praNAms
Hare Krishna
This is just to show there will always be two sides of the same story 😊 I had written about the difference between mAyA and avidyA in either advaitain or Advaita-L list but could not trace that mail. Anyway, here is Sri SSS & others perspective on this issue.
First Sri SSS in one of his works says following :
//quote//
First of all, we should dismiss the idea of the Post-shankaras who have stumbled into the mistake of identifying mAyA with avidyA misled by the collocation of thos two words in stray passages of shankara bhAshya, such as the following : eka eva parameshwaraH kUtasthanityO vijnAnadhAtuH avidyayA mAyayA mAyAvivat anekadhA vibhAvyate, nAnyO vijnAnadhAturasti (su.bh.-1-3-19).
This passage simply means that there is only one principle essentially of the nature of changeless consciousness, and that is brahman or the supreme lord, and that he is regarded to be many through avidyA, just as a magician on account of mAyA is looked upon to be many, while there is really no sentient entity other than brahman or the lord. It has nothing to do with the identity of difference of the vedAntic concepts of avidyA and mAyA.
// unquote//
And Sri SSS here further clarifies the term shakti which found the place in shruti and bhAshya which has been wrongly interpreted by some as mAyA is a power exercised by God to ‘delude’ souls (jeeva-s). To clarify the bhAshyakAra’s stand on this and to distinguish the concept of mAyA from avidyA he again extensively quotes from the sUtra bhAshya (1-4-3) (original Sanskrit and English translation of the same) and at the end he gives the purport shakti is synonymous with prakruti the causal potentiality of the world and is called mAyA. The jeeva-s in that state are enveloped in ignorance of their true nature means their unawareness of perfect identity with brahman. And then he takes the word avidyAtmaka which has been linked with mAyA floated the theory that mAyA or jagat beeja shakti is avidyAtmaka (of the nature of avidyA or avidyA mAtra) and clarifies this expression may be wrongly understood by some careless readers to have a meaning identical with avidyA. He then quotes the Su.bh. 2-1-14 where it has been said mAyA is avidyAkalpita ( Sri SSS worded it as : mAyA described as the figment of avidyA and identified with prakruti the original state of the world before creation. It is called mAyA (illusory appearance) and its variants like avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta and avidyAtmaka. All of which mean the objective appearance due to avidyA. mAyA according to shankara is the illusory causal seed of the world due to avidyA (adhyAsa or mutual superimposition of Atman and anatman due to want of viveka. It can be noted here as per Sri SSS, avidyA in shankara bhAshya mainly means adhyAsa only as this adhyAsa is called avidyA by shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya. Elsewhere Sri SSS further substantiate his stand on the difference between avidyA and mAyA by saying avidyA (adhyAsa) is subjective and it is natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the AtmAnAtman each other. And the mAyA is the name given to prakruti or name and form in seed form which gives rise to all the multifarious nature of rAma rUpa.
So, atleast as per Sri SSS, who has studied PTB in traditional environment for more than six decades, who has also studied the post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s works in depth and compared with mUlabhAshya and highlighted the drastic deviations taken by vyAkhyAnakAra-s again based on mUla bhAshya and who has insisted us to stick to mUlAbhAshya to know the shuddha shankara vedAnta prakriya as it is self sufficient to defuse all the doubts, has categorically clarified that as per shankara bhAshya : avidyA is NOT mAyA it is ONLY superficial reading of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s.
