mAyAvAda information reg.

[Kumuda Prasad]

Respected Scholars,

I want some informations on MAyAvAda. Kindly help me to get this. 

What is mAyAvAda?

who is its founder?

How to know it?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

Is there any relation between mAyAvAda and Mayan civilization??

Kindly give me some feedback.

--

Kumuda Prasad Acharya
Research Scholar (Ph.D)

Dept. of Sanskrit,
O.R.I. Marina Campus

University of Madras

Chennai-600005

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

========= Mod Note======

Questions such as these which are very generic nature which might involve polemics are best kept out of BVP

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 1:31:08 AM UTC+8, Kumuda Prasad wrote:

Respected Scholars,

I want some informations on MAyAvAda. Kindly help me to get this. 

What is mAyAvAda?

who is its founder?

How to know it?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

मायावाद is a term used often by opponents of Advaita Vedanta to refer to Advaita Vedanta. These days it is mostly used with pejorative connotations, as a good portion of opposition of Advaita Vedanta in Vaishnava schools revolves around the theory of Maya.

To my information, the term is not used by Adi Shankara in any of his works, and not used by Advaita followers today. It has been used by some Advaita philosophers to describe themselves (e.g. वाचस्पति मिश्र on भामती २/१/२९ says "अस्माकं मायावादिनाम्" - आपातमात्रेण साम्यमुक्तम् परमार्थतस्तु भाविकं परिणामं वा कार्यकारणभावं वेच्छतामेष दुर्वारो दोषो न पुनरस्माकं मायावादिनामित्याह - परिहृतस्त्विति), suggesting the term was probably not used in a pejorative sense historically.

The term मायावाद finds place in Padma Purana, Uttarakhanda, verse 62.31, a verse which the Vaishnavas consider as authentic and Advaita followers consider as a later interpolation.

Is there any relation between mAyAvAda and Mayan civilization??

No.
 

[Anjaneyulu Goli]

Namaskaaram

Maya is a Mesoamerican civilization noted for the only fully developed written languages as well as for its arts, architecture, mathematical and astronomical systems (2000BC - 250AD). They were deeply religious and worshiped various gods, the Sun,Moon,Fire,Rain etc., There is vast literature available on Maya civilization and a lot more research is going on. I personally feel that Mayan culture is very close to our Vedic culture.

The term "Maya" occurs 70 times in Rigveda and 27 times in Adharvaveda. BhagavadGita also dealt with Maya.
'Yantraruudhaanimaayayaa"(18/65),  'Maayayaahyaphrutagnaana'(7/14), 'Maayaametaamtarantite' (7/15). Sankarabhagavadpada also wrote 'Maayaapanchakam' . Shri Kumud Prasad can have abundant literature available from internet.

Dr.Goli

---

From: Kumuda Prasad <kumudaa...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 11:01 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} mAyAvAda information reg.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

The Padmapurana says as follows:

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau Brahmana-murtina (Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda 62.31)

In Veda it is said that "Sat" came from "Asat", which means the "Sat" or the physical existence or creation came form "Asat", which is beyond existence. Mayavada teaches that the Lord has created the universe with his "Maya" and the Svetasvatara Upanishad says the "Maya is the "Prakrti". A liberated person realizes his or her oneness with The Brahman and for the liberated there is no more any separate physical existence for him, ie  Maya or Prakrti does not exist for him or her.

On the other hand there is no liberation for the Vaishnavas as the Bhagavatam (3.29.13) clearly states that the pure devotees do not want to get liberated at the cost of service to the Lord and therefore they do not accept any type of liberation.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Shankarji Jha]

Please clarify here-- word in question 'maya' or 'Maayaa'? 

Shankarji Jha,
Professor of Sanskrit,
Deptt of Sanskrit,
Panjab University,
Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

---

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 04:36:22 -0700
From: golianj...@yahoo.com
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} mAyAvAda information reg.
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Shankarji Jha]

'Mayavaadah' or 'Maayaavaadah'? Pl. clarify. ragards,

Shankarji Jha,
Professor of Sanskrit,
Deptt of Sanskrit,
Panjab University,
Chandigarh-160014, INDIA

---

From: ajit.gar...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 23:06:43 +0530
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} mAyAvAda information reg.
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste

 

1. From the context of the question raised,  the connection of the word may have been linked with  the ‘ popular use’ in the ‘ ISKON’ context, ‘Maa-yaa- Vaa-din’, which   refers to the school of Vedanta interpreters projecting world as an ‘ illusion’.

