Kenopanishad Shankara Pada Bhashya 1

Om Shri MahaGanadhipataye namah
Om Shri Gurubhyoh namah

For Keno Upanishad there are 2 versions of Shankara bhasyam – pada bhashyam and vakya bhashyam. Some people say Shankara considers Kena extremely important and hence he wrote 2 bhashyams. There are some scholars who have a different opinion – they accept pada bhashyam as Shankara’s and they say the authorship of the vakya bhashyam is not Adi Shankara – based on both style and content. Conventionally whenever vakya bhashyam is presented it is always presented as Adi Shankara’s only.

In the Gorakhpur publication both pada and vakya bhashyams have been given. Method to be used is complete pada bhashyam and thereafter separately deals with vakya bhashyam.

Shankara begins with the sambandha bhashyam - whether the veda purva bhaga and the veda anta bhaga should we treated as 2 different shastrams or as one. We treat the two as separate as two separate shastrams – adhikaris, vishaya and prayojanams are all different. Karmakanda directly contributes to the refinement of the student and indirectly to the rise of the knowledge - it does not contribute to moksha either directly or indirectly.

Introduction to Kena Upanishad, Padabhashyam

Page8

Kenehitam ityadyaam upanishat parabrahma vishaya vaktavya iti navamatsyadhyasaysa aarambhah.

The Kenopanishad as we have seen in our mulam class belongs to Sama Veda and this Veda also has got various recensions or branches. One of the branches is called talavakara shakha. And it is known by this name because of its association with the Rshi by the same name. He is one of the disciples of Rshi Jaimini. There is a portion of this called talavakara brAhmanam. There are nine chapters in this sub-section – eight deal with karma and upasana; the ninth deals with the Upanishad. Hence it is also called talavakara Upanishad.

Upanishat

Iti adya which begins with

Kene ishitam – with the words Kena ishitam

Parabrahma vishaya – which deals with the topic of Parabrahamn

Vaktavya – has to be taught to the prepared student (prepared by means going through the prior 8 chapter dealing with karma and upasana)

Iti with this intention of the talavakara Brahman

Aarambhah – the ninth chapter.

Pragetasmaat karmAni asheshatah parisamApitani samasthakarmAshraya bhutasya cha prAnasya upasanAn yuktAni karmAnga sAmavishayAni cha

Shankara summarizes what is the topic discussed in the prior eight chapters. Three topics – 1. Karmani rituals 2. Svatantra upasanani – Independent meditations. 3. Karmanga upasana -meditations which are part of rituals. Nachiketa ritual was mentioned and a karmanga upasana was mentioned – virAt upasana was prescribed – the virAt should be invoked only in the fire which is part of Naciketas ritual. And in that ritualistic fire karmangam. Therefore it is called angi upasana.

PrAg etasmaat – before this 9^th chapter; Karmani – all types of Vedic rituals

Parisamapitani – covered, dealt with; Asheshatah - completely

Samasta karmaashraya bhutasya pranasya upasanaani -

prAnasya – here prana refers to samashti prana – which is the Great Hiranyagarbhasya

What is the greatness of HG? Samasta karma ashraya bhutasya – you are able to do any ritual you require energy. Without prana karma is possible. Hence I want to meditate on the glory of prana at the samashti level. ya pranena sambhavati, ya bhutebhih saha vyajayata– Katha Up. All these are svantantra upasanas – not part of rituals. So this is the 2^nd topic

Also karmanga upasanani – various deities are invoked as various parts of the rituals. Any component of a ritual – for example upasana can be prescribed on the fire. Or we invoke various deities on different mantras. For example various deities are invoked on vyahrti mantra. Mantras bhu bhhuvah are taken and upon them various deities are invoked…Bhuriti va ayam lokah bhuvariti antariksham suvar ityasau lokah maha iti adityah adityena vaava sarve loke mahiyante.

All these upasanas are covered parisampitani in the first 8 chapter. As an aside Upasanas also come under karma – manasam karma – Upanisadic study will not come under karma.

Anantarancha Gayatra samavishayam

Darshanam vamshantam uktam (karyam).

Therafter anantaram at the end of the talavakara Brahmana, darshanam Samashti prana upasanam or HG upasanam in the Gayatri sama mantra known as Gayatri Sama. It is specifically mentioned because it is an important upasana – Gayatri upasana is also dealt with in detail in Chand Up and Brahmasutra. At the end - vamsha – Gurushishya parampara – at the end. Brh 2,4,6 ends with a section called vamsha brahmanam – list of Rshis. In some readings  the word karyam is not there and is the preferred reading.

Sarvametat yathoktam karma cha jnanancha samyakanushthitam

nishkAmasya mumukshoho sattvashudhyartam bhavati

Sarvam etat All these 3 topics yathoktam karma and jnana (here jnana means svantantra and paratarntra upasana) as described samyak anushthitam – if they are properly studied AND appropriately performed – samyak anushthitam – means proper procedure. Sattvashudhyartham bhavati – it will contribute to chittashuddhi. Antahkaranam is a product of sattva guna – so here sattvam refers to antahkaranam. Purification means raga-dvesha management/disarmament and disempowerment. And also add chitta ekagrata – because upasana will give ekagrata. nishkamasya – who perform this ritual without using it for worldly favors. Nishkama karma, parameshwara preetyartham. Why? Because he is desirous of moksha – mumukshoho.

Samakasya tu jnanarahitasya kevalAni shrautAni smArtAni cha

KarmAni dakshinaMArga pratipattaye punaravrrtayecha bhavanti

Suppose a person is not interested in Moksha, or he has more serious problems and he wants to solve family problems first! For such a person interested in worldly pursuits sakamasya and who is bereft of knowledge of upasana (of 3 types described above) – he merely does rituals prescribed in Shruti and Puranas, etc kevalani shrautani smartani – these will contribute to travel by Krishnagati – dakshinamArga – and punaravrrtayecha – and return either to the Earth or even to the lower lokas.

Avidya and Maya Part 2

We continue to examine the Sutrabhashya of Shankara where-in we find different
aspects related to Maya or Avidya and the effects thereof discussed.


In the following excerpt Shankara emphasizes that this Maya shakti while
intrinsic to Brahman never has any sparsha or touch or contact with Brahman.


BSB 1.4.6
For as long as Avidya remains yavad avidya na nivartate, so long the soul is
affected with definite attributes taavad dharmaadigocharatvam jeevasya jeevatvam
cha na nivartate, but as soon as Avidya comes to an end, the soul is one with
the highest Self, tannivrttau tu prajna eva as is taught by such scriptural
texts as 'Thou art that.' But whether Avidya be active or inactive - na cha
avidyavattve tadapagame cha vastuna kaschid sheshesti- no difference is made
thereby in the thing itself.


What is interesting here is that he talks about the persistence and the
sibsequent eradication of this avidya while affirming that in and through both
scenarios, the vastu Brahman never undergoes any transformation whatsoever.