And now, we can find the shankara’s statements in bhAshya-s with regard to mAyA like mAyA is brahmAdheena, mAyA is under complete control of Ishwara, mAya is shakti through which Ishwara does the creation, mAyA is shakti and Ishwara is shakta and there is absolutely no difference between shankti and shakta, mAyA is anirvachaneeya we cannot categorically say whether it is ‘tattva’ or ‘atatva’. And with regard to avidyA shankara says it is in the form of agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa, saMshaya (vide geeta bhAshya). Now the question is what exactly does this ignorance mean or stand for?? Since it is the ignorance concerning our own real nature it cannot be a function of mind which has the jnAnAbhAva, adhyAsa and saMshaya. OTOH the Atman is as we have already know by shruti pramANa is mere witnessing consciousness kevalO nirguNascha and there is nothing of which it is not the witness (sarvataH sAkshibhUtaM) so it can never be the vishaya (object) for the buddhi (intellect) and he is aprameya and svayaM siddha. But to know this we have to get rid of upAdhi buddhi but to do so we have no other instrument (karaNa) through which we can talk of ourselves as ignorant of or knowing anything. So it is antaHkaraNa in which we have ignorance and in which jnana also has to take place. And it is because of this reason shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya and in other places said avidyA is karaNa dOsha it does not have anything to do with brahman or jeevAtma since in brahman is there no duality whatsoever and the jeevaatma objectifying this ignorance as vishaya through his intellect. From this it is quite evident avidyA is karaNa dOsha and mAya is the shakti of Ishwara and through this shakti Ishwara does the creation. In this scenario mAyA is Ishwaraananya and avidyA is conditioned mind’s (antaHkaraNa dOsha) problem for which mAyAkArya is the Ashraya because of this dOsha ajnAni sees the asarvatvaM and abrahmatvaM in srushti for which brahman itself upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa. With this perspective we now have a look at these two concepts i.e. avidyA and mAyA and how it cannot be same and how it is insensible to think they are one and the same.
This mail already getting very lengthy I would like to stop it here. Those who are impartial in bhAshya studies and those who are not prejudiced and those who are not blindly & excessively obsessed with socalled traditional teaching would understand the malicious repercussions of equating mAyA with avidyA in the shankara bhAshya.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar
Source material from Sri SSS’s works :
Bhaskar YR
|
praNAms
Hare Krishna
This is not a reply to any mails/ interpretations/vyAkhyAna that is torturously trying to equate avidyA with mAya. That is of no use we both (traditional jnAni-s and untraditional ajnAni-s) have already realized. This is just my observation in continuation to my previous mail. First and foremost thing that we have to keep in mind before approaching shAstra :
(a) it is jeeva who is having avidyA (jnAnAbhAva)
(b) it is jeeva who is having adhyAsa (vipareeta grahaNa)
(c) it is jeeva who is having parichinna drushti
(d) it is jeeva who is doing the mixing of satyAnruta
(e) it is jeeva’s mind (karaNa) which is having this natural tendency
(f) it is that jeeva with pUrva saMskAra getting the exposure to shAstra
(g) it is jeeva who is doing the brahma (svarUpa) jignAsa
(h) it is the jeeva that is striving to get jnana to eradicate this ajnAna.
So, shAstra too is there to teach this jnana (or eradicate the ajnAna) keeping the tiny jeeva in focus. Brahman who is nitya shuddha buddha mukta, nirvishesha, niravayava, nirvikAri, nirguNa, nishprapancha no where / never ever comes under this scenario and never ever influenced by both vaidika and loukika vyavahAra. Whatever stated in shruti is just to help jeeva to know/realize his svarUpa. Hence taking it granted jeeva’s pramAtrutva, jnAtrutva, shAstra starts to teach us brahma jnana. There are two sentences in adhyAsa bhAshya confirm this : evamevaanAdiranantaH naisargikOdhyAsaH mithApratyayarUpaH kartrutvabhOktrutva pravartakaH sarva lOka pratyakshaH, tametamavidyAkhyaM AtmAnAtmanOritaretarAdhyAsaM puraskrutya sarvE pramANaprameya vyavahArAH loukikA vaidikAshcha pravruttAH. In this big umbrella shAstra says somany things, but it is not to paste anything that is alien to brahman in general and avidyA/mithAbhimAna etc. in particular. So with this backdrop we have to understand shruti statements in which brahma is directly involved. Indra pururUpa eeyate, bahusyAm prajA eeyeti, sOkAmayata etc. not there to paste the avidyA to brahman but it is there to convey the shruti siddhAnta that sarvaM khalvidaM brahma and brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNam for this bahu/jagat. And through