord and which is the one that deludes the Jiva. If Maya were exclusively the power of the lord it should not have deluded the Jiva by taking the name Avidya.

Shankara comments here:

दैवी देवस्य मम ईश्वरस्य विष्णोः स्वभावभूता हि यस्मात् एषा यथोक्ता गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया दुःखेन अत्ययः अतिक्रमणं यस्याः सा दुरत्यया । तत्र एवं सति सर्वधर्मान् परित्यज्य मामेव मायाविनं स्वात्मभूतं सर्वात्मना ये प्रपद्यन्ते ते मायाम् एतां सर्वभूतमोहिनीं तरन्ति अतिक्रामन्ति ; ते संसारबन्धनात् मुच्यन्ते इत्यर्थः ॥ १४ 

What is is worth noting here is Shankara says the wielder of Maya, Mayavi, is none other than Jiva: svaatmabhutaam.  He surrenders to the Lord and realises this Atman completely and will be able to transcend this Maya that deludes everyone.  Shankara says that this power of the lord that deludes everyone in creation can be overcome by the Jiva.  How can the power that exclusively belongs to the Lord can ever be transcended the Jiva? 

This question will haunt those who hold that Maya which is the power of Ishwara is not avidya that deludes the Jiva.  There is more trouble for them:

Shankara introduces the next verse thus:

यदि त्वां प्रपन्नाः मायामेतां तरन्ति, कस्मात् त्वामेव सर्वे न प्रपद्यन्ते इत्युच्यते —

If those who surrender to you / realise you, transcend Maya, why is it that not all surrender to you? 

न मां दुष्कृतिनो मूढाः प्रपद्यन्ते नराधमाः ।
माययापहृतज्ञाना आसुरं भावमाश्रिताः ॥ १५ ॥

The Lord says those wretched ones, fools, whose intellects have been looted away by Maya (who are bankrupt of the discriminating power) take to asuric ways.

Shankara says ते च मायया अपहृतज्ञानाः संमुषितज्ञानाः  the same.  

If Maya is exclusively the power of the Lord and has nothing to do with the Jiva, what we have seen above in the words of the lord and Shankara is something to the contrary: Maya of the lord deludes the Jiva, which it should not have according to those who hold Maya is the power of the Lord. In other words this Maya is not different from Avidya which alone should be deluding the jiva. 

Thus from the above analysis we conclude that Maya which is so explicitly stated by the Lord has 'his' 'mama maayaa', is actually the power that deludes the jiva and keeps him in bondage. 

This is clearly a case of Maya - Avidya identity, non-difference. 

This position of the Lord, Shankara and Advaita cannot be set aside or undone by anyone. The reason is there is hardly any argument that can reasonably accomplish that. 

Om