 

Please refer to the Introduction of ‘Bhagavad-Gita As it is’ -  by Sri.La. Prabhupada.

 

The context of Gita sloka explaining <maa-yaa>  as < Vishnu-maa-yaa =    the  limited knowledge / a-jnana > may not altogether fit the context of this deliberation. Same way with the meaning of this word in Rig-Veda, which comes in several other contexts.

 

The word ‘Maa-yaa’ is translated as ‘ Illusion’, unreal’ for this explanation. Extending this thought in to the polemical discussions, with ‘apparently simplistic  and popular  translations’, the technicality of Shankara school of Advaita as the final conclusion of the ‘Prasthana Traya’  is marked as a school of  ‘Maa-yaa vaa-din’.   The technical difference between Samskrutham words  -    ‘Mithyaa’ – ‘Maa- yaa’  are constructed per preference by different schools  to critique other schools.

 

This pointer has relation to the earlier separate thread of ‘How Koshas explain Samskrutham words’.  When (a)    the  ‘Paribhashaa’  of Vedanta ( or any Shaastra) is meddled with  ‘ Kosha’ meanings and on the top of it (b) secondary, erroneous, short translations of the technical vocabulary  are missed in the deliberations, the outcome is any thing that is farther away from the true position of Shaastra.

 

(Please read the long –aa part  properly so that the word Shaastra = Technical discipline of study  is not confused to  ‘ Shastra = Weapon.)

 

2.  In the present case, in the response part   I do not understand how the < Maa-yaa>  part   of  the word < Maa-yaa vadin> was confused and connected  to < mAyan>- civilization related discussion ! And how some one might have missed reading this in to <maya >- the Vishwkarma, the supposed author of Vastu shaastra, the father in law of Ravana ?! 

 

This kind of inaccurate phonetic reading of the Samskrutham words  and word-splits do pop up their head in many other  internet  forums also !  

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6644 - Release Date: 09/06/13

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

The Padmapurana says as follows:

mayavadam asac-chaastram

pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi

kalau Brahmana-murtina (rUpiNA) (Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda 62.31)

Namaste Sunil ji,

There seems to be some pAThabhEda and numbering differences:

The doctrine of MAyA (illusion) is a wicked doctrine and said to be
pseudo-Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a brAhmana, proclaimed it in
Kali (age). (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.7)

After this verse is/are the following:

apaarthaM shrutivAkyAnAM darshayan lokagarhitam |
svakarmarUpaM tyAjyatvamatraivapratipaadhyate || Pa Pur 6.236.8 ||

It shows the meaninglessness of the words of the holy texts and is condemned
in the world. In this (doctrine) only the giving up of one's own duties is
expounded. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.8)

sarvakarmaparibhraShTairvaidharmmatvaMtaduchyate |
pareshajiivapAraikyaMmayAtupratipAdhyate || Pa Pur 6.236.9 ||
And that is said to be religiousness by those who have fallen from all
duties. I have propounded the identity of the Highest Lord and the
(individual) soul. (padma PuraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.9)

While the above verse says:// In this (doctrine) alone the giving up of one's own duties is expounded.// it would be of interest to examine its truth in order to find out whether the interpolator was really having any idea of what he was talking:

 In the Bhagavadgita 18.5 we have the Lord say:

Shankaracharya's commentary:

18.5 Yajna-dana-tapah-karma, the practice of sacrifice, charity and austerity-this threefold practice; na tyajyam, is not to be abandoned; tat, it; is eva, surely; karyam, to be undertaken. Why? Yajnah, sacrifice; danam, charity; and tapah, austerity; are eva, verily; pAvanAni, the purifiers, the causes of sanctification; manisinam, of the wise, i.e. of those who do not seek results for themselves.

