agreement between Sri Nisarga-datta-maharaj and Sri Shankara-prasthana-traya bhashyas

[Krishna Kashyap]

Namaste to everyone,

I wanted to ask a question regarding this statement:

I got this statement from the Internet. It says this is a quote from Sri Nisarga-Datta-Maharaj. I did not verify to find out whether he really said this. I took it as I got it from the internet.

"The way to truth lies through the destruction of the false. To destroy the false, you must question your most inveterate beliefs. Of these, the idea that you are the body is the worst. With the body comes the world, with the world - God, who is supposed to have created the world and thus it starts - fears, religions, prayers, sacrifices, all sorts of systems - all to protect and support the child-man, frightened out of his wits by monsters of his own making. Realize that what you are cannot be born nor die and with the fear gone, all suffering ends." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj . His students, say, he prayed everyday! (“got used to it !”)

Is this statement in total agreement with the Shankaracharyas-prasthana-traya-bhashyas?

Namaste, thanks.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

The above idea is in complete agreement with the core Shankaran thought.  Here are a few verses from the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapadacharya, in the fourth chapter (Alaatashanti prakaranam), along with the commentary of Shankaracharya;

उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् ।
जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैरजातेस्त्रसतां सदा ॥ ४२ ॥

यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् । वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या । ते हि श्रोत्रियाः स्थूलबुद्धित्वात् अजातेः अजातिवस्तुनः सदा त्रस्यन्ति आत्मनाशं मन्यमाना अविवेकिन इत्यर्थः । ‘उपायः सोऽवताराय’ (मा. का. ३ । १५) इत्युक्तम् ॥

अजातेस्त्रसतां तेषामुपलम्भाद्वियन्ति ये ।
जातिदोषा न सेत्स्यन्ति दोषोऽप्यल्पो भविष्यति ॥ ४३ ॥

ये च एवमुपलम्भात्समाचाराच्च अजातेः अजातिवस्तुनः त्रसन्तः अस्ति वस्त्विति अद्वयादात्मनः, वियन्ति विरुद्धं यन्ति द्वैतं प्रतिपद्यन्त इत्यर्थः । तेषाम् अजातेः त्रसतां श्रद्दधानानां सन्मार्गावलम्बिनां जातिदोषाः जात्युपलम्भकृता दोषाः न सेत्स्यन्ति सिद्धिं नोपयास्यन्ति, विवेकमार्गप्रवृत्तत्वात् । यद्यपि कश्चिद्दोषः स्यात् , सोऽप्यल्प एव भविष्यति, सम्यग्दर्शनाप्रतिपत्तिहेतुक इत्यर्थः ॥

उपलम्भात्समाचारान्मायाहस्ती यथोच्यते ।
उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्ति वस्तु तथोच्यते ॥ ४४ ॥

ननु उपलम्भसमाचारयोः प्रमाणत्वादस्त्येव द्वैतं वस्त्विति ; न, उपलम्भसमाचारयोर्व्यभिचारात् । कथं व्यभिचार इति, उच्यते — उपलभ्यते हि मायाहस्ती हस्तीव, हस्तिनमिवात्र समाचरन्ति बन्धनारोहणादिहस्तिसम्बन्धिभिर्धर्मैः, हस्तीति चोच्यते असन्नपि यथा, तथैव उपलम्भात्समाचारात् द्वैतं भेदरूपं अस्ति वस्तु इत्युच्यते । तस्मान्नोपलम्भसमाचारौ द्वैतवस्तुसद्भावे हेतू भवत इत्यभिप्रायः ॥

Translation of Swami Gambhirananda:

The above is representative.  Similar ideas can be gleaned from the other Bhashyas of Shankaracharya.

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

Namaste, 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/CANkLSMkuj7t-pXv4pLnCGU%2B%3DzsfDFcEdyN8sr-xcEPDX5TJ30g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

Since I am dealing with mainly bhagavadgita now, please send me proof or testimony using the Shankara-bhagavad-gita bhashya If possible.

I am not getting that view of Sri-Nisarga-datta-maharaj in the shankara-gita-bhashya.

Or I am missing something.

I will look into the Mandukyabhashya as suggested by you. I will let you know once I study it carefully.

for example the bhashya on 

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।
 

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।7.14।। 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।।यदि त्वां प्रपन्नाः मायामेतां तरन्ति कस्मात् त्वामेव सर्वे न प्रपद्यन्ते इत्युच्यते

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:09 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here I do not get the feeling from Sri shankarabhashya that Bhagavan is caused due to MAYA. maya is a power of Bhagavan as per this shloka.

maam eva maayavinam, does not give me a feeling that saguna brahman is a product of maya.