his anirvachaneeya shakti he is appearing as many. Does this type of srushti mean parabrahman due to his avidyA given birth to this multifarious jagat!!?? Na!! it is not so. Brahman is not born in the form of the Jagat and become many like a person become a father by giving birth to many of his children. In the example the children are different from the father. But in the shruti siddhAnta the name & forms of the Jagat are not like that. They existed in brahman even previously in an unmanifest state (avyAkruta kAraNa rUpa), became manifest (vyAkruta - kArya rUpa) without losing its sanctity. The socalled kArya were never different from its kAraNa Brahman anywhere at any time. This type of manifestation of the one as many cannot be deemed as transaction in Brahman to paste the avidyA / mithyAbhimAna as the cause. Saying or attributing this type of avidyA / mithyAbhimAna out of context in brahman without knowing the shruti siddhAnta is ‘shuddha avivekatana” (absolute stupidity) declares Sri SSS. These shruti pratipaadita siddhAnta is for YOU, the tiny parichinna jeeva to realize nitya shuddha parabrahman, if you are showing the ‘uddhatatana’ (audacity) to paste your problems to brahman during the sAdhana patha itself ( during the brahma jignAsa) at the best at the end you would end up in realizing avidyAtmaka brahman only not parishuddha brahman and you don’t have to strive for that type of brahman because you are already that avidyAtmaka brahman 😊 he jokingly says. And finally if Ishwara before becoming many (or before creation) have the avidyA beeja in him he is nothing but jeeva because jeeva too is having avidyA and before creation Ishwara/brahman too having the avidyA seed in him. Hence there is no difference between Ishwara and jeeva and it has been said Ishwara does the srushti by making avyAkruta as vyAkruta and if avyAkruta itself is avidyAtmaka Ishwara must have seen a bigger picture of avidyA in the form of avyAkruta and he himself is avidyAtmaka since subsequently bhAshyakAra says avyAkruta is parabrahman. See, these are all apasiddhAnta which is very dangerous to shuddha shankara prakriya. Nobody wants to give any attention to these absurdities all they want to passionately hold the socalled traditional flag high and consoling themselves that they are true representatives of traditional Advaita 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
praNAms
Hare Krishna
This is just to show there will always be two sides of the same story 😊 I had written about the difference between mAyA and avidyA in either advaitain or Advaita-L list but could not trace that mail. Anyway, here is Sri SSS & others perspective on this issue.
First Sri SSS in one of his works says following :
//quote//
First of all, we should dismiss the idea of the Post-shankaras who have stumbled into the mistake of identifying mAyA with avidyA misled by the collocation of thos two words in stray passages of shankara bhAshya, such as the following : eka eva parameshwaraH kUtasthanityO vijnAnadhAtuH avidyayA mAyayA mAyAvivat anekadhA vibhAvyate, nAnyO vijnAnadhAturasti (su.bh.-1-3-19).
He then quotes the Su.bh. 2-1-14 where it has been said mAyA is avidyAkalpita ( Sri SSS worded it as : mAyA described as the figment of avidyA and identified with prakruti the original state of the world before creation.
It is called mAyA (illusory appearance) and its variants like avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta and avidyAtmaka. All of which mean the objective appearance due to avidyA. mAyA according to shankara is the illusory causal seed of the world due to avidyA (adhyAsa or mutual superimposition of Atman and anatman due to want of viveka. It can be noted here as per Sri SSS, avidyA in shankara bhAshya mainly means adhyAsa only as this adhyAsa is called avidyA by shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya.
Elsewhere Sri SSS further substantiate his stand on the difference between avidyA and mAyA by saying avidyA (adhyAsa) is subjective and it is natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the AtmAnAtman each other. And the mAyA is the name given to prakruti or name and form in seed form which gives rise to all the multifarious nature of rAma rUpa.
So, atleast as per Sri SSS, who has studied PTB in traditional environment for more than six decades, who has also studied the post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s works in depth and compared with mUlabhAshya and highlighted the drastic deviations taken by vyAkhyAnakAra-s again based on mUla bhAshya and who has insisted us to stick to mUlAbhAshya to know the shuddha shankara vedAnta prakriya as it is self sufficient to defuse all the doubts, has categorically clarified that as per shankara bhAshya : avidyA is NOT mAyA it is ONLY superficial reading of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s.