English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda

18.6 Tu, but; api, even; etani, these; karmani, actions, viz sacrifice, charity and austerity, which have been spoken of as purifiers; kartavyani, have to be undertaken; tyaktva, by renouncing; sangam, attachment to them; and by giving up (hankering for) their phalani, results. Iti, this; is me, My; niscitam, firm; and uttamam, best; matam, conculsion. Having promised, 'hear from Me the firm conclusion regarding that (tyaga)' (4) and also adduced the reason that they are purifiers, the utterance, 'Even these actions have to be performed. This is the firm and best conclusion', is only by way of concluding the promised subject-matter; this sentence does not introduce a fresh topic. For it stands to reason that the phrase 'even these' refers to some immediate topic under discussion. The implication of the word api (even) is: 'Even these acts, which are causes of bondage to one who has attachment and who hankers after their results, have to be undertaken by a seeker of Liberation.' But the phrase 'even these' is not used in relation to other acts. Others explain (thus): Since the nityakarmas have no results, therefore (in their case) it is illogical to say, 'by giving up attachment and (hankering for their) results'. The meaning of the phrase etani api (even these) is that, 'even these rites and duties, which are undertaken for desired results and are different from the nityakarmas, have to be undertaken. What to speak of the nityakarmas like sacrifice, charity and austerity!' (Reply:) This is wrong since it has been established by the text, 'sacrifice, charity and austerity are verily the purifiers,' that even the nityakarmas have results. For a seeker of Liberation who wants to give up even the nityakarmas from fear of their being causes of bondage, how can there be any association with actions done for desired results? Moreover, the phrase etani api cannot apply to actions done for desired results (kamyakarmas), since they have been denigrated in, '...indeed, actions is quite inferior' (2.49), and in, '...by actions other than that action meant for God' (3.9), and since, on the strength of the texts [Which support the two earlier arguments.], 'the Vedas have the three qualities as their object' (2.45), 'Those who are versed in the Vedas, who are drinkers of Soma,...(pray for the heavenly goal by worshiping) Me' (9.20), and 'they enter into the human world on the exhaustion of their merit' (9.21), it has been definitely stated that actions done for desired results are causes of bondage; and also because they are far removed from the context.

The Br.Up. 4.4.22 'tametam vedAnuvachnanEna brAhmaNA vividiShanti, yajnena, dAnena, tapasA anAshakena..' is the source of the above verse of the Gitaa and the Brahmasutra:  sarvApekShA cha yajnAdishruteH ashvavat 3.4.26.  The need for and the purpose of veda vihita nitya karma-s is never downplayed or given the go by in all schools of Vedanta, including Advaita, as sampled above.  In fact the 'sAdhana panchakam' of Shankaracharya which commences thus:

vedo nityamadhIyatAm taduditam karma svanuShThIyatAm

tenEshasya vidhIyatAm apachitiH kAmye matistyajyatAm..  emphasizes the devout performance of nitya karma and never teaches their giving up unreasonably.

A nityaagnihotrI, for example, of any following, vaishnava/madhwa/smArta, when he takes sannyAsa, has to give up that and related works.  Such a giving up is quite vedic in nature and cannot to faulted or held against advaita alone.  The Upanishadic averment: na karmaNA na prajayA dhanena tyAgenaike amRtatvam AnashuH and sannyAsayogAt yatayaH shuddha-sattvAH.. are the vedic basis for the approved method/practice of giving up / renouncing sva-karma. 

The Gita teaches that even a sarva-karma sannyAsi, a Jnani, will be engaged, or rather the body-mind-sense-motor organs apparatus will be engaged in 'shAreeram kevalam karma' (BG 4.21) in order to maintain the apparatus.  Even this action, Shankara says, will go on without the Jnani identifying with it.  So, the key to Naishkarmya siddhi is the realization 'na aham kartA' along with, of course,  its counterpart 'na aham bhoktA'.  This is what is called Self-realization in Vedanta.  This is what is meant by 'sarva karma sannyAsa'  as established by Shankara in BG 5.13 and 18.12.  In this latter bhashya Shankara says:  ataH paramARtha-darshinaH eva asheShakarma-sannyAsitvam sambhavati, avidyAdhyAropitatvAt Atmani kriyAkArakaphalAnAm.....na tu ajnasya asheShakarmasannyAsaH sambhavati.  This is the meaning of true sannyAsa/i, a word used in the verse itself. One will gain great clarity of this by reading the  bhashyam of BG 5.13 together with 18.12.


