Error in shankara kathopanisha bhashya (advaita sharada dot net)

[Krishna Kashyap]

namaste everyone

please see ananda giri teeka for katha 2.5.13

this is shankara bhashya for same katha.2.5.1

see sachidanandendra saraswathi version in kannada. 

it indicates nityaha avinashi anityanam vinashinam.... exactly opposite to the one in advaita sharada.net version in both shankaracharya and ananda giri teeka.

which one is right version?

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[Krishna Kashyap]

I found out that in anandashrama version is same as the sachidanandendra swami version as far as this shloka is concerned.

here it is .

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMn0m3DWrqFfuf1daQgs1fZB0-36S5yFpvS5114f3XVHpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Kathopanishad 2.2.13:

नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीरास्तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वती नेतरेषाम् ॥ १३ ॥ 

In the various editions/publications of the Bhashyam, the two different readings are found, both in the mantra and the bhashyam.  By reading the Anandagiri gloss, it could be perhaps concluded that both the readings are admissible without contradiction:

इदानीं परमात्मन्युपपत्तिप्रदर्शनार्थमाह - 

किञ्च नित्य इति । 

सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वमकल्पयदित्यादिश्रुतेरकृताभ्यागमकृतविप्रणाशप्रसङ्गपरिहाराच्च कल्पान्तरीयभावानां प्रलीनानां कल्पान्तरे सजातीयरूपेणोत्पादः प्रतीयते स तदा स्याद्यदि विनाशिनां भावानां शक्तिशेषो लयः स्यात् । ततः प्रलये विनश्यत्सर्वं यत्र शक्तिशेषं विलीयते सोऽभ्युपगन्तव्य इत्यर्थः ।

The crux of the gloss is:  the beings that had gone into dissolution/laya are the ones that come out in the next creation/srishti.  And Brahman is the support of all these beings during laya and of course, srishti/sthiti.  We have the Bh.Gita 15.16:

द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च ।
क्षरः सर्वाणि भूतानि कूटस्थोऽक्षर उच्यते ॥ १६ ॥  

The Kshara, perishables, are the ones that go into dissolution.  Literally kshara would mean anitya. However, jivas, who are kshara, go into laya are nitya.  So, Brahman is the Nitya that is the support/source of the kshara that is anitya.  If kshara is seen as nitya, then also Brahman is the support/source of the nityas.  So, nityaH anityAnAm and nityaH nityAnAm - both readings can give the final Vedantic meaning where the Parama Nitya, Purushottama, Brahman is the support.  

This way the different readings in the mantra and bhashya in the various publications can be seen as non-contradicting. 

warm regards

subrahmanian.v   

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSM%3D53Ec5hX2YgrnSfB4G%2BUaRoNe-qPnCobvKSZFPCkWU4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

it is hard to accept the pravaha nityatva of jiva, since if they get moksha, they will eventually be merged with Brahman, without a trace.

Further, Shankaracharya recognizes this in gita bhashya 2.11 (na tvevaham jaatu naasam) shloka and states that 

 न तु एव जातु  कदाचिद्  अहं नासम्  किं तु आसमेव। अतीतेषु देहोत्पत्तिविनाशेषु घटादिषु वियदिव नित्य एव अहमासमित्यभिप्रायः। तथा न त्वं न आसीः किं तु आसीरेव। तथा  न इमे जनाधिपाः  न आसन् किं तु आसन्नेव। तथा  न च एव न भविष्यामः  किं तु भविष्याम एव सर्वे वयम् अतः अस्मात् देहविनाशात्  परम्  उत्तरकाले अपि। त्रिष्वपि कालेषु नित्या आत्मस्वरूपेण इत्यर्थः। देहेभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनं नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण।।
तत्र कथमिव नित्य आत्मेति दृष्टान्तमाह

Here, nityatva is not for the plural. plural is a reference to dehas  and not the One Atman.

In this situation, 15.16 gita -,द्वौ इमौ पृथग्राशीकृतौ पुरुषौ इति उच्येते लोके संसारे -- क्षरश्च क्षरतीति क्षरः विनाशी इति एको राशिः अपरः पुरुषः अक्षरः तद्विपरीतः? भगवतः मायाशक्तिः? क्षराख्यस्य पुरुषस्य उत्पत्तिबीजम् अनेकसंसारिजन्तुकामकर्मादिसंस्काराश्रयः? अक्षरः पुरुषः उच्यते। कौ तौ पुरुषौ इति आह स्वयमेव भगवान् -- क्षरः सर्वाणि भूतानि? समस्तं विकारजातम् इत्यर्थः। कूटस्थः कूटः राशी राशिरिव स्थितः। अथवा? कूटः माया वञ्चना जिह्मता कुटिलता इति पर्यायाः? अनेकमायावञ्चनादिप्रकारेण स्थितः कूटस्थः? संसारबीजानन्त्यात् न क्षरति इति अक्षरः उच्यते।।आभ्यां क्षराक्षराभ्यां अन्यः विलक्षणः क्षराक्षरोपाधिद्वयदोषेण अस्पृष्टः नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः --,

here kutastha is understood as "akshara", maya, na ksharati, is "not vinashee". in this sense. If you accept Maya as nitya, then there will be 2 nityas Maya and Brahman (the topic of next shloka 