He follows this up with the famous rope/snake analogy and explains that while a
man may, in the dark, mistake a piece of rope lying on the ground for a snake,
and run away from it, frightened and trembling; thereon another man may tell
him, 'Do not be afraid, it is only a rope, not a snake;' and he may then dismiss
the fear caused by the imagined snake, and stop running - but all the while -
the presence and subsequent absence of his erroneous notion, natvahibuddhikale
tadapagamakaale cha - (as to the rope being a snake) make no difference whatever
in the rope itself.


Now we take up another objection that Shankara has the interlocutor bring up -
"You say Brahman is Eternal and Changeless. No transformation is possible. We
accept that. But you are saying Brahman us the Cause of the world. And this
world is by it's very nature ever-changing. In fact change is the very nature of
the world and hence alone it's associated multivariate dimensions of name and
form. It is like saying from a block of white clear ice streams of water which
are red green and yellow emerge. Even if we allow you this incredulous
hypothesis for the sake of argument, is it not reasonable Sir that when these
waters resorb back into Ice that they "stain" that ice with their respective
colors?"


Shankara provides the answer why.


BSB 2.1.9
The objection that the effect when being reabsorbed into its cause would
inquinate the latter with its qualities does not damage our position 'because
there are parallel instances,' i. e. because there are instances of effects not
inquinating with their qualities the causes into which they are reabsorbed.
Things, for instance, made of clay, such as pots, which in their state of
separate existence are of various descriptions, do not, when they are reabsorbed
into their original matter (i.e. clay), impart to the latter their individual
qualities; nor do golden ornaments impart their individual qualities to their
elementary material, i. e. gold, into which they may finally be reabsorbed.


Shankara is here taking the Upanisadic examples of clay and pot and gold and
ornaments to explain that when mithya resolves into satyam there is no physical
resolution - the mithya aspects are ever in name and form only, and thus when a
necklace resolves into its original gold there is no "necklaceness" that ends up
contaminating the substratum gold. Further =


As the magician mayavi is not at any time affected trshvapi kaleshu na
samsprshyate by the magical illusion produced by himself svayam prasaritaya
mayaya, because it is unreal avastutvat, so the highest Self evam Paramatmapi is
not affected by the world-illusion
Samsaramayaya... For that the highest Self Paramatmano appears in those three
states avasthatraya is a mere illusion atmana avabhasanam, not more substantial
than the snake for which the rope is mistaken in the twilight. With reference to
this point teachers knowing the true tradition of the Vedânta have made the
following declaration, 'When the individual soul which is held in the bonds of
slumber by the beginningless Maya awakes, then it knows the eternal, sleepless,
dreamless non-duality' (Gaudap. Ka. I, 16). Thus we have shown that--on our
doctrine--there is no danger of the cause being affected at the time of
reabsorption by the qualities of the effect, such as grossness and the like."


Shankara thus shows that it is only because of the deep slumber induced by
Ishwara's Maya shakti that the One Nondual Atman appears to be a jiva subject to
three states.


Not satisfied the purvapakshin continues - how then again, would the verisame
diversity reemerge - in other words, how do you postulate such diverse streams
of multicolored water will reemerge with the unbroken continuity of color and
form from what has now resumed its amorphous homogeneity.


Answers Shankara:
--With regard to the second objection, viz. that if we assume all distinctions
to pass (at the time of reabsorption) into the state of non-distinction there
would be no special reason for the origin of a new world affected with
distinctions, we likewise refer to the supporting illustration -
drshantabhavadeva. As in deep sleep and samadhi - sushupti samadhyadavapi -
though in these states also there is a natural eradicastion of differences
svabhavikyamavibhagapraptau; nevertheless, owing to the persistence of unreal
ignorance mithyajnanasyaanapoditattvat poorvavatpunah prabodhe vibhago bhavati,
differences re-establish themselves upon waking up, similarly also it can happen
here. Compare the scriptural passage, 'All these creatures when they have become
merged in the True, know not that they are merged in the True. Whatever these
creatures are here, whether a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge,
or a gnat, or a mosquito, that they become again' (Ch. Up. VI, 9, 2; 3)


For just as during the subsistence of the world the phenomenon of multifarious
distinct existence vibhagavyavahara, based on unreal ignorance
mithyajnanapratibaddhau, proceeds unimpeded like the vision of a dream
svapnavadavyahatah, although there is only one Supreme Self devoid of all
distinction avibhagepi Paramatmani; so, we conclude, there remains, even after
reabsorption, a power of diversification vibhagashakti founded on unreal
nescience mithyajnanapratibaddhaiva.--Herewith the objection that--according to
our doctrine--even the finally released souls would be born again is already
disposed of. For in their case unreal nescience stands eradicated
mithyajnanasyapoditatvat by full illumination samyag jnanena.




Thus we find that Shankara once again asserts here that even after Pralaya when
there is a temporary disoolution of differences, the latent potential or Shakti
for these verisame to reemerge is very much latent. It is only when this seed
potential has been extinguished by samyag Jnana that those jivas obtain release,
and there is no possibility of their obtaining any rebirth. It is important to
note here in this context that were such erroneous knowledge to simply be
absence of knowledge with no specific cause, there could be no particular reason
for the reemergence of jivas - or even of Srshti. It is only because of the
existence during the period of the Cosmic dissolution of the Mayashkti - which
here is termed the latent power of diversification.


We will examine a very crucial passage of this section of the sutrabhashya next
which elaborates on cause and affect.




I am continuing my series on the treatment of avidya/maya by the revered
bhashyakara and we are currently examining the brahmasutra bhashya.
The particular sutra we are going to examine is treated exhaustively by Shankara
- a wide array of advaitic tenets are covered. We will scrutinize a portion of
relevance to this series.


BSB 2.1.14
Purvapakshin:
Since the believers in a changeless Brahman have a predilection for Absolute
Unity, the assertion that the Lord is the cause of the world is contraindicated
Ishwarakaranapratignavirodha, since there will be no distinction of a Ruler and
the ruled.


Here the interlocutor talks about an absurdity he perceives - in postulating a
homogenous Absolute, and the obvious divisions of a jagat with numerous jivas,
and a jagatkaranam Ishwara.


Vedantin:


No since that Omniscience sarvajnatvam is contingent on the manifestation of
name and form, which are creations of Avidya and which constitute the seeds of
the world - avidyatmaka namaroopabeeja. The fundamental tenet which we maintain
(in accordance with such scriptural passages as, 'From that Self originated
space, Taitt. Up. II, 1) is that the creation, sustenance, and reabsorption of
the world jagatjanisthitipralayah proceed from the Lord who is by nature
eternal, pure, intelligent and free, omniscient, omnipotent Lord
nityashuddhabuddhamukta svarupasarvajnaat sarvashaktishwara, and not from a
non-intelligent achetana pradhna or any other principle. That tenet we have
stated in I, 1, 4, and here we do not
teach anything contrary to it.