And it is because of this reason shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya and in other places said avidyA is karaNa dOsha it does not have anything to do with brahman or jeevAtma
- In the sUtra bhAshya (1-4-3) there is one statement : na hi tayA (mAyA) vinA parameshwarasya srushtatvaM siddhyanti, shakti rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH, without this mAyA shakti there is no motivation for him to do creation. Just replace the mAyA (shakti) here with the word avidyA and see the absurdity.
- In the sUtra bhAshya ( 2-2-7) paramAtmanastu svarUpAshrayaM audAseenyaM mAyAvyapAshryaM cha pravarthakatvaM, though parabraman in his svarUpa nirvishesha, nirvikAra and unconcerned but in association with mAyA he gets the motivation to do action. If avidyA and mAyA both are same brahman is taking the avidyA Ashraya and getting motivated!!! Is this what Advaita vedAnta teaching us ??
- indrO mAyAbhiH pururUpa eeyate, mAyaM tu prakrutiM vidyAm mAyinantu maheshwaraM (shvetaashwatara up.) , daivee hyeshaa guNamayee mama mAyA duratyayA says Lord in geeta, addresses this divine guNamayee mAyA as mine. In all these shruti and smruti references mAyA is Ishwara’s power (shakti) it is vaishNavi mAyA, prakruti, mUla prakruti, avyakta, avyAkruta which lord saying divine, guNamayi and more affectionately addressing it as ‘mine’. If it is avidyA as depicted by later advaitins then avidyA is divine and avidyA has been affectionately addressed by lord as mine and mAyin maheshwara would become avidyAvanta maheshwara by calling mAyA as avidyA…do we really need apasiddhAnta like this ??
- This mAyA is anirvachaneeya as well as said above since brahman is nirupAdhika how can we attribute shakti without any upAdhi hence it is also called anirvachaneeya shakti of parabrahman and at the same time there is no difference between this shakti and who is having this shakti. Shakti shaktimatOH ananyatvaM ( geeta 14.27). If this shakti (mAyA) is ananya to shakta then we have to conclude avidyA is ananya to parabrahman!!?? Anishta siddhAnta to say the least.
- The mAyA is brahmAnanya hence it cannot be an alternative for avidyA. Look at the references of bhAshya where shankara says mAyA is brahmAnanya. In bruhad bhAshya 1.4.7 to answer the pUrvapaxi, who asks : at one place you are saying avyAkruta itself become vyAkruta and at another place you are saying paramAtma himself made the avyAkruta as vyAkruta which one is correct position?? He answers : naisha dOshaH ( no problem with this) because parasyapi AtmanaH avyAkrutajagadaatmatyena vivikshitatvAt, unmanifest jagat (avyAkruta jagat) itself paramAtman himself. If avyAkrutu = mAyA = avidyA then avyAkruta=mAyA=avidyA=parabrahman!! This is what avidyA & mAyA samAnArthakavAdins propagating here??
I have never heard who is the Guru of SSS. He has to take the blame for all the misunderstanding and misinterpretation done by SSS, some of which I think is deliberate.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
If you have not heard anything about the guru of Sri SSS that is your problem and that shows your poor fund of knowledge about him and his works. If you are really interested to know anything about it you can read his auto-biography available in Kannada and translated to English as well. Through who bhAshya shanti has taken place, who are all his vidyA guru-s etc. with date and place. You should not stoop to such low level to make these blind claims just because you have aversion towards him.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65814C9354625952346B50F1841B9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
--
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I have not read any books of SSS or about SSS.
I have only responded to claims made by his followers like you, on behalf of him. I have never seen any mention of his Gurus' names by any of you in any of the posts
and I see lots of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of traditional teaching in SSS followers ( and I assume it comes from SSS writings and teachings).
So it is natural for me to wonder from whom did SSS learn vedanta and bhashya? I have also seen quotations from SSS writings where he calls traditional Guru-Shishya parampara as blind led by the blind.
So it is natural for me to wonder if he is even qualified to make such assertions about a parampara which has blessed me and thousands of others over the years.