।।15.17।। --,उत्तमः उत्कृष्टतमः पुरुषस्तु अन्यः अत्यन्तविलक्षणः आभ्यां परमात्मा इति परमश्च असौ देहाद्यविद्याकृतात्मभ्यः? आत्मा च सर्वभूतानां प्रत्यक्चेतनः? इत्यतः परमात्मा इति उदाहृतः उक्तः वेदान्तेषु। स एव विशिष्यते यः लोकत्रयं भूर्भुवःस्वराख्यं स्वकीयया चैतन्यबलशक्त्या आविश्य प्रविश्य बिभर्ति स्वरूपसद्भावमात्रेण बिभर्ति धारयति अव्ययः न अस्य व्ययः विद्यते इति अव्ययः। कः ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः नारायणाख्यः ईशनशीलः।।यथाव्याख्यातस्य ईश्वरस्य पुरुषोत्तमः इत्येतत् नाम प्रसिद्धम्। तस्य नामनिर्वचनप्रसिद्ध्या अर्थवत्त्वं नाम्नो दर्शयन् निरतिशयः अहम् ईश्वरः इति आत्मानं दर्शयति भगवान् --,

uttama purusha is Narayana, totally different (atyanta vilakshana from these two earlier mentioned entities (maya, kshara), आभ्यां क्षराक्षराभ्यां अन्यः विलक्षणः क्षराक्षरोपाधिद्वयदोषेण अस्पृष्टः नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः --,this very statement states that maya and Brahman are not at the same level, they are vilakshana and hence nityatva cannot be assigned to maya or even jivas who are all have upadhi doshas.

this being the case, it is preferable to keep the version upheld by Anandashrama and Sachidanandendra swami (and Swami Chinmayananda)

nityo- (Anityanam) (version)

I will ask one other question since this is critical:  

what is the definition of nitya in Advaita? is it "trikala abaadhitatva"? if so, Maya is trikala abadhita or not? it has to be trikala baadhita. (or sarvada baadhita). hence we have to get a good definition of "nitya" which does not have any controversy. Or, we have to agree that Maya is "kutila" अनेकमायावञ्चनादिप्रकारेण स्थितः hence Maya is inexplicable in a way. In any case, it cannot be said as the same type of nitya as Brahman.

Please note: I am asking questions sincerely with a clear purpose of understanding advaita properly. I am not arguing for or against advaita. I am trying to understand what version of nityo-nityanam is preferable and better.

Obviously, some manuscriptologist has to validate that one version is preferable.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2PMV6Xvrb%3DhyfLtGfv3-ZkOaFzO9ek1uhsFGeGqfHL3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

I understand that V.Subrahmanyan Ji's view is justified without using Ananda giri bhashya.

Let me state why

नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीरास्तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वती नेतरेषाम् ॥ १३ ॥

किञ्च, नित्यः अविनाशी नित्यानाम् अविनाशिनाम् । चेतनः चेतनानां चेतयितॄणां ब्रह्मादीनां प्राणिनाम् । अग्निनिमित्तमिव दाहकत्वमनग्नीनामुदकादीनामात्मचैतन्यनिमित्तमेव चेतयितृत्वमन्येषाम् । किञ्च, स सर्वज्ञः सर्वेश्वरः कामिनां संसारिणां कर्मानुरूपं कामान् कर्मफलानि स्वानुग्रहनिमित्तांश्च कामान् यः एको बहूनाम् अनेकेषाम् अनायासेन विदधाति प्रयच्छतीत्येतत् । तम् आत्मस्थं ये अनुपश्यन्ति धीराः, तेषां शान्तिः उपरतिः शाश्वती नित्या स्वात्मभूतैव स्यात् । न इतरेषाम् अनेवंविधानाम् ॥

see this in shankarabhashya: the second sentence talks about plural dheeraha having shastvati shanti. the bhashya statesतम् आत्मस्थं ये अनुपश्यन्ति धीराः, तेषां शान्तिः उपरतिः शाश्वती नित्या स्वात्मभूतैव स्यात् । न इतरेषाम् अनेवंविधानाम् ॥

Here the shanti is nitya svatma bhuta. Hence, if we take the original as nitya nityanam, then we can state that jivas are nitya in the sense the wrong view of plurality is dissolved into one atman which is nitya and hence the plural jivas attain eternal shanti once they reach the single unique atman who is nitya.