Purvapakshin:
But how, the question may be asked, can you make this last assertion while all
the while you maintain the absolute unity atyantatmanam ekatvam adviteeyam cha
and non-duality of the Self?


The purvapakshin, [like many who are opposed to Advaita], still insists that
there is an incongruity here - a postulate of Absolute nonduality on one hand
and a proposition of Brahman and this vastu - Avidya - which is the seed of the
diverse manifold Universe. One plus one makes two - no?


Vedantin:
Listen how. Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire phenomenal
existence,sansaraprapancha beejabhute and which are conjured up by Avidya
avidyanamakalpite are, as it were, nondifferent from the omniscient God
sarvajnaishwaraysa, atmabhute iva - and they are non-determinable either as real
or unreal,anirvacchaneeya, and are mentioned in the Shruti and Smrti as the
power called Maya of omniscient Lord sarvajna-ishwarasya mayashakti, or as
Prakrti. But Omniscient God is different from them, tabhyamanya sarvajnaIshwara
as is known from the Upanishadic text - 'That which is Space is the accomplisher
of all forms and names; that within which these forms and names are contained is
Brahman' (Ch. Up. VIII, 14, 1); 'Let me manifest names and forms' (Ch. Up. VI,
3, 2); 'He, the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits
speaking (with those names)' (Taitt. Ar. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one seed
manifold' (Sve. Up. VI, l2).


Evam avidyakrtanamarupaupadhyanurodhiIshwarobhavati Thus the Lord conforms (as
Lord) to the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Avidya; just as
the universal space Vyomeva ghatakaraopadhyanurodhi conforms (as limited space)
to the limiting adjuncts in the shape of jars, pots, etc. He (the Lord) stands
within the realm of the phenomenal vyavaharavishaye in the relation of a ruler
to the so-called jivAs or cognitional Selfs - vijnanatmanah, which indeed are
one with his own Self svatmabhutaneva--just as the portions of ether enclosed in
jars and the like are one with the universal ether- but are limited by the
assemblage of bodies and senses produced from name and form - namarupakrta
karyakaranasanghatanurodhino - and that are conjured up by Avidya
avidyapratyupasita. Hence the Lord's "Lord"ship, Ishwarasya Ishwaratvam, his
Omniscience, sarvajnatvam his Omnipotence, sarvashaktitvam - are all contingent
on the limiting adjuncts conjured up
by AvidyA avidyatmakopadhiparichhidapekshaeva; while in reality na paramarthato
none of these qualities belong to the Self shining in its own nature, by right
knowledge, vidyaya, after the removal of all limiting adjuncts. Thus Scripture
also says, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing
else, that is the Infinite' (Kh. Up. VII, 24, 1); 'But when the Self only has
become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13.)


Thus we see here the revered Bhagavatpada explain in clearcut terms the two
levels of Reality and their respective ontology. It is also striking to note
that while in my previous post the Acharya had made poignant use of
pratibimbavada, in talking about the Sun and its many reflections, in here, He
is making use of avacchedavada in using the analogy of Universal Space and Pot
Space in explaining the two levels of Reality - paramarthika and vyavaharika. As
is seen by the perspective He thus provides, these two represent different
aspects of one and the same understanding. At the paramarthika level there is
but One NonDual Lord. It is only on account of a Shakti, that the vyavaharika
phenomenal is rendered possible. This Maya Shakti is nothing other than avidyA,
the germinal seed, also called Prakrti. This Maya can be neither characterized
as real nor unreal. This Maya non-different from Brahman, in that it is Its
intrinsic Power, but at the same time
Brahman is other than this, as the NonDual Truth - Thus alone do we understand
the true import of both immanence and transcendence.


I will continue to examine more illuminating excerpts in the next.
Pranams.
The series on avidya and maya as seen in the Shankarabhashyas now pauses at one
of the most important sections of the entire sutrabhashya where - in Shankara
very systematically expunds on the doctrine of satkaryavada and in so doing
demolishes those doctrines that stand opposed - using a breathtaking sequence of
logical considerations. While a detailed examination of this section 2.18,19,
etc is beyond the scope of the series it may be helpful to examine a small
section that has implications for our understanding of Brahman/Maya.




2.1.17
But, an objection will be raised, in some places Scripture speaks of the
effect before its production as that which is not; so, for instance, 'In the
beginning there was only Nonexistece' (Ch. Up. III, 19, 1); and 'Non-existent
indeed this was in the beginning' (Taitt. Up. II, 7). Hence Being (sattvam)
cannot be ascribed to the effect before its production.
******
The purvapakshin has a valid doubt. Let us take a pot. When can we say it
exists? Obviously only after the potter fashions it. Would you pay 10 rupees for
a existent pot that the potter has not yet made? So before the pot is made, all
there is is its prior nonexistence. And not only sound logic, but the
purvapakshin seems to have Shruti on his side too, and he quotes from two Shruti
passages which clearly affirm his position.




******
Replies Shankara:


This we deny. For by the Non-existence of the effect previous to its production
is not meant absolute Non-existence, but only a different quality or state, viz.
the state of name and form being unevolved, which state is different from the
state of name and form being evolved. With reference to the latter state the
effect is called, previous to its production, non-existent although then also it
existed identical with its cause. We conclude this from the complementary
passage, according to the rule that the sense of a passage whose earlier part is
of doubtful meaning is determined by its complementary part. With reference to
the passage. 'In the beginning this was non-existent only,' we remark that what
is there denoted by the word 'Non-existing' is in the complementary passage,
'That became existent'- referred to by the word 'that,' and qualified as
'Existent.'


The word 'was' would, moreover, not apply to the (absolutely) Non-existing,
which cannot be conceived as connected with prior or posterior time. Hence with
reference to the other passage also, 'Non-existing indeed,', the complementary
part, 'That made itself its Self,' shows, by the qualification which it
contains, that absolute Non-existence is not meant.


It follows from all this that the designation of 'Non-existence' applied to the
effect before its production has reference to a different state of being merely.
And as those things which are distinguished by name and form are in ordinary
language called 'existent,' the term 'non-existent' is figuratively applied to
them to denote the state in which they were previously to their differentiation.


******
Thus the revered bhashyakara here establishes the eternal fact that from abhava
absolute Nonexistence cannot lead to any effect and hence these passages and
this doubt of the opponent has no validity. Things can be in latent form - the
tree in the seed is latent but the entire gigantic tree is very much present in
seed or potential form alone. What is subsequently seen as tree was always
existent, but from the standpoint of the particular features such as being so
huge and having hundreds of branches and millions of leaves etc we can say that
"tree-ness" was non-existent as it were when this tree existed in seed form.
Thus we can look at the tree and say - "in the seed "this" was nonexistent and
from the seed "this" came into being". The objections to this are of course
stemming from a asatkaryavadin but may as well be stemming from anyone
postulating that a effect not totally unreal can indeed originate from a cause
that is completely nonexistent.
Later in the same sutra Shankara further drives home this verisame analogy -
vide..