Ø From your style of writing which makes free and blind comments on other’s guru-s it is quite evident what sort of blessings you got from your tradition !!?? Enough said on this.
praNAms Sri Sunil Bhattachrjya prabhuji
Hare Krishna
One thing most of the Sanskrit scholars don't tell is that the Sanskrit used in the Vredas and the Upanishads was Vedic Sanskrit, which is pre-Paninian, and the Vedas and the upanishads prefer Paroksha ukti. The Vedic literature was taught through the gurus and the shishyas had practically no confusion, like the confusion one sees today among the Sanskrit scholars.
Ø I agree prabhuji. avidyA and mAya I don’t think have the same root even in grammatical terms. But I read some where mAyA is paryAya for vidyA as per yAska’s Nighantu. And Sri SSS says somewhere even if we take mAya=jnana it is mithyA jnana since this type of jnana is gained through indriya-s and indriyA-s vishaya jnana is parichinna (limited) it is called mithyA jnana. It is because of the simple fact that we are seeing many in place of one due to upAdhi pratibandha. kArika 3-24 indirya prajnAyAH avidyAmayatvena mAyAtvAbhupagamAt adOshaH, mAyAbhiH indriyaprajnAbhiH avidyArupAbhiH etyarthaH ( another place where one may wrongly think avidyA=mAya 😊 ajAyamAnO bahudaa vijaayate iti shruteH.
"Maya" has been used in the Vedic texts to mean the false reality perceived in the worldly things, due to Avidya.
Similarly, there is confusion in the meaning of "sat" and "Asat"
In his commentary on one verse of the Chandogya upanishad, Adi Shankaracharya used the compound word SatkAranam, which should mean "for manifestation" or "for the sake of manifestation", but you would see different scholars giving different interpretations.
Ø mAyA satkArya vAda is acceptable in AV though it has been refuted as vikalpa from the paramArthika view point. vyAvahArika satyatva cannot be denied unless and until you realize something beyond it says shankara in sU.bhl 2-2-28 : it is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge that have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and not vice versa. It is after the dawn of paramArtha jnana jnAni would realize there exists nothing apart from brahman and there was / is / never will be a thing that can be called as anAtma . It is with this reason shankara says jagat is NOT LIKE snake that is perceived in place of rope.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Here are some more points to be pondered with regard to avidyA is NOT mAya and both are drastically different from its concepts in shankara’s Advaita Vedanta :
Like above, though there is such a huge difference between them, somehow, there creeped in a wrong theory that avidyA and mAya are synonymous. Yes indeed there is an implication that avidyA=mAya ( examples in kArika, IshAvAsya, katha, sUtra where avidyAtmika etc. mentioned) it has to be contextually understood that mAyA is having the jeeva’s ( nAnA jeeva-s) avidyA beeja, it does not mean avidyA itself mAyA. It is just like calling the poisonous rice as poison (wherein poison and rice both are different) or ornaments in a box as ‘ornaments’. Why we have to say like this?? It is because bhAshyakAra elsewhere categorically differentiates the avidyA and mAyA / avyAkruta uses the terms like avidyA saMyukta avyAkruta/mAya, avidyA pratyupasthApita mAya, avidyA kalpita mAya etc. denoting there are two separate entities and used ‘saMyukta’ to conjoin them. But as a result of mistaken notion which identifies the avidyA with mAya makes shankara vedAnta so ambiguous and complicated to the brahma jignAsus. Therefore, their difference has been highlighted in detail on the basis of the shruti, yukti and anubhava and bhAshyakAra-s clarification.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581B2D8299CADAC0FF81D31841B9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Akilesh Ayyar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
But at a deeper level, “that there is ishwara and ishwara shakti” is itself ultimately a statement grounded in duality, and thus in ignorance.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65811E99EDE74362D971401F841A9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
