Question on MAyA and PrakRti by Shailendra

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shailendra Bhatnagar and all,

 

This refers to the following observation of yours (Shailendra):

 

Respected Krishnamurthyji, Please refer to

the quote below from your email. Your statements below have always

perplexed me .

**The purushha described in the Gita is not the multiple purushha of

the SAnkhya but the one kshhetrajna in all fields. Gita looks

upon prakRti and purushha as the inferior and superior

forms of the same Supreme.**

My doubt/question is very simple. If the

Lord is the cause of Maya/matter, then we are grappling with his

Prakriti. Can we do that ?Lord Krishna himself says that he who is

able to violate this Maya reaches me. That is a very basic

contradiction to me and the only answer I give to my ego is that

something (Gita) which is so beneficial spiritually must come from

the infinite goodness of the Lord and I cannot

understand everything about Him. Please help.

thanks,Shailendra

--------------------------------

 

It is not clear to me what exactly is your question, Shailendra-ji.

But I can see there is a confusion in your mind

regarding 'MAyA', 'PrakRti' and 'Purushha'. And this confusion is

very common and legitimate. That is why I have titled this post as

above, so that, others, may want to clear your doubts. Without

trying to answer you in a jiffy, may I recommend for your reading,

Chapters 6 (MAyA, the First Secret of Secrets) and 10 (The Second

Secret of Secrets) of my book 'Live Happily the Gita Way' where you

can find these topics dealt with, almost from scratch. The webpages

to refer are:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/livehappily_6.html

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/livehappily_10.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Sir, Thank you for responding to my question. I will definitely study the

chapters of your book and thanks for providing the URLs. Sorry I did a poor job

of phrasing my question. I will make another attempt to state my doubt/question.

How can the supreme have 2 contradictory sets of qualities ? How can the Brahman

be both Satyam and Jnanam on one hand and PrakRti on the other hand ? How can

the eternal, immutable, infinite, truth, absolute luminousity also be the source

of PrakRti and Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. I am referring to Gita 7 (verses 4, 5

and 14) and Gita 14(verse 5). The literal translation of Gita 7:14 in English

is (sorry I don't know Sanskrit)

 

"Verily this divine illusion of mine, made up of gunas, is hard to surmount.

Whoever seek Me alone, they cross over this illusion. "

 

In other words, he is the cause of the illusion and at the same time he is

asking us to cross it.

 

 

thanks,

Shailendra

 

 

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

 

It is not clear to me what exactly is your question, Shailendra-ji.

But I can see there is a confusion in your mind

regarding 'MAyA', 'PrakRti' and 'Purushha'. And this confusion is

very common and legitimate. That is why I have titled this post as

above, so that, others, may want to clear your doubts.

 

 

 

Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Shailendra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

prabhuji you asked :

 

"Verily this divine illusion of mine, made up of gunas, is hard to

surmount. Whoever seek Me alone, they cross over this illusion. "

 

In other words, he is the cause of the illusion and at the same time he is

asking us to cross it.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

First of all we as advaitins should know that whenever krishna says *me* or

*mine* in gIta it is not the physical form of krishna that he is pointing

out, it is only his paramArtha rUpa ( the true nature of Atman) Sri Prof.

prabhuji elsewhere in this forum has beautifully explained this as *abuse

of language*. With the kind permission of Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, I am

giving it for your ready reference...pls. read it :

 

// quote //

the question is a very legitimate one for the proper understanding of

the advaita viewpoint. Is Jiva identical with Brahman? If so how

come it got entangled? Why does the Lord say that Jiva is a

fragment of Himself?

The difficulty in answering these questions comes when you expect

unqualified answers in a categorical fashion. Very few questions in

Hindu philosophy can be categorically answered as 'this' or 'that'.

Without getting into words and their meanings, let me try to

communicate what I have understood and let the scholars help me

correct myself if I go wrong in presenting the advaita thinking. I

have read somewhere that nobody can 'teach' anybody anything;

the 'teacher' can only help the student 'discover' for himself. In that

sense we are all students

trying to 'discover' for ourselves what we are.

When I say ' I am suffering an unbearable pain in my leg' everybody

understands me. So long as it is an after-dinner conversation, the

context is clear and there is no loss of communication. Nothing more

is either meant or lost.

But look at the same statement in a philosophical context. Ask the

questions (like the great Ramana Maharishi): Who is suffering?

Whose leg? These questions when pursued to their logical extremes

will lead you to the Self behind (or beyond !) and we then come to

the conclusion that the leg is that of the body, the suffering is that

of the mind which has already associated itself with the body, and

the expression is that of the intellect, which has already identified

itself with the body and mind.

But still we commonly use this expression and we use it even when

we are in a philosophy class where we are expected to be precise in

our expressions. So long as we understand what is said and so long

as we are capable of being precise when precision is called for,

everything goes well. We all allow ourselves to slur our expressions

for purpose of communication in the full understanding that it will

not be misunderstood by the hearer or the student. Such cases of

slurring are called 'abuse of language' by the mathematician. So in

the above statement the mathematician will say: By abuse of

language let us agree to say that 'I am suffering' and 'The pain is in

my leg'.

