Maya is NOT Avidya in Advaita Vedanta

[Bhaskar YR]

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. 

 

1. 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. 
2. 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 ?? 
3. 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 ?? 
4. 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.
5. 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?? 

 

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 :

1. Miscoceptions about shankara
2. Shankara’s clarifications of certain vedantic concepts
3. Shankara vedAnta prakriya
4. Shankara siddhAnta
5. Brahma vidyA
6. Shuddha shankara prakriya bhAskara

Bhaskar YR #4A, 5 & 6 2nd Phase Peenya Industrial Estate Bangalore 560058, Karnataka, India Phone: +91808395181 E-mail: bhask...@hitachienergy.com www.hitachienergy.com

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

I shall take up just this one cited by Bhaskar ji:

indrO mAyAbhiH pururUpa eeyate     This occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 

इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति ।   2.5.19

The word maayaa has another meaning: knowledge.

Shankara is commenting there that Parameshwara has, owing to wrong identifications due to Avidya, has become many:

इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः मायाभिः = प्रज्ञाभिः नामरूपभूतकृतमिथ्याभिमानैर्वा न तु परमार्थतः, पुरुरूपः बहुरूपः, ईयते गम्यते…… एकरूप एव प्रज्ञानघनः सन् अविद्याप्रज्ञाभिः । 

Brahman has become many, not really, but only seemingly.  This confirms that the creation is mithya and not real. In fact the usage of the term Paramartha/Paramarthika countless times across the Prasthana traya Bhashya confirms that it is relative to the vyavaharika. It would be illogical to use that word Paramarthika/paramartha unless the implied vyavaharika is meant.

Here again Shankaracharya uses the words mithyabhimaana and Avidya, in the same place, together, to explain the word maya in the Upanishad. Surely everyone will agree that mithyabhimaana and Avidya are associated with jiva alone. But here evidently the context is Brahman becoming many with a view to help the jivas in Samsara to know Brahman and become released. 

In another Bhashya Shankaracharya reiterates the above interpretation:

Karika:

नेह नानेति चाम्नायादिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यपि ।
अजायमानो बहुधा जायते मायया तु सः ॥ २४ ॥   3.24

Bhashya:

 ‘इन्द्रो मायाभिः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९) इत्यभूतार्थप्रतिपादकेन मायाशब्देन व्यपदेशात् । ननु प्रज्ञावचनो मायाशब्दः ; सत्यम् , इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाया अविद्यामयत्वेन मायात्वाभ्युपगमाददोषः । मायाभिः इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभिरविद्यारूपाभिरित्यर्थः । ‘अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते’ (तै. आ. ३ । १३) इति श्रुतेः । तस्मात् जायते मायया तु सः ; तु —शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः माययैवेति । न ह्यजायमानत्वं बहुधाजन्म च एकत्र सम्भवति, अग्नाविव शैत्यमौष्ण्यं च । 

After citing this Upanishad Shankaracharya after giving the same meaning he had given in the Upanishad bhashya, here he raises a question: Does not maya mean 'prajna'? And replies: yes, by the avidya perceptions arising out of sense/motor organs, indriyas, the wrong perceptions, Parameshwara became many.

Here Shankara uses the words Maya along with Avidya multiple times to confirm that Maya and Aditya are one and the same, as he has done in many other places that have already been cited.

Surely  indriya perceptions and avidya can happen only to the Jiva but here the context is Bramhan becoming many.  In fact the Brihadaranyaka Shruti is cited by Gaudapada himself. He says the one without birth, ajaayamaanah, becoming or being born as many, bahudhaa vijaayate, is due to maayaa. Shankara comments: due to avidya.

Thus the concept of avidya being used synonymously with maya by Shankara cannot be set aside. There are too many instances to assert the sameness. 