At the deeper level, prior creation cannot be said to have happened. Nor can it be said not to have happened. Indeed, nothing can really be said at all.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Yes, we the mortals with our conditioned minds should not concoct any theories about that deeper level. We have to resort to shruti mAta if at all we wonder what was there then and what is there now. And shruti mAta and bhAshyakAra say what was there then and what is there now and what will be there forever is one and without second. And if at all you are seeing the creation as a time event then for that brahman is the ONLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa. Hence chAndOgya starting the teaching about Atman ( infact, it is the only thing that is worthy to learn) says Atman alone is below, above, behind, front, right, left and concludes Atman is all, All this is Atman alone…(Atmaivedam sarvam iti) Now the question is : if that is the case, if Atman is sarvaM and there exists nothing from it, how come still we see this manifold jagat in which somany jeeva-s?? how is that I you or anybody else in this world firmly believes that each one of us different and limited being with full of kAmAdi dOsha and how come we don’t know we are shuddha Atman?? Upanishad says it is due to avidyA / ajnAna /adhyAsa that you are taking one thing for another. Katha shruti explains this state of ours as : resting in the midst of ignorance but considering ourselves discriminative and wise, go round and round through crooked ways like blind men led by one who is himself blind. So how to get rid of this ignorance?? Again shruti advises us : All this karma and tapas is purusha, the highest immortal brahman alone. Whosoever knows this is hidden in the cave of the heart cuts the not of ignorance (mundaka shruti). While upholding this Upanishad siddhAnta bhAshyakAra in the very second sUtra bhAshya declares : this sarvajna and sarvashakta parabrahman ( the cause) from which proceeds the srushti, sthiti, laya of this jagat the jagat which is differentiated by nAma rUpa, comprehends many jeeva-s (kartru-bhOktru-s) and is the abode of the fruits of actions ( karma phala bhUmi) regulated by marked places, times and causes whose creation is not even conceivable by mind THAT CAUSE IS ATMAN / BRAHMAN. So, instead of postulating the avidyA to brahman before creation and making it brahmAshraya mUlAvidyA which is a positive entity etc. if at all we want to talk about creation let that be from brahman and brahman alone and mAyA as his shakti/upAdhi which is brahmAnanya. If that is not the case the effect/prakruti/avyAkruta itself is avidyAbeeja shakti then shankara-s declaration in su.bha. 2-1-16 : just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the EFFECT, the WORLD, never deviates from existence in all the three periods. And existence again is ONLY ONE, so for this reason also the EFFECT is NONE OTHER THAN the CAUSE. Would give us the impression that the cause brahman is none other than avidyA. Ofcourse there is ultimatum in Advaita as per kArika : no srushti, no mumukshu, no mOksha etc. etc. But when we venture to taking these things are really there then the explanation given by shruti, bhAshyakAra has to be considered without introducing the alien and dangerous concepts like mUlAvidyA, brahmAshrita avidyA, a really existing thing (positive entity) which is beeja shakti and material cause for adhyAsa etc. etc. these are all apasiddhAnta and shruti, yukti and anubhava viruddha.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar YR
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815A0B60DA5DC90A5615FA841D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Akilesh Ayyar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
My point is merely that the concept of maya is inseparably entwined with that of ignorance.
It’s not that therefore ignorance should be regarded as an attribute of Brahman. I’m happy to provisionally differentiate maya as ishwara shakti from avidya as something suffered by the jiva.
But that provisional differentiation, if then followed by the requisite discernment… upon cutting the “knot of ignorance” — will necessarily “destroy" both the concepts of ignorance and maya together. Maya and avidya imply each other, require each other. They are sides of a coin, of an indescribability which when examined turns out not to exist in the way that it seemed.