The author of the interpolated verses has quite evidently not understood this position of Vedanta.  And that is the reason why he says 'this (asat) sastram alone teaches the giving up of all sva-karma' which position is completely at variance with the stated position of Vedanta that we have seen described in the foregoing.  To reiterate, the Vedantic  'giving up' of actions is not more physical in nature but the gaining of Atma jnanam, the presence of karma  notwithstanding.  In the third chapter of the Gita the Lord even instructs that the Jnani remain in the world, amidst ajnanis, doing 'ALL' actions.  The fourth chapter has a verse, with this jnani in mind 'karmaNi abhi-pravRtto api' (4.20).  The prefix 'abhi' means: excessively,  intensely, etc.


Shankara, while explaining the subsequent verse 4.24 (brahmArpaNam....) has this jnani who is engaging in karma, in mind: He concludes the 4.24 bhashyam with the words:  bAhya chEShTaa mAtreNa karmaapi viduSho akarma sampadyate [So, here as well, in the case of one who has his ideas of distinctions among accessories like ladle etc., actions and results eliminated by the knowledge of Brahman, even activities which are merely external movements amount to inaction. ]  Shankara makes it very clear in this passage:

1. There is undoubtedly action at the outside/physical level
2. This invariably involves the sense/motor organs and mind of the Jnani
3. This is confirmed by Shankara by the quoting of verses 3.28 and 5.8 both of which teach the interaction of the Jnani's sense/motor organs with the objects
4. That the Jnani remaining with the firm convicttion 'I am not the doer even when the organs interact with the objects'
5. This means that the Jnani sees actions, organs, objects and yet knows that it is unreal
6. This is the NaiShkarmya siddhi of Vedanta where in spite of body-mind apparatus engaged in less or more of whatever karma, the Jnanam that one is akartA is firm.

The beleagured PadmapurANa verses betray the interpolator's ignorance of not only Advaita shAstra but the very VedantashAstra consisting of the Upanishads, the brahmasutras and the Bhagavadgita where Veda Vyasa's contribution is very significant.  All traditional schools hold that the Vedanta sutras, also called 'bAdarAyaNa sutras', are authored by Veda Vyasa who is the author of the Mahabharatha and the purANas.  It would be a sad commentary on the authority and knowledge of Veda Vyasa to pitch some verses allegedly from the Padma Purana, his own work, which lay bare contradictions with his own works by saying  // In this (doctrine) only the giving up of one's own duties is expounded.// .  Those versed in the Vedanta shastra would not regard those particular verses as genuine for the glaring contradiction sampled above.  

One can sample the Sri Ramanuja BhAShya too on the BG verses and see how he too talks about giving up of work, not having the ahankAra while doing work, etc. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

 

In Veda it is said that "Sat" came from "Asat", which means the "Sat" or the physical existence or creation came form "Asat", which is beyond existence. Mayavada teaches that the Lord has created the universe with his "Maya" and the Svetasvatara Upanishad says the "Maya is the "Prakrti". A liberated person realizes his or her oneness with The Brahman and for the liberated there is no more any separate physical existence for him, ie  Maya or Prakrti does not exist for him or her.

On the other hand there is no liberation for the Vaishnavas as the Bhagavatam (3.29.13) clearly states that the pure devotees do not want to get liberated at the cost of service to the Lord and therefore they do not accept any type of liberation.

Regards,

Sunil KB

s from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 1:32:10 PM UTC+8, Gitarthi wrote:

Namaste,

The Padmapurana says as follows:

mayavadam asac-chastram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau Brahmana-murtina (Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda 62.31)

Yes this is the verse I was alluding to. Vijñānabhikṣu has quoted this verse twice in the Vijñānāmṛtabhāṣya on Brahmasūtra. Prabhupāda has also quoted this at several places (including in the introduction to his commentary on Bhagavatam), with a slight variation as folows - 

māyāvādamasacchāstraṁ pracchannaṁ bauddhamucyate

mayaiva kalpitaṁ devi kalau brāhmaṇamūrtinā

Although the use of term Māyāvāda in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition is not new. One quote on Māyāvāda is even ascribed to Caitanya Mahāprabhu in the Caitanyacaritāmṛtam (Madhyalīlā 6.169) by Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja. 

The term Māyāvāda was also used by Bhāskara's in his commentary on Brahmasūtra. For more on the term and its use by various commentators, one may refer 

Nakamura, Hajime (1990). A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy (Translation by Trevor Leggett). Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 9788120806511. pp. 120-122.