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

This one, // daivee hyeshaa guNamayee mama mAyA duratyayA says Lord in geeta, addresses this divine guNamayee mAyA as mine.// 

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया । 

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥ १४ ॥ BG 7.14

In the Bhashya  about the  words of the lord Shankaracharya has commented:

ईश्वरस्य विष्णोः स्वभावभूता हि यस्मात् एषा यथोक्ता गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया दुःखेन अत्ययः अतिक्रमणं यस्याः सा दुरत्यया ।

In BGB 12.3 Shankara cites that again:

तथा च अविद्याद्यनेकसंसारबीजम् अन्तर्दोषवत् मायाव्याकृतादिशब्दवाच्यतया ‘मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्’ (श्वे. उ. ४ । १०) ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्यादौ प्रसिद्धं यत् तत् कूटम् , तस्मिन् कूटे स्थितं कूटस्थं तदध्यक्षतया । 

Shankara equates the Shvetavatara passage along with this Gita passage and says that this Maya is the word that indicates Avidya etc.

But in the Mandukya karika bhashya Shankaracharya cites the very same Geeta passage:

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।
मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥ 2.19

यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्युक्तम् ॥ 

to say that this is the deluding power. 

भगवतः मायाशक्तिः, क्षराख्यस्य पुरुषस्य उत्पत्तिबीजम्   Ch.15 end

What Shankara accepts as a Shakti of Bhagavan, he also accepts that very same Shakti as the deluding Avidya.

regards

subbu

[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

 

 

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Subramanian,

Only one or two participants amongst the so many participants

are against what you are trying to hammer into them.

The same subject has been discussed many times earlier also

without any result.

Such being the case is it not futile to argue and discuss about it?

It would be much better if this discussion is put to an end.

On the other hand It will be more fruitful and beneficial to most of the members

 if there are discussions  on vidya and mAyAvI.

With respectful namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

--
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/CAKk0Te2c%3Ds5_3hnPkA9KtDGBVJ5MZMU4AeR3wj9ftPKNB1CmZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

When I read the below email all I can see is a total misunderstanding of what is sat / paramArthA and what is asat / anrta / mithyA. See below

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:36 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

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).

Jai: Not stray passages. Almost wherever mAyA / prkrti is mentioned shankara brings in avidyA and uses words like avidyAlakshanA, avidyAtmikA or just plain 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.

Jai: This can be taken as a stray passage as in the same Su.bh. 2-1-14 bhasyakara says अविद्यात्मकनामरूपबीजव्याकरणापेक्षत्वात्सर्वज्ञत्वस्य ।

 

  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. 

Jai: Shankara refers to avidya as a bija or a kAraNA in numerous places in his bhashya. So it cannot be taken as only vyakta-adhyAsa only. This absurdity leads to anirmoksha-prasanga as already pointed out, as it makes dvaita-perception itself as a problem and not taking dvaita as satyam as the problem. SSS sees a problem where there is none and creates a new problem which has no resolution. Sincere mumukshus are waiting lifelong for dvaita-perception to end!

 

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.

Jai: How did the mind come about? Conveniently talking about natural tendency of the mind without understanding the mind is an upAdhi, which itself is avidyA-upAdhi-kArya. One SSS follower argued with me that mind is not an upAdhi and has no support in bhAshya ( They always say for anything they disagree that it has no support in bhAshya as though they are the only ones who read the bhAshyA.) - Shankara in BG Bh 14.3 - अविद्याकामकर्मोपाधिस्वरूपानुविधायिनं क्षेत्रज्ञं क्षेत्रेण संयोजयामि इत्यर्थः

 

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. 

Jai: 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.

 

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

Jai: Finally has to accept avidyA is KAraNA but how can an abhAva be a kAraNa? Jeevatva is due to avidyA. BhashyakAra in BrSu Bh 1.3.11 किं त्वनुवदत्येवाविद्याकल्पितं लोकप्रसिद्धं जीवभेदम्

I will write a separate post on why avidyA / kAraNa / bIja cannot be abhAva.

 

 

• 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. 

Jai: There is no problem whether avidyA or mAyA is used. mAyA is used only to show that isvara is not under the sway of his own mAyA like a magician is not foooled by his own magic, while the jIva is deluded by avidyA / mAyA.