The Lord, freely uses this 'mathematical abuse of language' very

often for purposes of effective and quick communication. Sometimes

He talks from the highest pedestal and says that 'I am the Beginning;

I am the Middle; I am also the End, of all beings'. Sometimes he talks

as an Avatar : ' Between Me and You, Arjuna, we have gone

through several births; I know them all, but you know them not'.

When He talks about jiva, brahman, Atman, purusha and other

technical entities, we have to resort to the commentators for the

exact contextual meaning. They give the meaning in the background

of the total philosophical theory that they are propounding. So the

meaning of each local occurrence of these technical words depends

on the global interpretation of the school which interprets. Each

school is consistent within itself. We should not mix two different

interpretations and try to find a synthesis. That is where we get lost.

Let us now take Sloka No. 7 of Chapter XV.

(Dr. Radhakrishnaqn's English translation): A fragment (or fraction)

of My own self, having become a living soul, eternal, in the world of

life, draws to itself the senses, of which the mind is the sixth, that

rest in Nature.

With this we can now follow Sankara's commentary on this sloka.

The words 'amSa' (part, fraction), 'bhAga' (part), 'avayava' (limb),

'ekadeSa' (one spot, portion) all mean the same thing. An amSa of

Myself has become the jIva in this world of life from immemorial time.

He is the doer, he is the one who experiences, in every body. The

Sun's reflection in a lake is an amSa of the Sun and it reverts back

to

the Sun (without retrieval) when the water in the lake dries up. The

space in the pot is a part of the total space; it loses its

(supposedly)

separate identity when the adjunct, that is the pot, disappears (for

instance, when the pot is broken). These so-called amSa's revert

back to the source and never come back. That is why, in the

previous sloka (XV -6), the Lord says 'yad-gatvA na nivartante'

meaning, having gone, they never return. In the same way, the jIva,

supposedly a 'part' of the Ultimate, when it reverts back to the no-

adjunct state, is Brahman itself.

Here Sankara himself raises the following Objection. How come,

then, that the Ultimate which is One Whole, and which has no

divisions within itself, is considered to have an amSa in the form of

jIvas?

And he himself gives the explanation. There is no failure of logic

here. The adjunct is avidyA (Ignorance) here. This is what partitions

the 'fragment' from the 'Whole' and the mind thinks of it as such.

This is the same conceptual error that we make in thinking of the pot-

space as different from the total space. All this is explained in

detail

in the 13th chapter, says Sankara.

 

Here is my (vk's) global summary as I have understood it. Within the

physical body there is the subtle body. Within the subtle body and

more subtle than that is the jIva. The jIva associates itself with its

adjuncts like the intellect, mind and body and 'experiences' through

them. If it isolates itself from the body, mind and intellect, then it

is

brahman itself. So when colloquially (= 'by abuse of language' ) we

say that the jIva experiences, we mean 'the jIva which has identified

itself with the body mind intellect '. When we say that the jIva is

brahman itself we actually mean the jIva which has thrown away

that identification.

It may help (it may also unhelp!) to visit my webpage:

www.geocities.com/profvk/TheSelf.html

All the teachings like 'Thou art That' are addressed to the jIva who

has not thrown away his adjuncts. It is the 'fallen' jIva who is told

to

do tapas, dhyana and so on.

To the question: 'How can the Unreal world through its Unreal

Activities result in the release to Reality?' In other words can an

unreal act give a real effect ? -- to this question I cannot but share

with you what a great guru told me: Sexy dreams do give real

ejaculations!

 

// unquote //

 

By the way, some of the members have raised objection as regards to last

example about *wet dreams* of prof. VK prabhuji...But most of them donot

know this very example has been given in a prakaraNa grantha called

prabhOdha sudhAkara another grantha floating in the name of

shankarachArya!!!!

 

I think with this basic understanding that krishna=brahma jnAni=brahman, we

have to approach gIta, so that our various doubts will get resolved by

themselves.

 

In the above sentence you quoted above krishna simply saying even for the

locus of divine illusion is brahman only ...for those who are still seeing

*this divine illusion* they should not think any other cause than that of

ONLY reality parabrahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji, I think you missed my question. Bhagwat Gita is one of the

pillars of Advaita. Bhagwat Gita says quite clearly that Brahman has a dual

nature (para and apara prakriti) so I wonder how Advaita is based on Gita. Does

Advaita only accept parts of Gita ? I know that my question cannot really be

answered via email and I need to study Advaita but this contradiction is very

easy to spot and I am sure others must have thought about it. Let me quote some

relevant verses from Gita

5:14 Neither agency nor objects does the Lord create for the world, nor union

with the fruits of actions. But is is the nature that acts.