Ø One very subtle issue here to be contemplated as per lOkAnubhava and shAstra/bhAshya drushti. If both mAya and avidyA two sides of the same coin after the dawn of jnana both have to go/vanish is it not?? But when one gets the paramArtha jnana obviously we have to say the ajnAna got completely annihilated in him but at the same time can we say mAyA prapancha ( nAma rUpAtmaka prapancha) also completely vanish for the jnAni ?? No as per bhAshya/shruti/smruti even for the samyak jnAni his manas, vaak continue to get the pratyaya, if the ajnAni sees the lamb as lamp jnAni too get the same pratyaya in mind. The pravrutti would continue to him even after samyak jnana what does it mean avidyA has gone but mAyA would continue to exist for him. Shankara says this in br.up. 1.4.7 shareeraarambhakasya karmaNO niyataphalatvAt ‘samyakjnAnAprAptAvapi’ avashyaMbhAvinee. But after samyak jnana he would get sama drushti, bhUma drushti, Atmaikatva darshanam or paripUrNa-aparichinna drushti. In that drushti for jnAni : brahmaivedamamrutam purastAt brahma pashchAt brahma dakshiNatashchOttareNa, he is top, bottom brahmaivedaM vishwamidaM varishTam. Sri SSS explains this verse in Kannada : avidyAdrushtiyinda namma munde kaaNisuttiruvadO edellavU brahmave, hindiruvudu brahmave etc. etc. and continue to explain in Kannada : brahmavallavendu naavu ariyuvudellavu haggadalliruva haavinarivinante avidyeindaada vikalpa mAtrave. Gaudapaada kArika explains this in kArika 2-38 : tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu ‘bAhyataH’ tattveebhutastadaaraamastatvAdaprachyutO bhavet. vAmadeva got this realization in his mother’s womb, Sri SSS quotes some western author who taught “ we live move and have our being in HIM” shruti also endorses this by saying brahma dAshA brahma dAsA brahmaiveme kitavAH. Taitireeya up jnAni exclaims in sarvAtma bhAva : ahamannaM ahamannaadaH ahaM shlOkakrut (3.10.8). So for the jnAni after complete eradication of the avidyA mAyA nAma rUpa becomes the tattva / ekatva not bhinna from brahma.
praNAms Sri Akilesh Ayyar prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- Whenever, seldom I see agreement in this list, I tempted to continue the discussion as I feel I am communicating with like minded prabhuji-s. But unfortunately, this would give the impression to some very sincere, bystanders (I hopefully believe that they are not affiliated to any school/prakriya bigotedly) like Sri Putran prabhuji that I am targeting them since they are very easy to handle/tackle when compared to traditional!! I hope you are not going to think on those lines if I continue to share my thoughts with you.
Ø One very subtle issue here to be contemplated as per lOkAnubhava and shAstra/bhAshya drushti. If both mAya and avidyA two sides of the same coin after the dawn of jnana both have to go/vanish is it not?? But when one gets the paramArtha jnana obviously we have to say the ajnAna got completely annihilated in him but at the same time can we say mAyA prapancha ( nAma rUpAtmaka prapancha) also completely vanish for the jnAni ??
No as per bhAshya/shruti/smruti even for the samyak jnAni his manas, vaak continue to get the pratyaya, if the ajnAni sees the lamb as lamp jnAni too get the same pratyaya in mind. The pravrutti would continue to him even after samyak jnana what does it mean avidyA has gone but mAyA would continue to exist for him. Shankara says this in br.up. 1.4.7 shareeraarambhakasya karmaNO niyataphalatvAt ‘samyakjnAnAprAptAvapi’ avashyaMbhAvinee. But after samyak jnana he would get sama drushti, bhUma drushti, Atmaikatva darshanam or paripUrNa-aparichinna drushti. In that drushti for jnAni : brahmaivedamamrutam purastAt brahma pashchAt brahma dakshiNatashchOttareNa, he is top, bottom brahmaivedaM vishwamidaM varishTam. Sri SSS explains this verse in Kannada : avidyAdrushtiyinda namma munde kaaNisuttiruvadO edellavU brahmave, hindiruvudu brahmave etc. etc. and continue to explain in Kannada : brahmavallavendu naavu ariyuvudellavu haggadalliruva haavinarivinante avidyeindaada vikalpa mAtrave. Gaudapaada kArika explains this in kArika 2-38 : tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu ‘bAhyataH’ tattveebhutastadaaraamastatvAdaprachyutO bhavet. vAmadeva got this realization in his mother’s womb, Sri SSS quotes some western author who taught “ we live move and have our being in HIM” shruti also endorses this by saying brahma dAshA brahma dAsA brahmaiveme kitavAH. Taitireeya up jnAni exclaims in sarvAtma bhAva : ahamannaM ahamannaadaH ahaM shlOkakrut (3.10.8). So for the jnAni after complete eradication of the avidyA mAyA nAma rUpa becomes the tattva / ekatva not bhinna from brahma.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E691E05F32903C6EAEC1841D9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.