• 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 ?? 

Jai: Read Br Up Bh 1.4.10 -  ब्रह्मण्यविद्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् , न, ब्रह्मणि विद्याविधानात् । ....  किन्तु नैव अब्रह्म अविद्यकर्ता चेतनो भ्रान्तोऽन्य इष्यते. Since avidyA is mithyA-upAdhi it does not affect brahman in anyway like a pot nAmarUpa / kArya cannot affect the clay substance / kAraNa.

• 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 ?? 

Jai: See above. The same bija / kAraNa is can called as mAyA with reference to Isvara and avidyA with reference to jIva. There is no  apasiddhAnta  here.

• 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.

Jai: All upAdhis are anirvachaneeya  including the mUlAvidyA and are asat from the paramArtha standpoint. avidyA being ananya to brahman is what is conveyed by Ch Up 6th Chap, BG 2.16 and Br Su 2.1.14. As brahma-anyA the upAdhis don't have any existence.

• 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?? 

Jai: Again misunderstanding the status of sat and asat and mAyA with reference to Isvara and avidyA with reference jIva leads to such problems. 

 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

In my previous mail in this thread there is a mistake.

One SSS follower argued with me that mind is not an upAdhi and has no support in bhAshya 

should read as

One SSS follower argued with me that avidyA is not an upAdhi and has no support in bhAshya

Sorry for the typo.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Bhaskar YR]

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. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bhaskarji,

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.

"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.

Your comments are welcome.

My 2 cents

skb

--

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.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

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.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I have not read any books of SSS or about SSS.

 

• If that is the case kindly stop assuming things on your own. 

 

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

 

• You have written lot of things on each and everything in an effort of refuting whatever written in the name of Sri SSS, but have I ever asked you who is your guru, whether you are from bhAmati or vivaraNa school, or you are some stuff from modern day neo-vedantins (who are presenting flexible versions of each and every concepts of AV just to desperately trying align themselves with PTB) or who really you are representing etc. ??  that is irrelevant to me as long as you are quoting support from PTB of shankara and that is what being mainly discussed here and no need to question the credentials of others here.  So, again I request you to stop making deluded assumptions on one’s guru and stick to the point of discussion if you are really interested in points and not personality. 

 

 

and I see lots of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of traditional teaching in SSS followers ( and I assume it comes from SSS writings and teachings).

 

• And then talk about it ( Sri SSS’s followers understanding) without resorting to personal attacks on Sri SSS.  You don’t have to assume anything about Sri SSS that too when you are completely blind to his works.  And now the question to you, which tradition you think you are following whether it is bhAmati prasthAna or panchapaadika vivaraNa prasthAna??  One’s theory of AV is the result of below belt seva to maNdana Mishra (maNdana prushta sevaka) and another one is donkey’s passionate song (gArdabha gaana) on AV.  I am not saying this, traditional scholars from bhAmati & vivaraNa addressed each other like this.  Which traditional teaching you are saying misinterpreted and misunderstood by Sri SSS?? 

 

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.

 

• Again you have failed to notice the abundant respect that has been shown by Sri SSS to the AV tradition before taking any concepts advocated by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s for refutation.  He never ever personally abused any one he just taken their stand on AV and tried to show the fallacies in that when compared to mUla bhAshya.  Infact it is the later vyAkhyAnakAra-s ( from bhAmati & vivaraNa) who quarreled among themselves by attacking personally by giving malicious adjectives like above.   

 

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.

 

• No more mails like this will be entertained by me henceforth. And my sincere apologies if at all I offended any one’s guru. 

[Bhaskar YR]

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.

 

• And it has been termed as adhyAsa atasmin tadbuddhiH, for seeing the snake in place of rope, rope is the Ashraya seeing the snake is adhyAsa for which mAyA kArya is the Asare.  Seeing the jagat as abrahman, asarvaM is parichinna drushti, mithyA drushti seeing the jagat as nothing but brahman ( brahmaivedam sarvam / vishvaM) is paripUrNa bhUma drushti or Atmaikatva samyak darshana.