***********
And even in those cases where the continued existence of the cause is not
perceived, as, for instance, in the case of seeds of the fig-tree from which
there spring sprouts and trees, the term 'birth' (when applied to the sprout)
only means that the causal substance, viz. the seed, becomes visible by becoming
a sprout through the continual accretion of similar particles of matter; and the
term 'death' only means that, through the secession of those particles, the
cause again passes beyond the sphere of visibility. Nor can it be said that from
such separation by birth and death as described just now it follows that the
non-existing becomes existing, and the existing non-existing; for if that were
so, it would also
follow that the unborn child in the mother's womb and the new-born babe
stretched out on the bed are altogether different beings....
***********


In the mother's womb is a embryo devoid of all differentiations - a homogenous
mass of protoplam - and here in the crib is a full-grown infant, with arms,
legs, a shrill cry, and a beautific smile. Would it not be absurd to say that
this baby in the beginning was nonexistent in the embryo?


Shankara now turns the table and shows the asatkaryavadin the absurdity of his
postulate.


***********
2.1.18
Ordinary experience teaches us that those who wish to produce certain effects,
such as curds, or earthen jars, or golden ornaments, employ for their purpose
certain determined causal substances such as milk, clay, and gold; those who
wish to produce sour milk do not employ clay, nor do those who intend to make
jars employ milk and so on. But, according to that doctrine which teaches that
the effect is non-existent (before its actual production), all this should be
possible. For if before their actual origination all effects are equally
non-existent in any causal substance, why then should curds be produced from
milk only and not from clay also, and jars from clay only and not from milk as
well?
*************




If I have to make a gold ring, it would be impossible for me to use clay. If
however one says from absolute nonexistence some entity can be produced then
anything can be produced from anything - afterall a claypot is nonexistent
before it is fashioned at the wheel - so instead of clay, a claypot may as well
arise from milk.


But wait a minute - cautions this opponent - you are stretching things too far.
Of course the pot is nonexistent before it is made. But it is only gold that has
the capacity of being made into a ring. Milk does not have this property of
being made into a ring. So while we do admit that certain things only can
produce certain effects we still very much postulate that the ring prior to its
origin at the hands of a jeweller does not exist.
***********




Purvapakshin: There is indeed an equal non-existence of any effect in any cause,
but that at the same time each causal substance has a certain capacity reaching
beyond itself (atisaya) for some particular effect only and not for other
effects; that, for instance, milk only, and not clay, has a certain capacity for
curds; and clay only, and not milk, an analogous capacity for jars.
***********


Shankara now shows why this is untenable.




**********
What, we ask in return, do you understand by that potency 'atisaya?' If you
understand by it the antecedent condition of the effect (before its actual
origination), you abandon your doctrine that the effect does not exist in the
cause (asatkaryavadahanih), and prove our doctrine according to which it does so
exist(satkaryavadasiddhih). Again, when potency shakti is assumed in the cause
to determine the effect, that potency cannot influence the effect by being
different (from both the cause and effect) or nonexistent, since (either way)
nonexistence and difference will pertain to that potency as much to the
effect.Hence it follows that that power or potency is identical with, is the
very essence of the cause, and that the effect is identical with, is involved in
the very core of that potency.


*********


Shankara asks the opponent to clarify what is meant by this potential - if clay
has this unique potential to create a pot and gold the unique potential to
create a ring....what is this potential? If you say it is the pot-ability of
clay is what i mean then you abandon your own doctrine - becuase what is this
"pot-ability" or "pot-ency" but a seed form of the pot? On the other hand, if
you say it is a separate Power, then this power cannot be "nonexistent" - not
only that if it is existent, it cannot be other than either the cause or the
effect, otherwise how does it have the particular ability for the particularized
effect from the specifi cause? Looking at this in a different way, if the
"pot"-ency in clay be different from both the clay and the pot, or if such
"pot"ency be non-existent, it may produce anything - perhaps a soccer-ball -
rather than a "pot" alone - for these 2 features - of being different from both
cause and effect and being
noneixtstent are equally valid to the pot as to the soccer-ball. He further
reemphasizes this as he summarizes his lengthy commentary on this sutra.
**********


.....And if (in order to preclude this erroneous conclusion) the opponent should
say that the effect is (not something
different from the cause, but) a certain relative potency (atisaya) of the
inherent cause; he thereby would simply concede our doctrine, according to which
the effect exists in the cause already.


**********
Furthermore -
Nonexistence - abhava has no name and form (is completely unreal) - and hence it
is illogical to indicate any limit for it by saying "nonexistence before its
creation"....About the son of a barren woman it is not asserted "The son of a
barren woman became a king before the enthronement of Purnavarman" whereby he
can be allotted to a certain period of time in the sense that he became, is
becoming , or will become a king.


***********


With this background now we can understand the relationship of Brahman and the
Creation. The Creation is in essence Brahman. It is nonseparate from Brahman.
This Creation did not spring from nonexistence, or from a void, nor from any
kind of "absence". The Creation is not totally unreal as its essence is
Existence alone. The potency or Shakti, for the Creation, is none other than
Maya or Avidya, and this Maya in essence is the very core, the power of Brahman
alone. From this seed of Avidya springs forth the manifest Creation - this
variegated Universe - which then resolves back unto the verisame Unmanifest seed
form in a cycle of beginningless eternity.


2.1.21
Purvapakshin
....(Since Shruti)...shows that the jiva is not different from Brahman.
******
Yes - this is the Purvapakshin talking! He is arguing that let us consider the
jivA to be identical with Brahman. Why does he adopt this stance? He wants to
then turn the tables on the Vedantin by showing that ....
*******
Therefore the creative power of Brahman belongs to the jiva also, and the
latter, being thus an independent agent, might be expected to produce only what
is beneficial to itself, and not things of a contrary nature, such as birth,
death, old age, disease, and whatever may be the other meshes of the net of
suffering. For we know that no free person will build a prison for himself, and
take up his abode in it. Nor would a being, itself absolutely stainless, look on
this altogether unclean body as forming part of its Self. It would, moreover,
free itself, according to its liking, of the consequences of those of its former
actions which result in pain, and would enjoy the consequences of those actions
only which are rewarded by pleasure. Further, it would remember that it had
created this manifold world; for every person who has produced some clearly
appearing effect
remembers that he has been the cause of it. And as the magician easily retracts,
whenever he likes, the magical illusion which he had emitted, so the jiva also
would be able to reabsorb this world into itself. The fact is, however, that the
jiva cannot reabsorb its own body even. As we therefore see that 'what would be
beneficial is not done,' the hypothesis of the world having proceeded from an
intelligent cause is unacceptable.
•••••••
This is a common argument against advaita_ if jiva be Brahman then why is he in
sorrow? And that too all the time? Why is there Evil and Death in this world, if
every jivA everything be nothing but The Lord?
*******
Shankara replies:
That omniscient, omnipotent Brahman, whose essence is eternal pure consciousness
and freedom, is different from the embodied Self, and That alone is the creative
principle of the world.