I am doing a mistake in reading this bhashya here?  

you may say that mandukya bhashya and gita bhashya are not agreeing with each other (shankara-bhashya)

 

*******************

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te00vHuKkAOWgL6c9%2BwMCQGMcy3oYuv3L-1iLD7wr-a-sQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

Please read this paper by SS Raghavachar regarding Bhakti in Shankara-gita bhashya

Also, let me know if this paper is not in accordance with Shankarabhashya.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 4:23 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since I am dealing with mainly bhagavadgita now, please send me proof or testimony using the Shankara-bhagavad-gita bhashya If possible.

I am not getting that view of Sri-Nisarga-datta-maharaj in the shankara-gita-bhashya.

Or I am missing something.

I will look into the Mandukyabhashya as suggested by you. I will let you know once I study it carefully.

for example the bhashya on 

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।
 

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।7.14।। 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।।यदि त्वां प्रपन्नाः मायामेतां तरन्ति कस्मात् त्वामेव सर्वे न प्रपद्यन्ते इत्युच्यते

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:09 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here I do not get the feeling from Sri shankarabhashya that Bhagavan is caused due to MAYA. maya is a power of Bhagavan as per this shloka.

maam eva maayavinam, does not give me a feeling that saguna brahman is a product of maya.

Namaste

Actually there is the hint in that bhashyam to lead one to conclude that it is the Nirguna Brahman that is meant there:  मामेव मायाविनं स्वात्मभूतं  This adjective for Mayaavi tells us that Bhagavan is enjoining the aspirant after liberation to surrender to that Entity under whose control Maya is, where that Entity itself is non-different from the Self of the aspirant. The instruction is: give up identification with the Anatma, body-mind-senses complex, and seek and take refuge in the Atman, the Pure Consciousness.  This is the only way to transcend Maya, ignorance.  That there is the need to transcend it shows that it is something that is not desirable, causing bondage through the play of the three guNas. Elsewhere the teaching is: nistraiguNyo bhava Arjuna, guNAtIta, and so on.    

The following verses/Bhashyam in the fifth chapter are of same nature as the ones shown earlier from the Gaudapada Karika:

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

न कर्तृत्वं स्वतः कुरु इति नापि कर्माणि रथघटप्रासादादीनि ईप्सिततमानि लोकस्य सृजति उत्पादयति प्रभुः आत्मा । नापि रथादि कृतवतः तत्फलेन संयोगं न कर्मफलसंयोगम् । यदि किञ्चिदपि स्वतः न करोति न कारयति च देही, कः तर्हि कुर्वन् कारयंश्च प्रवर्तते इति, उच्यते — स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा ॥ १४ ॥

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

Prabhuh, the Self; na srjati, does not create; lokasya, for anyone; kartrtvam, agentship, by saying 'Do this'; or even karmani, any objects - such objects as chariot, pot, palace, etc. which are intensely longed for; nor even karma-phala-samyogam, association with the results of actions-association of the creator of a chariot etc. with the result of his work. Objection: If the embodied one does not do anything himself, and does not make others do, then who is it that engages in work by doing and making others do? The answer is: Tu, but; it is svabhavah, Nature- one's own (sva) nature (bhava)-characterized as ignorance, Maya, which will be spoken of in, 'Since this divine Maya' (7.14); pravartate, that acts. But from the highest standpoint-

[One can see how the bhashya cites the very verse taken up by you: 7.14. The idea is: the Atman is non-doer and all action, experiencing the results of action, happens only in the realm of the anAtma: the body-mind-senses complex. And when Atman does not do anything, all that is done is by Maya, avidya.] 

The next verse gives the teaching of the absolute, true, state of affairs:

परमार्थतस्तु —

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

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

Vibhuh, the Omnipresent; na adatte, neither accetps; kasyacit, anybody's - even a devotee's; paapam, sin; na ca eva, nor even; does He accept sukrtam, virtue offered by devotees. Why then are such virtuous acts as worship etc. as also sacrifices, charity, oblation, worship etc. offered by devotees? To this the Lord says: Jnanam, knowledge, discriminating wisdom; remains aavrtam, covered; ajnanena, by ignorance. Tena, therby; jantavah, the creatures, the non-discriminating people in the world; muhyanti, become deluded thus-'I do; I make others do; I eat; I make others eat.'

So, the engaging in activities pertaining to worship, yajna, etc. is out of ignorance of one's true nature which is non-doer, non-enjoyer.  Since one does not know what he really is, thinking that he is a person with body, etc. one engages in such actions.  This gives the reply to your original question. 

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

I don't think you will find anywhere in Shankaracharya's bhAShya-s that "God" or "religions, prayers, sacrifices" are "monsters of his (man's) own making". 

In advaita, both the jIva and Ishvara are admitted to be beginningless - जीव ईशो विशुद्धा चित् तथा जीवेशयोर्भिदा। अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः षडस्माकमनादयः ।। So the idea of Ishvara being a creation of the jIva's making is not accepted, because both jIva and Ishvara are beginningless.