 

 

Similarly, there is confusion  in the meaning of "sat" and "Asat"

 

• Asat is jagat as it changes its colour every second and sat will remain ‘as it is’ always, shankara explains what is sat and what is asat in taitireeya bhAshya. 

 

 

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. 

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

I am a shishya of Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam and did shastra shravanam as an antevAsi in his Gurukulam. Our Guru has said that for all vedanta teachings we follow the Vivarana sampradaya and in vyavahAra we also accept bhAtta sampradaya where it does not conflict with Vedanta. Hope it clarifies.

Further I assume you accept that SSS indeed say 'blind led by blind' with reference to the traditional teaching parampara and try to justify it by pointing out some name callings by Vivarana and bhAmati sampradaya followers. 

Finally asking for who is someone's Guru is not an abuse or personal attack particularly when the other side is not showing any respect or even understanding, to indulge in reasoned criticism. From what I have read from his followers, SSS did not understand the difference between sat and asat as taught in Ch Up 6th chap and BG 2.16 and its bhashya and I think that is the root of all the misunderstandings.    

I won't continue this discussion any further. 

[Bhaskar YR]

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 :

 

1. mAyA is in Ishwara and it is Ishwara shakti and there is no difference between shakti and shakta and this shakti is not in the Jīva and jeeva experiences his karma phala in the mAyAkAra jagat ;
2. avidyA as adhyAsa is in the jeeva ( it is in his karaNa) , not in Ishwara  (see geeta bhAshya 4.5 bahUni me vyateenaani). Jagat is the effect of mAyA which is in avyAkruta rUpa in brahman before creation and becomes vyAkruta after creation which is same for everyone and if I see a man everyone ( ofcourse who is mentally fit) would see him as man and not a tree or something else whereas adhyAsa / avidyA exists only in an individual mind that is, it cannot be known by others.
3. Man-woman difference is known to everyone and their relationship like husband-wife known only to themselves. Man-woman is Ishwara srushti their subsequent relations over a period of time is adhyastha.  If that man takes sannyasa this relationship goes and woman will be there as woman but not as wife. 
4. mAyA as in the name is more divine in nature. It represents brahman (kAraNa) in the form of kArya; so mAyA, mAyAvati, mAya Agarwal, mAyA Choudhury etc.  can be the name of a girl/woman and I don’t know if any woman is having the name like avidyAvati, avidya Agarwal etc. 😊
5. avidyA as in adhyAsa rUpa  is disgraceful and very cruel as this is the cause for shOka, mOha and lot of sufferings . It is the main cause for samsara bandhana.  After the dawn of jnana it would be realized avidyA / ajnAna is just some mithyA pratyaya rUpa. 
6. As per geeta bhAshya mAya is food, avidyA is poison (see geeta bhAshya on the verse : bhUmirApOnalO vAyuH, bhinaA prakrutiH ashtadA).
7. mAyA is anirvachaneeya ( it can be tattva attatvAbhyAm anirvachaneeya) whereas avidyA has been explained in clear terms as in the form of agrahaNa, anyathaa grahaNa, saMshaya in geeta bhAsya) and all these types of avidyA will completely be eradicated by vidyA. 
8. mAyA is the ‘power’ of brahman in srushti kArya without it he ‘cannot’ do the srushti explains shankara.  Whereas avidyA is anishtA, anartha hetu the weakness that can be seen ONLY in jeeva not in Ishwara since Ishwara is nitya, shuddha, buddha & mukta svarUpa. 

 

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. 

[Bhaskar YR]

[Akilesh Ayyar]

These are good points, and I think you make a case for some distinction between the two in certain contexts. But at a deeper level, “that there is ishwara and ishwara shakti” is itself ultimately a statement grounded in duality, and thus in ignorance. All statements of any kind, language and concepts themselves, are grounded in duality, and thus in ignorance. So avidya and maya are inseparable. Only due to ignorance would we take maya as as a concept (or indeed any concept) seriously, and only due to maya is there ignorance. Ultimately the truth is simply beyond language, so beyond language that even this very statement cannot express it: that is the truth.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

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.