In this sense nityatva of jivas can be upheld even though plural. the plurality is due to "upadhi bahutva" and not by svarupa bahutva. This is also supported by 2.11 gita-shankara bhashya.  However, in 2.11 the atma is taken as one and singular only. 

Here in katopanishad if nityo nityanam is taken a plural, it i fine as per advaita if you accept that after merger plurality merges but there is no separation after merger.

In this way nityanam as plural and anityanam a plural can both be justified, nityatva post merger is same as Brahma svarupa.

so nityatva is related to atmatva of everything.

In other words, to understand shankara bhashya one has to be open to consider ishwara, jiva, as atma plus ishwara upadhi and atman plus jivopadhi in different situations, respectively. and nityatva is only ascribed to atma and not the upadhis.

I am trying learn so dont take this as coming from a pundit!!!

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 8:00 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:

I will ask one other question since this is critical:  

what is the definition of nitya in Advaita? is it "trikala abaadhitatva"? if so, Maya is trikala abadhita or not? it has to be trikala baadhita. (or sarvada baadhita). hence we have to get a good definition of "nitya" which does not have any controversy. Or, we have to agree that Maya is "kutila" अनेकमायावञ्चनादिप्रकारेण स्थितः hence Maya is inexplicable in a way. In any case, it cannot be said as the same type of nitya as Brahman.

Yes, in Advaita two types of nityatva are admitted: 1. KuTastha nityatva - of Nirguna Brahman and 2. Pravaha/pariNAmi nityatva - of Maya/Akshara.  Veda also enjoys this type of nityatva.  The second type is within vyavaharika and is required to account for samsara.  In the scenario where there is no samsara, for the liberated, there is only the first nityatva. Jivatva/samsara will be in the second type of nityatva. 

regards    

[Krishna Kashyap]

Thanks.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te378QFg0k3ZJN4HrZYV%2BJYE7P_7ROdEGL2KRsvm4bTe5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Krishna ji.

//What is the definition of nitya in Advaita?//

The definition of nityatva is dhvamsa-pratiyogitA-abhAva. This definition is accepted because in advaita siddhAnta, dhvamsa is accepted to have dhvamsa-pratiyogitA.

In case dhvamsa is not accepted to have dhvamsa-pratiyogitA, nityatva is defined in advaita vedAnta as dhvamsa-prAgabhAva-rUpa-avadhi-dvaya-rAhityam. That basically means dhvamsa-pratiyogitA-abhAve-sati-prAgabhAva-pratiyogitA-abhAva.

This is the flawless definition of nityatva which has no ativyApti or avyApti or any other dosha. It applies only to Brahman and to nothing else.

//Is it "trikala abaadhitatva"?//

No. This is the definition of sattva.

//if so, Maya is trikala abadhita or not? it has to be trikala baadhita. (or sarvada baadhita.//

MAyA has traikAlika abhAva in Brahman i.e. it has traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA in Brahman.

//Hence we have to get a good definition of "nitya" which does not have any controversy.//

Above-mentioned is flawless definition imho. However, none can guarantee absence of controversy.

//In any case, it cannot be said as the same type of nitya as Brahman.//

It depends as to how is nityatva defined. If one defines nityatva as kAla-parichchheda-abhAva, then such a lakshaNAs has ativyApti in both kAla and avidyA if kAl-parichchheda is not taken as nAsha-pratiyogitvam. Taking this definition, mAyA is stated as nityA. kAla itself is defined as avidyA-chit-sambandha and is avidyA-prayukta. Time continues so long as avidyA continues and vice versa. Hence, both of them are eligible to be called as nitya. However, they are not nitya as per the mukhya definition I mentioned above.

Please note that the mukhya definition mentioned above being dhvamsa-pratiyogitA-abhAva or dhvamsa-prAgabhAva-rUpa-avadhi-dvaya-rAhityam is applicable only in case where abhAva is not accepted to be different from adhikaraNa which is the siddhAnta. In case, abhAva is accepted to be different from adhikaraNa, then nitya can be defined as:

dhvamsa-prAgabhAva-rUpa-avadhi-dvaya-rAhityam-vishisht-rUpa-tAdAtmya-upalskhita-swarUpa.

//I am trying to understand what version of nityo-nityanam is preferable and better.//

Kena Upanishad 1.2 uses nityo nityAnAm. Anandashram edition, Gitapress edition use the same. It also flows from the words – Shrotrasya shrotram, chetanAnAm chetanah – it should logically follow nityah nityAnAm. Had the reading been nityah anityAnAm, the mantra should have been—chetanah achetanAnAm, shrotrasya ashrotrah etc. Just the flow of other words also suggest nityah nityAnAm.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[kenp]

12/15

https://www.srilagurudeva.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/46-%E0%A4%88%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE.pdf