The faults specified above, such as doing what is not beneficial, and the like,
do not attach to That Brahman; for as eternal freedom is its characteristic
nature, there is nothing either beneficial to be done by it or non-beneficial to
be avoided by it. Nor is there any impediment to its knowledge and power; for It
is Omniscient and Omnipotent.


The jivA, on the other hand, IS of a different nature, and to it the mentioned
faults adhere. But then we do not declare it to be the creator of the world, on
account of 'the declaration of difference.' For scriptural passages (such as,
'Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked,'
Bri. Up. II, 4, 5; 'The Self we must search out, we must try to understand,' Ch.
Up. VIII, 7, 1; 'Then he becomes united with the True,' Ch. Up. VI, 8, 1; 'This
embodied Self mounted by the intelligent Self,' Bri. Up. IV, 3, 35) declare
differences founded on the relations of agent, object, and so on, and thereby
show Brahman to be different from the individual soul.
******
The opponent can scarcely conceal his glee, as here is Sankara Himself declaring
that the jivA is different than Brahman. Anxious to not miss an opportunity to
dismiss tat tvam asi he Immediately interjects thus -
*******
Opponent:
Are there not other passages declaratory of non-difference (for instance,'That
art thou'), How can difference and non-difference both be possible, being
contradictory?
*******
Sankara very patiently reiterates his position
Reply:
The possibility of the co-existence of the two is shown by the parallel instance
of the universal ether and the ether limited by a jar.


Moreover, as soon as, in consequence of the declaration of non-difference
contained in such passages as 'that art thou.' the consciousness of
non-difference arises in us, the transmigratory state of the jiva - jivasya
samsaritvam and the creative quality of Brahman - Brahmansasya Srshtrtvam vanish
at once, the whole phenomenon of plurality, which springs from wrong knowledge -
mithyajnanavijrambhitasya , being sublated by perfect knowledge - samyag jnanena
badhitatvat, and what becomes then of the creation - kuta eva Srshti and the
faults of not doing what is beneficial, and the like? For we have explained more
than once that this entire apparent world, in which good and evil actions are
done, is an illusion, owing to the non-discrimination of limiting adjuncts, viz.
the assemblage of the body and senses, and so on, which are a creation of name
and form - namarupa-krta - which are presented by Avidya -
avidyapratyupasthapita. In reality - Paramarthatah - it does not exist. This is
analogous to the mistaken notion - abhimana -we entertain as to the dying, being
born, being hurt, of ourselves. And with regard to the state in which the
appearance of plurality is not yet sublated, it follows from passages
declaratory of such difference (as, for instance, 'He is to be sought for, He is
to be enquired into" Ch 8.7.1) That Brahman is superior to the individual soul;
whereby the possibility of faults adhering to it is excluded.
*******


The difference between the jiva and Brahman is purely based on the upadhis or
limiting adjuncts. The jivas jivatvam, his smallness, etc and Ishwara's
Ishwaratvam His Omniscience etc are all on the basis of only upadhis - in
essence they are as non-different as is Universal Space and Space enclosed in a
pot.


The jiva thus is a helpless victim, that is prone to, and is made to suffer
through, the entire samsaric sequence of evils such as birth disease decay death
etc etc. Why? Because of his error - his erroneous notion of separation of
individuality or ahankara. And what is the cause for this jiva - in essence,
pure, unsullied, consciousness, everfree, to harbor such a pitiful notion of
insignificance and bondage - it is nothing but a Power - of AvidyA or Maya. Thus
alone is mAyA the creative principle of this variegated Universe.

Avidya and Maya

I would like to write an essay on the topic of Avidya and Maya - primarily by examining some of Acharya Shankara's writings about Avyakta Maya Avidya etc in an attempt to examine the
Acharya's views - primarily because these relevant passages are of tremendous value to me, and perhaps to other seekers as aids in mananam.


First let us examine some passages from the Mundaka bhashya.
In the very introduction the Acharya in explaining the term Upanishad says "..or
so it is called so, since it completely weakens ot destroys avasaadayati the
ignorance." One can see that the Acharya here is talking about weakening and
gradually destroying a entity or seed ignorance - surely to "weaken" an absence
would make little sense.


Furthermore while glossing on "tapasa cheeyate.." the Acharya while describing
that there is a "fixed Order of creation i.e. that the Universe does so in the
this order of succession and not simultaneously like a handful of scattered
jujubes"..asserts thus - " From that Unmanifest was born Hiranyagarbha who is
common to all the beings in the Universe that are endued with a part of His
power of knowledge and action, who sprouts from that seed of all beings which is
constituted by ignorance, desire and action, and who identifies Himself with the
Universe."


Later on in the same Upanishad, Shankara talks very explicitly about this
Unmanifest - 2.1.2


The text now proceed to speak of the Imperishable that is higher than the other
imperishable which is called the Unmanifest....and the nature of this Maya is
inferred from the fact of its being the limiting adjunct of Brahman that appears
to be the seed of name and form. And that other imperishable called the
Unmanifest that is inferred as the limiting adjunct of that Higher Impersihable
is itself higher than all the modifications, because by implication it is the
seed of all the effects and accessories.


The Acharya describes vividly the condition of ignorance in 3.1.7 - Where is
that Brahman perceived? In the cavity, called the intellect; for by the
enlightened It is perceived as hidden there; and yet, even though existing
there, It is not perceived by the ignorant because of Its being covered by
ignorance. Again- from the vyavahara of bondage/ignorance/knowledge/ liberation
- it is unmistakable that what is being alluded to is a root ignorance that is
veiling as it were the Supreme Self and this is in turn responsible for the
samsaric sorrow we experience. The verisame idea is reiterated for emphasis by
the Acharya in 3.2.3 - esah atma - this Self reveals Its own Supreme nature, Its
reality having been enveloped in ignorance.


We shall next examine some relevant verses from another of the Acharya's seminal
works the Upadesha Sahasri.In the previous series we examined the bhashya on the Mundaka Upanishad with a
view to ascertaining how Bhagwan Shankara elucidates the idea of avidya in his
writings.
Now we examine a very important text of the Acharya - the Upadesha Sahasri. The
Englis translation of Swami Jagadananda has been used in this essay.