In fact Shankaracharya is very clear that Ishvara's existence is proven only through the veda-s. Even inferential reasoning as an independent means to prove the existence of Ishvara is not admitted (शास्त्रादेव प्रमाणात् जगतो जन्मादिकारणं ब्रह्माधिगम्यत इत्यभिप्रायः). Thus neither Ishvara, nor the proof of His existence is admitted to be a creation of man's making. 

Similarly that the veda-s have their source in Brahman is also very clear from the bhAShya-s (शास्त्रयोनित्वात्, महत ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्य अनेकविद्यास्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत्सर्वार्थावद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म). Therefore, the vedAs and the various karma-s / upAsana-s / vidhi-niShedha therein are also not creations of man's making. 

However, he admits all pramANa prameya vyavahAra, including the vedic vyavahAra, presupposes avidyA, ignorance. As shankarAchArya sys in the adhyAsa bhAShya: तमेतमविद्याख्यमात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा लौकिका वैदिकाश्च प्रवृत्ताः, सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधिप्रतिषेधमोक्षपराणि । 

So for how long is this pramANa-prameya vyavahAra to continue? So long as one is in samsAra. Their validity is until the dawn of AtmajnAna. As shankarAchAra quotes at the end of samanvayAdhikaraNam -  'देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः । लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वाऽऽत्मनिश्चयात्’

It is also admitted that the fundamental problem of samsAra is adhyAsa, specifically the mutual superimposition of the self with the body-mind-complex. One superimposes the notion of self upon body-mind-complex and superimposes the problems of the body-mind-complex upon the self. The purpose of shAstra is to remove this fundamental misconception. As he says in the adhyAsa bhAShya:  एवमहंप्रत्ययिनमशेषस्वप्रचारसाक्षिणि प्रत्यगात्मन्यध्यस्य तं च प्रत्यगात्मानं सर्वसाक्षिणं तद्विपर्ययेणान्तःकरणादिष्वध्यस्यति । एवमयमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिकोऽध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूपः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तकः सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्षः । अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते । 

It is also accepted that the mind and the appearance of the world are mutually dependent - when the mind is present, the world is perceived, and when the mind is absent the world is not. मनोदृश्यमिदं द्वैतं यत्किञ्चित्सचराचरम् । मनसो ह्यमनीभावे द्वैतं नैवोपलभ्यते ॥ ३१ ॥ In the bhAShya to this kArika, shankarAchArya highlights the interrelatedness of the two, and uses this to establish the unreality of duality. रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पनारूपं द्वैतरूपेण मन एवेत्युक्तम् । तत्र किं प्रमाणमिति, अन्वयव्यतिरेकलक्षणमनुमानमाह । कथम् ? तेन हि मनसा विकल्प्यमानेन दृश्यं मनोदृश्यम् इदं द्वैतं सर्वं मन इति प्रतिज्ञा, तद्भावे भावात् तदभावे चाभावात् । मनसो हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं नैवोपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः ॥

That there is neither birth nor death for the self is certainly in line:

न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वाभविता वा न भूयः ।

अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥ २० ॥

न जायते न उत्पद्यते, जनिलक्षणा वस्तुविक्रिया न आत्मनो विद्यते इत्यर्थः । तथा न म्रियते वा । वाशब्दः चार्थे । न म्रियते च इति अन्त्या विनाशलक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते ।

In conclusion, while Nisargadatta Maharaj's statements about Ishvara and religion as man's creation are not in agreement with Shankaracharya, the prime thrust of his argument, and I am paraphrasing here, that - "The fundamental problem of samsAra is one of superimposition of the body (non-self) upon the self, which leads to the experience of duality. All activities involving the body mind complex presuppose ignorance, this is as true for worldy activities as it is for religious ones. However, neither the body nor the world of duality are real, hence there is no real activity either. All that exists is Brahman, which is unborn. A direct knowledge of Brahman in its true nature is emancipatory." are in line with Shankaracharya's bhAShya. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Krishna Kashyap]

Thanks for the clarification, Sri Subrahmanian Ji. I need to do more homework on this topic.

 I will work on it.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:09 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te00vHuKkAOWgL6c9%2BwMCQGMcy3oYuv3L-1iLD7wr-a-sQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

Namaste Sri Venkataraghavan Ji, 

Thanks for the information. I will still have to think about this and understand it properly. I am summarizing what I understand and asking a few questions below:

Thanks for pointing out the 6 anadi tattvas accepted. However, all vyavaharas vaidika or laukika involve this natural adhyasa and hence are due to avidya. 

The Mind and the vyavaharika satya are interdependent. 