7:4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, thought and reason, egoism - thus is my

prakriti divided eightfold.

7:5 This is the inferior prakriti; but as distinct from this know thou my

superior prakriti, the very life, O mighty-armed by which the universe is

upheld.

14:3 My womb is the great Brahman; in that I place the germ; thence, O Bharata,

is the birth of all beings.

 

Shankar's commentary on 5:14 is notable. Here is an extract from it :

 

// Quote from Alladi Mahadev Sastri's translation of Shankar's commentary

Question: If the Self in the body does not himself act or cause others to act,

what then is it that acts and causes others to act ?

Answer : Listen. It is nature, svabhava, prakriti, maya, 'the Divine Maya made

up of gunas'.

// Unquote

 

Note that Maya and Prakriti have been clubbed together. Going by Bhagwat Gita

and Shankar's commentary on 5:14, it seems like a divine play of Brahman vs

Brahman. On one side is Brahman's apara Prakriti and on the other side is the

pure, undefiled, unchanging, consciousness, bliss or Self. In between are stuck

billions of BMIs (body, mind, intellect) beings who think they are formed from

apara prakriti and should ultimately merge with the Parabrahman.

 

regards,

Shailendra

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

praNAm Shailendra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

SB prabhuji:

 

I think you missed my question. Bhagwat Gita is one of the pillars of

Advaita. Bhagwat Gita says quite clearly that Brahman has a dual nature

(para and apara prakriti) so I wonder how Advaita is based on Gita.

 

bhaskar :

 

For that matter prabhuji advaita is not only based on gIta it is based on

shruti & sUtra as well...and more importantly advaita darshanna what

shankara preaching us should comply with *anubhava* as well..

 

SB prabhuji:

 

Does Advaita only accept parts of Gita ?

 

bhaskar :

 

No prabhuji... but shankara clarifies in nyAya (logic) prasthAna (sUtra

bhAshya) as how to do samanvaya (coherence) when we come across any type of

apparent contradictions in brahma tattva!!

 

SB prabhuji:

 

I know that my question cannot really be answered via email and I need to

study Advaita but this contradiction is very easy to spot and I am sure

others must have thought about it. Let me quote some relevant verses from

Gita

 

5:14 Neither agency nor objects does the Lord create for the world, nor

union with the fruits of actions. But is is the nature that acts.

7:4 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, thought and reason, egoism - thus is my

prakriti divided eightfold.

7:5 This is the inferior prakriti; but as distinct from this know thou my

superior prakriti, the very life, O mighty-armed by which the universe is

upheld.

14:3 My womb is the great Brahman; in that I place the germ; thence, O

Bharata, is the birth of all beings.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly let me know how you are linking the na katrutvaM..na karmAni verse

with 7:4 & 5..as I am not able to understand it...

 

As regards to para & apara prakruti bhagavan implies here * there is

*nothing* exists apart from him...the origination, sustenation &

dissolution of all sentient & insentients (chEtana & achEtana) happening

ONLY coz. of HIM...that is what he confirms in the verse mattaH parataraM

nAnyat kinchidasti ....sUtre maNigaNa iva etc... I think advaita does not

have any problem here as it propagates yEkamEva advitIya parabrahman..How

then in this secondless brahman para & apara appearing?? shankara takes

this problem in sUtra bhAshya & says apara is kEvala avidyAkruta, nAma rUpa

upAdhi saMbhanda kruta....

 

SB prabhuji:

 

Shankar's commentary on 5:14 is notable. Here is an extract from it :

 

// Quote from Alladi Mahadev Sastri's translation of Shankar's commentary

Question: If the Self in the body does not himself act or cause others to

act, what then is it that acts and causes others to act ?

Answer : Listen. It is nature, svabhava, prakriti, maya, 'the Divine Maya

made up of gunas'.

// Unquote

 

Note that Maya and Prakriti have been clubbed together.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, there is a shruti maNtra for this ..mAyAtu prakrutiM vidyAm mAyinAntu

maheshwaraM...(shvEtAshvatara upanishad)..mAya can be clubbed with prakruti

but it cannot be clubbed & equated with mAyin..one is jada & another is

chEtana..though jada cannot have independent existence apart from

chEtana...chEtana cannot be equated with jada..as chEta can exist without

jada..

 

SB prabhuji:

 

Going by Bhagwat Gita and Shankar's commentary on 5:14, it seems like a

divine play of Brahman vs Brahman. On one side is Brahman's apara Prakriti

and on the other side is the pure, undefiled, unchanging, consciousness,

bliss or Self. In between are stuck billions of BMIs (body, mind,

intellect) beings who think they are formed from apara prakriti and should

ultimately merge with the Parabrahman.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly take note of the above & try to understand what exactly is apara &

para according to shankara perspective...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : Moderators Kindly pardon me I know I've exceeded by 3 mail quota per

day...I am not sure whether I am able to get access to PC for the next 3-4

days I posted all mails today itself...kindly bear with me.