Shankara issues a narrative to set-in place the context to the teaching.
A student approaches the Guru in the prescribed manner and asks "How can I be
liberated of this transmigratory existence? Is this my own nature or is it
Causal?" The teacher says to him "It is not your own nature, but is causal". The
student now poses a direct question - "What is the Cause?" to which the Guru
answers: The cause nimittam is avidya, Knowledge vidya brings it to an end tasya
nivartika. WHen Ignorance the Cause is removed - avidyayam nivrttaayaam tan
nimitta-abhavaat you will be liberated mokshyase janmamaranalakshanat.
Now Shankara has the student pose these questions - What is that Avidya? What is
its seat?
The teachers says - You are the Supreme Self tvam ParamAtmanam but you wrongly
think vipareetam pratipadyase but mistake yourself to be samsari samsariaham
asmi iti - this is avidyA.


Here we see Shankara indicating initially to the student what is avidyA by its
effect - i.e. mutual superimposition of the Atma on the anatma and the anatma on
the atma - itaretara adhyasa. After all this is the very introduction to the
teaching - what the student knows at this stage is duality - ideas of Maya,
anirvachaneeya, etc are still alien to him. So at the very outset the teacher is
explaining to the student in terms he can readily understand that a. he is
limitless. b. he consideres himself to be limited c. this is because of avidya.


Further, Shankara characterizes this as the seed Ignorance that is responsible
for this adhyasa subsequently in the same text:


It is these wrong notions (viz. adhyasa) that are the causes of delusion vimoha
buddher grhaeva karanam. These notions, bereft of their cause grha-pyahetu( viz.
Avidya) come to an absolute end, like fire bererft of fuel.


Here we find the Acharya indicating an unmistakable sequence of cause and
effect. There is a Cause which gives rise to the wrong notions and these wrong
notions alone are the cause of the delusion of duality. When knowledge
extinguishes the root cause it renders the continuation of this wrong notion
impossible.


And hence the Acharya again asserts:
How can one be born again who has known the oneness of the Self and Brahman and
is sure of the non-existence of the seed called Ignorance stated before?


There are multiple instances where-in the Acharya also talks about the
inscrutable power of Maya as the Causal potency behind creation, the Causal seed
that sprouts forth the variegated samsara, and talks about it interchangably
with avidyA.


The Brahman that is immediate and direct, the innermost Self (ya atma
sarvantarah) ...is by virtue of Its inscrutable power the cause of the
manifestation of unmanifested name and form which abide in the Self through its
very presence, but are different from It, which are the SEED of the universe
(jagadbeeja), are describable neither as identical with It nor different from It
(anirvachaneeyayoh) and are cognized by It alone.


Here-in we find the Acharya precisely defining Maya as a.anirvachaneeya and
inscrutable b.the Seed c. Brahman's intrinsic power


Elsewhere we find:
Unperceived in deep sleep but perceived (in waking) by only those who are
ignorant, the entire universe is an outcome of Avidya and therefore unreal.
What is called Deep Sleep? Tamas or Ajnana is the seed of the waking and dream
states. It gets perfectly burnt by the fire of the Self knowledge and it no more
produces effects, like a burnt seed that does not germinate.


Here we find the very same seed that is responsible for the variegated duality
is being termed Avidya. And what is made clear is that self-knowledge alone
burns this seed avidya or root cause, so that it is rendered incapable of
germination.


Again we find the same idea being emphasized further in the Up Sah:


That one seed called Maya is evolved into three states which come one after
another again and again. The Self the substratum of Maya though only one and
immitable appears to be many like reflections of sun in water.


In this particular sentence, the substratum of avidya is unmistakably mentioned
as to be the Self alone. And the analogy of the One sun appearing as different
due to its reflections in water is provided for enabling an easy understanding
of this concept. This point is reiterated for emphasis by the Acharya once
again:


Just as the one SEED called Maya is regarded according to the different states
such as the Undifferentiated, etc so the Self appears to be different in waking
and dream bodies like reflections of the moon in water


Thus we find in numerous instances in his seminal work the Upadesha Sahasri,
that Adi Shankara has provided a working definition of adhyasa, precisely
assigned its Cause, has illustratively elucidated its substratum, nature and
effects, has interchangably used the terms avidya and Maya, and has of course
asserted all along that with self-knowledge to which it is opposed this Seed of
Ignorance can be rendered sterile and incapable of germinating samsara.


We will examine some more of Shankara's writings on avidya in the next.
Now we will take up for
closer scrutiny excerpts from his most important and voluminous work - the
brahmasutra bhashya.


The introductory adhyasa bhashya of course covers the entire gamut of error and
its origin, etc has been dealt with in my series on the initial portion of the
adhyasabhashya - those interested can refer to these on my blog
www.adi-shankara.org. We shall now take up for consideration subsequent portions
of the sutrabhashya.


BSB 1.1


For the complete comprehension of Brahman is the highest end of man, since it
destroys the root of all evil such as Avidya, the seed of the entire Samsâra -
samsarabeejaavidya. Hence the desire of knowing Brahman is to be entertained.


What is pointed out here is the validity of jijnansa - of the desire to know
Brahman - it representing the highest purushartha, why? So that the root cause,
the seed of avidyA from which alone sprouts this variegated samsara is destroyed
in totality.


Now let us examine in parallel another excerpt that occurs a little later.


BSB 1.2.22
The distinctive attributes mentioned here, such as being of a heavenly nature,
and so on, can in no way belong to the individual soul, which erroneously
considers itself to be limited by name and form as presented by Avidya -
avidya-pratyupasthappita and erroneously imputes their attributes to itself
taddharmaan svatmani kalpayatah


Here we find Shankara talking about Avidya asthe cause of adhyasa. The erroneous
attributes being superimposed on itself is adhyasa - why does this happen?
Because of avidya. Without avidya such a error would not be possible.
Furthermore continues Shankara..


Here the term 'Imperishable' Aksharam means that undeveloped avyakrtam entity
which represents the seminal potentiality of names and forms
namaroopa-beeja-Shakti-roopam, contains the subtle aspects of the material
elements bhootasukshmam, abides in the Lord, Ishwara-ashrayam forms His limiting
adjunct, tasyaiva upadhi bhootam


Here the same samarabeeja or seed of samsara is referred to by the term seed of
names and forms - namarupabeeja. And while it was referred to as avidya before
here it is referred to by the term Shakti. The potential power - Parashakti
Herself. And what does this Shakti consist of - the subtle aspects of the
material elements. The abode of this Parashakti is also clearly defined for us -
Parameshwara Himself is both Her abode and it this ParaShakti alone that
represents as it were His upadhi (from the standpoint of the jiva).


Thus we find the terms Avidya and Shakti describing the seed potentiality of
these diverse names and form.


Now we will take up an extraordinarily important adhikarana


BSB 1.3.19


In the latter portion of his lengthy bhashya, Shankara has the purvapakshin
raise a very critical objection - "How, it is asked, can we speak of the true
nature - svam cha rupam - of that which is unchanging and eternal -
kutasthanityasya - and then say that 'it (subsequently) appears in its own true
nature?"