 

• Let us go back to that deeper level, what shruti saying us about prior creation ?? AtmAvA idameka evaagra  Asit, nAnyat kinchana mishat, sa eekshata emaannu lOkAnnu srujA iti that ekamevAdviteeyaM brahman though about srushti…So brahman was ONE before creation ( infact he is always one without second even when we accept creation from him and at the time of seeing the vyAkruta jagat)  And what he does through what?? Shruti itself answers that : yatO vA emAni bhUtAni jAyante yena jAtAni jeevanti etc. spider and web examples also given and in sUtra bhAshya it is said between shakti & shakta there is tAdAtmya so it is not two different things it is ONE and the SAME hence for this jagat brahman is the ONLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa while refuting sAnkhya theory etc. 1-1-2 bhAshyakAra says this jagat is in super order and for this Ishwara is the ONLY cause nobody/nothing else.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

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.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

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

 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

I think I agree with most of that. We don’t want ignorance to be posited as a positive entity, correct. 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.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

--

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.

[Bhaskar YR]

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. 

 

My point is merely that the concept of maya is inseparably entwined with that of ignorance.

 

• Yes I reckon that would be the main reason to declare avidyA and mAya are synonymous.  But when we refer to the bhAshya-s contextually test the usage of these terms we would come to know three different things : (a) mAyA is brahmOpAdhi ( b) mAyA is avidyA kalpita (c) mAya is anirvachaneeya (d) mAyA is brahmAnanya.  I think (b) here is the strong cause to equate mAyA with avidyA or vice versa.  avidyAtmikA hi beeja shaktiH avyakta shabda nirdeshya, the visheshaNa ‘avidyAtmika’ and avidyA word has been used as paryAya for the avyAkruta in IshAvAsya tempt us to think both are one and the same.  But we fail to understand the context here and we fail to notice how both are treated differently by bhAshyakAra at different places in PTB.  Anyway, we have already discussed enough of this, let us not go into it again.  It is always better to keep in mind that at the best mAyAvidyA is a compound word and not synonymous.

 

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.

 

• Lord krishna parabrahma svarUpa in geeta clarifies this beyond doubt.  4^th chapter 5&6 verses he explains how arjuna deluded and how HE has nitya shuddha buddha mukta svabhAva.  And this Ishwara forever mukta from avidyA.  Ishwarasya …nitya nivruttAvidyatvAt (su.bh.3-2-9) how Ishwara is avidyA mukta forever??  Because he is always having  nitya shuddha buddha mukta svabhAvaM where as shAreeri ( the jeeva) is not like this (su.bh.2.1.22).  By saying this there is no avidyA to Ishwara it only pertains to jeeva and mAyA is for Ishwara as upAdhi.  And this upAdhi (mAyA shakti) is NOT avidyA. 

 

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. 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

Responses below.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

On Dec 8, 2022 at 5:59:24 AM, 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

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. 

Not at all 🙂 

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 ?? 

See, already we have a problem. Technically “the jnani” is a contradiction in terms. Though it is written of like that sometimes, that is a provisional understanding. Jnana means precisely that “jnanis” cannot really exist. A “jnani” would imply the real existence of body/mind, of forms generally, and thus of duality. The elimination of ajnana must also mean the elimination of jnani as a category; indeed even of “jnana” as a category, really, and all categories at all in fact.

As soon as we say “jnani” — we have already accepted an avidya-rooted field of reference. And then we must account for nama rupa etc.

The “exiting” of that field of reference — that is the sense in which both maya and avidya have to “go/vanish.” Actually they cannot technically vanish, as they were never there to begin with in the first place. Their vanishing is the understanding of that fact. Not even that, really. 

And a field of reference cannot be exited which was never entered. Ah well. Again, these are the problems when language tries to capture the uncapturable.

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.