मनसो हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां रज्ज्वामिव सर्पे लयं गते वा सुषुप्ते द्वैतं नैवोपलभ्यत इति अभावात्सिद्धं द्वैतस्यासत्त्वमित्यर्थः ॥

This statement tells me sushupti is identical to realization. Is there any difference between realization and sushupti avastha?

मनसो हि अमनीभावे निरुद्धे विवेकदर्शनाभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां  means much more than just vakyartha jnana right? does this abhyasa vairagya refer to yoga? 

even in gita abhyasa vairagya is mainly for mind control. 

श्री भगवानुवाच

असंशयं महाबाहो मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलं।

अभ्यासेन तु कौन्तेय वैराग्येण च गृह्यते।।6.35।।
 

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।6.35।। असंशयं नास्ति संशयः मनो दुर्निग्रहं चलम् इत्यत्र हे महाबाहो। किंतु अभ्यासेन तु अभ्यासो नाम चित्तभूमौ कस्यांचित् समानप्रत्ययावृत्तिः चित्तस्य। वैराग्येण वैराग्यं नाम दृष्टादृष्टेष्टभोगेषु दोषदर्शनाभ्यासात् वैतृष्ण्यम्। तेन च वैराग्येण गृह्यते विक्षेपरूपः प्रचारः चित्तस्य। एवं तत् मनः गृह्यते निगृह्यते निरुध्यते इत्यर्थः।।यः पुनः असंयतात्मा तेन

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

In other words, Am I understanding this right?

viveka darshana abhyasa vairagya : means to me: first understand the issue, by may be vakyartha jnana and some guidance from gurus, then get viveka (discriminatory knowledge) then constant abhyasa and vairagya is needed to get the mind to be completely won over or subjugated. Then this knowledge of atmaikatva is attained by itself. ie. the ever existent atman within who is sarvantara.

My questions are: based on Gita, since I am focussing on it for my teaching course at the HUA (Hindu University of America), 

1) when is a person ready to say, "I am not confined to the dictates of karma or vaidika injunctions?".  What is the clear decision point? is it that he should lose bheda jnana? 

I am researching this topic now. I request people to help me out. how long should one continue with vaidika karma? In this regard, some people give this example of Sri Ramakrishna was asked to do some rites for his mother and when he started doing some rites, he immediately went to samadhi and could not continue. then the elder people there decided that he did not leave karma but karma left him. is this the state when one leaves karma or when one gets paroksha jnana or text book jnana with some conviction that there is only one atma and rest are vyavaharika and ultimately false? what is the right time for a person to quit karmas of any kind aihika and vaidhika. aihika includes that they are no longer indebted towards parents or family. They can walk or should walk away from samsara. there are opposing statements in the upanishads: कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः ।

एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे ॥ २ ॥

who can get out of this vedic dictate? what is the exact difference between jnani and ajnani?

further, is kutichaka and bahudaka sannyasa possible today in reality. is sannyasa dharma of begging still possible? which mutt acharya today goes begging? I have not seen any of them? hence such kutichaka (who lives in hut), bahudaka ( who keeps on roaming) are only in some literature. Or may be there are a few people out there. I am not really aware.

One person in my class told me that he studied "jivanmukti viveka" of Sri Vidyaranya. he said he is employed and has two children.  he said: All this book is telling me is to plan for either kutichaka or bahudaka sannyasa? are all these books intended for everyone? who is the right adhikari for such a book?

I am only interested in Sri Shankaracharyas' works only. I prefer to stay within the limits of prasthana traya bhashya of Sri Shankaracharya (which are non controversial, since they are accepted by all). Preferably if we can get more out of Gita bhashya, that would be useful. I mentioned jivanmukti viveka only since it popped up in my class.

I am researching this "transition from being a karmi to being a jnani" carefully based on only Shankaracharya's prasthana traya works: preference given now to Gita bhashya if possible. However, I can understand from other sources also: Upanishads, sutras.

2) in verse daivi hyesha guna mayi mama maya duratyaya is this Brahman (saguna) a product of maya or maya is under his control? this is not clear from the bhashya there.  I feel this saguna brahman is due to karana upadhi. I dont know where to find more information on this karana upadhi.

3) in the statement given in your email: 

In advaita, both the jIva and Ishvara are admitted to be beginningless - जीव ईशो विशुद्धा चित् तथा जीवेशयोर्भिदा। अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः षडस्माकमनादयः ।। So the idea of Ishvara being a creation of the jIva's making is not accepted, because both jIva and Ishvara are beginningless.

 I think, the anadi term does not mean "nitya". in advaita there is only one nitya vastu: nirguna brahman.  Eventhough these 6 entities are anadis, they are still experienced or known due to avidya / adhyasa. This avidya is anadi but not nitya.  it is sad-asad-vilakshna. all vyavaharas are only in the realm of avidya. Do I understand this correctly? 

--
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/938ca3ec-02a2-4cba-8a09-c0651d5b7520n%40googlegroups.com.