In other words you say Brahman is Eternal and Real - meaning it is
ever-unchanging across all periods of time. Then how can one talk about
regaining its true nature? For furthermore the interlocutor continues - we see
that - "Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and
whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some
other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when
they are cleaned by the application of some corrosive substance; so it may be
said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by
the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at
night when the overpowering (sun) has departed. But it is impossible to speak of
an analogous overpowering of the eternal light of Consciousness atmachaitanya by
whatever agency, since, like Vyoman, it is free from all contact."


Only with another entity that is equally "real" can one entity be covered is the
assertion being made - if we say the gold regained its true glitter then we must
assume that some degree of sediment was obscuring its brilliance and hence one
needs to apply a chemical agent to remove that sediment and restore its lost
lustre anew. Alternative example is given of an overpowering influence - in this
case the lustre of the Sun, that renders the stars whose lustre is less
powerful, invisible until such time as the former recedes. How can one
understand Brahman, the Nondual Eternal entity to suffer from such an
unfortunate obscuration?


Not satisafied, the purvapakshin raises one additional objection here - "and
since, moreover, such an assumption would be contradicted by what we actually
observe. For the act of seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising constitute the
character of every jiva sarvehi jivah, and that character is observed to exist
in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet
risen beyond the body."


In other word right now you see, I write, someone talks another one hears and
hence alone we observe individuals to possess sentiency - by these very acts
which in fact are seen to constitute the very characteristic of a sentient
human. If we find someone changeless and without speech, hearing, etc we
conclude the individual soul is no more! And here you claim that the individual
soul is in fact Changeless and Eternal when what we observe is the exact
opposite.


He therefore asks (of the jiva, upon self-realization) : Wherein consists that
rising from the body? Wherein consists that appearing in its own form?


To this Shankara explains the siddhanta -- Before the rise of discriminative
knowledge pragvivekavijananutpatteh the nature of the jiva, which is pure light
jyoti svarupah, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts
upadhis consisting of body, senses, mind, sense-objects and feelings, and
appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly--to quote
an analogous case from ordinary experience--the true nature of a pure crystal,
i.e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative
knowledge, non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or
blue colour; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition
discriminative knowledge pramanajanitavivekagrahanaat has arisen, it is said to
have now accomplished its true nature, i.e. transparency and whiteness, although
in reality it was exactly so even earlier.... Therefor the individual soul
continuing in the state of its unmanifest nature
owing to the absence of discriminatory knowledge is said to have its real nature
manifested when discriminatory knowledge dawns. Thus the discriminative
knowledge vivekavijnanam - effected by Sruti - shrutikrtam on the part of the
individual soul, which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its
limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under discussion) the
soul's rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge -
vivekavijnanaphalam kevalatmasvarupaavagatih - is its accomplishment in its true
nature, i.e. the knowledge that its nature is the pure Self ... Therefore the
individual soul continuing in the state of its unmanifest nature owing to the
absence of discriminatory knowledge vivekavijnana abhavat is said to have its
real nature manifested when discriminatory knowledge dawns. Thus the difference
between the jiva and the Supreme Lord springs from ignorance alone,
mithyajnanakrta eva but not from the
things themselves, na vastukrtah, since both, like Space, are equally free from
attachment."


We had earlier seen that the Acharya had defined avidya as anirvachaneeya -
neither real nor unreal. Here we find Shankara emphasizing the "neither real"
aspect of this avidya. Unlike in the case of sediment obscuring Gold, etc here
there is no real entity that is obscuring Brahman. The jiva due to a lack of
discriminative capacity mistakes the anatma - the assemblage of body/mind -
karyakaranasanghata - as his self, the atma, just as redness etc is superimposed
on a crystal which is in essence transparent. The absence of discriminatory
knowledge that is clearly explained here is thus understood in its appropriate
context. The jiva in reality is ever the Eternal Nondual Atma - his conviction
of the opposite is due to his lacking in discriminative knowledge.


Under what influence does the jiva lack in such discriminative ability - the
Acharya clarifies further...."after the unreal aspect of the jiva as such--which
is a presentation of Nescience, avidyapratyupasthapita, is tainted by many such
defects as agentship, experienceship, desires and aversions, etc and is subject
to evils of various kinds--is eliminated, the opposite aspect, viz the reality
that is the Supreme Lord, possessed of the characteristics of freedom from sin
and so on, becomes revealed just as the rope etc are revealed after eliminating
the snake etc


Again note the very same term - avidyapratyupasthapita - conjured up by avidya -
in other words under the spell of avidya - occuring repeatedly in these
instances. Needless to say an absence of anything including knowledge can
conjure nothing.


Adi Shankara now very poignantly sums up the entire teaching and subject matter
of the whole Brahmasutra in one single line!


"The theme of this sârîraka-sâstra is thus : There is only one Supreme Lord -
Eka eva Parameshwara - Eternal Unchanging - kutasthanityo - Absolute
Consciousness - vijnanadhatur - and Who, like a magician - mayavivat - appears
multifariously - anekadga vibhavyate - by means of Maya mayaya otherwise known
as Avidya - avidyaya. Besides this there is no other Consciousness as such.


This one sentence is a direct clincher as it were for many points.


That Brahman alone is the substratum for Maya - and it is none other than the
Parabrahman's intrinsic innate Shakti - and that it alone is Avidya. Such an
avidya then cannot be an absence - Brahman with the "absence of knowledge"
cannot "like a magician" conjure up a multi-variegated appearance. From the
standpoint of Brahman there is naught else - there can be no talk of anything.
From the standpoint of the jiva who talks about avidya it is very much a Supreme
Power - Maya Shakti. It is in this instance that we find the Acharya clearly
using the very terms AVIDYA and MAYA in one and the same contextual conformity.


One would do well to read this sentence in parallel with Shakti-roopam Ishwara
ashrayam quoted earlier to arrive at this understanding. That Maya Avidya Shakti
Parashakti in essence refer to one and only one entity.


Truly has it been said of this Maya Shakti


Sukhachidhakhanda vibodhamadvitheeyam, Viyadanilaadi vinirmatau niyojya,
Bhramayati bhavasaagare nithantham, Tvagathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA.


Maya ,which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible, makes the Self, which is
of the nature of bliss and consciousness which is impartite and non-dual, whirl
round very much in the ocean of samsara by associating it with the created
elements - space, air, etc.




We will examine some more sections from the sutrabhashya in more detail in the
next in this series.We examined a few excerpts of the Shankara sutrabhashya pertaining to the subject matter of avidya/maya/avyakta/shakti from the first chapter of the Vedantasutra. We now continue to examine a couple of more very important ones.


1.3.30
This world when being dissolved (in a mahapralaya) is dissolved to that extent only that the Shakti (causal potentiality) of the world remains Shaktyavasheshameva - and (when it is produced again) it is produced from the root of that Shakti - shakti moolam eva cha prabhavati ; otherwise we should have to admit an effect without a cause itaratha aakasmikatva prasangatvat.


Here we find Shankara defining for us Shakti as that Primordia Cause unto which this entire manifest Srshti dissolves unto and from which alone spurts forth another cycle of this manifold Nature. The term the Acharya uses in this context is mula Shakti. Compare this with another instance elsewhere in the sutrabhashya where-in is described our "everyday" pralaya - aka sushupti. Compare how similar this is with what the revered Bhashyakara writes while glossing over a different sutra
2.3.30
-- So the contact of the soul with the buddhi exists potentially merely during deep sleep and pralaya, and again becomes manifest at the time of waking and the time of creation, because nothing can be assumed to spring up unless from something else na hi aakasmiki kasyachid utpattih sambhavati atiprasangat; otherwise we should have to suppose that effects spring up without causes. That the rising from deep sleep is due to the existence of seed avidya - avidyatmakabeeja sadbhavakaaritam


We cannot help notice that the Acharya uses almost identical language in both these instances citing the absurdity of a cause ex nihilo. What is also relevant here is the terminology used to establish that Causal Potency from which both the individual or the Creation emerge are mula Shakti and beeja avidya. Thus again we find interchagngable use of the terms mula avidya/beeja Shakti to represent that Supreme Avyakta. A more thorough treatment for this Avyakta is going to be handed to us by the Acharya very soon - which we will examine now.


1.4.3
Purvapakshin "In order to prove the possibility of the body being called undeveloped - avyakta - you admit that this world - jagadidam - in its antecedent seminal condition - namaroopabeejatmakam - before either names or forms are evolved - abhivyaktam - can be called undeveloped avyakta, you virtually concede the doctrine that the pradhana is the cause -pradhanakarana -of the world. For we (Sankhyas) understand by the term pradhana nothing but that primordial condition of the world."


Here the Sankhya wants to show that his Pradhana and Advaita's Avyakta is one and the same thing. THey both talk about a antecedent seed potentiality to all of Creation. How then do you say anything different from what I say - asks the Sankhya. To this Shankara clarifies..


"Things lie differently, we rejoin. If we admitted some antecedent state - pragavastham - of the world - jagatah - as the independent - svatantra karanatve - cause of the world, we should indeed implicitly, admit the pradhana doctrine. What we admit is, however, only a primal state dependent - aadheena - on the Supreme Lord - Parameshwara, not an independent state - na svatantra."




Here in we find Adi Shankara clearly delineating for us the two Orders of Reality. One is the independent Real - svantantra - paramarthika Satyam - Narayana as ParaBrahman. The other is the dependent Reality or mithya which is vyavaharika satyam, and the latter of course borrows its satta from or has its abode on the former. Furthermore


"Such a causal state must necessarily be admitted - aavashyaupagnatavya -, since it is according to sense and reason arthavati hi sa. For without it taya vina the Supreme Lord Parameshwarasya could not be conceived as creator - srshtratvam sidhyati, as he could not become active pravrttiyaanupapatte if he were destitute of the potentiality of action Shakti-rahitasya. The existence of such a causal potentiality beejashakti renders it moreover possible that the released souls muktanam should not enter on new courses of existence, as it is destroyed by perfect knowledge vidyaya."


Shankara clarifies here that nirguna Brahman cannot be conceived as a Creator - a intelligent Creation that we clearly perceive has to have a Supreme Power that renders this possible - and that is none other than Ma ParaShakti herself. And it is crucial here to see that the presence of such a Shakti alone would ensure that those souls who acquire the Supreme knowledge that allows them to trascend Her domain get Total Liberation by attaining to their True Nature Vishnor paramam padam. Shankara continues -


"For that causal potentiality is of the nature of Avidya - avidyatmika hi sa beejashakti; it is rightly denoted by the term 'undeveloped; avyakta shabda nirdeshya' it has the Supreme Lord for its substratum Parameshwara ashraya; it is of the nature of an illusion Maya - mayi; it is a universal sleep Mahasushupti in which are lying the transmigrating souls sansarino jeeva destitute for the time of the consciousness of their individual character svarupapratibodha rahita.  1 This undeveloped principle is sometimes denoted by the term Akasha - so, for instance, in the passage, 'In that Imperishable then, O Gargi, the ether is woven like warp and woof' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 11). Sometimes, again, it is denoted by the term Akshara, the Imperishable; so, for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2), 'Higher, than the high Imperishable.' Sometimes it is spoken of as Maya - mayeti suchitam - so, for instance (Sve. Up. IV, 10),
'Know then Prakriti is Maya, and the Supreme Lord is the Master of Maya' For Maya is properly called undeveloped - Avyakta hi sa Maya - since it cannot be defined either as that which is or that which is not tattvanyatvanirupanamya-ashakyatvat. The statement of the Katha Up that 'the Avyakta is beyond the Mahat' is based on the fact of the Mahat originating from the Avyakta, if the Mahat be the intellect of Hiranyagarbha. If, on the other hand, we understand by the Mahat the individual soul, the statement is founded on the fact of the existence of the individual soul depending on the Undeveloped avyaktaadheenatva jeevabhavasya, i.e. Avidya. Avidya hi avyaktam. And it is because of the possession of ignorance by the individual that all kinds of emprical behavior continue forever jivasya sarvah sanvyavahara.


How painstakingly does the Acharya apply the same coat of hue in brush after brush! Here-in we find such a vivid all-encompassing presentation from the benevolence of our beloved Acharya.


That Primordial Power is Beeja Shakti.
That beeja Shakti is Avidya.
This avidya, this Shakti is termed Avyakta.
This Avyakta is alone Maya.
This Maya is also called Akshara, the Imperishable.
Maya is also called Prakrti.
Avyakta is Avidya alone


And this Shakti/Maya/Avidya/Prakrti/Avyakta can neither be characterized as Real nor Unreal, and it has for its substratum the Supreme Lord Parabrahman. The same idea is reiterated in 1.4.9.


One is reminded of the sublime words of the Soundarya Lahiri in worship of this ParaShakti -


Jagat suthe dhata harir avati rudrah kshapayate
Tiraskurvan etat svam api vapurisastirayati;
Sada-purvah sarvam tad idamanugrhnati cha Shiva-
Stavajnam aalambya kshana-chalitayor bhru-latikayoh.


Brahma creates the world, Vishnu sustains it, Shiva destroys it,
Ishwara makes them disappear, And also disappears Himself!
And Sadashiva blesses them all, By Your Order given to Him,
By a momentary move of your eyebrows!


In the next in thise series we shall examine some excerpts from the subsequent chapters of the Brahmasutra as well that will allow us to dwell on the subject some more.