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

While comparing  the meaning of any verse of the Padmapurana with the meaning of another verse of the Bhagavatam, we have to remember what the Padmapurana  itself says about the status of the Bhagavatam among the Puranas.. Padma purana says that the Bhagavatam is the highest of the puranas and that to me is the guideline as to whether the Padmapurana can override what the Bhagavatam says or whether the Bhagavatam can override what the Padmapurana says, in case there are  seemingly contradictory views  taken by these two Mahapuranas. I would  personally like to rely on what the Bhagavatam, the highest of the Puranas say in the event of a conflict.

The Bhagavatam said about the five types of Mukti and also that the Bhaktas are not interested in any of the five types of Mukti. The "Ekatva" type of Mukti is one among the five types of Mukti mentioned by the Bhagavatam. In the "Ekatva" type of Mukti the Jnani realizes oneness with the Lord and this is also the Mukti according to the Advaita. Thus it is clear that the teachings of Advaita has the sanction of the Bhagavatam. If it appears that any verse of Padmapurna is interpreted as saying that the  teaching of "Ekatva" Mukti followed by the Advaita is wrong then one has to know that the very interpretation oif the Padmapurana has to be wrong and not necessarily the verse in the Padmapurana.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

There is not an iota of doubt that the Bhagavata purana was the last of the Mahapurana. However most of the scholars ignore the fact that there is set of criteia called "panchalakshana", which makes it mandatory  that the Puranas be kept uipdated in certain aspects. Anybody reading the puranas have to keep this in mind.

As regards the Bauddha also one has to keep in mind that word Buddha means a Jnani and particularly a Sankhya Jnani. In The Kapila-Asurui samvada it is given that the Sankhya-Jnani is Buddha. Even the Buddhists believe that there were a number of Buddhas before Lord Buddha and some of them appears to be mythological, though Lord Buddha was historical figure belonging to the Suryavamsha. The Puranas have given the genealogical list of the kings from the time of Lord Ram to the time of Lord Buddha and beyond.

Regards,

Sunil KB

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

All these PuraNa-s reflect various traditions and viewpoints. One Puranic text cannot be judged on the basis of the other.
Further, in the evolution and development of Puranic literature, the (Vaishnava) BhAgavata PurANam very much seems to be a later one while the Padma, Matsya, Linga, VAyu, KUrma, VarAha, VAmana purANa-s are definitely quite earlier. This is clearly evident from the various references and citations occurring in other literatures such as the Smriti Nibandha-s and Smriti commentataries, where the (Vaishnava) BhAgavata PurANam is not so much referred; we also find in the Harshacarita of BANabhaTTa (7th century) who refers to the existence of manuscripts of VAyupurANa and its recitation at his home.
Also if one looks on the basis of the language and style the (Vaishnava)BhAgavata PurANam shows a clear later polished style. Then there is the strong claim by the Devi BhAgavata PurANam as the  BhAgavata purANam.

If still one wants to judge the earlier one on the basis of the later, then it is purely subjective which only shows one's preference which may not reflect the objective or actual viewpoint under discussion.

Now, does this passage

pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau Brahmana-murtina (rUpiNA)

in the above mentioned verse refer to Samkara ?
For, this passage  states BrAhmaNa-mUrtinA; this reference cannot apply to Gautama Buddha: For, he taught the actual pure Bauddha doctrine and not Pracchanna Bauddha doctrine !!!.
Then, he was not a Brahmin as he was the Sakya prince, a kshatriya by birth. 
Above all, we have the very well known usage of this compound "pracchanna bauddha" with regard to Samkara's Vedantic interpretation by no less a Vedanta teacher than Bhaskara who followed Samkara just after 50 years.

Ganesan

[Hari Parshad Das]

śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ

Just for reference, here are the verses in Padma-purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa, Chapter 236, Verse 6-7 and 9-10.

Quote1.jpg: Published by Khemraj ShriKrishnaDas in Venkateshwar Steam Press, Khetwadi, Mumbai. 1927 A.D.

Quote2.jpg: Published by Gurumandal Series in Calcutta in 1959. Same chapter and verse numbers.

Quote3.jpg: Hindi translation printed in 1899 A.D. at Naval Kishore Press. Same chapter and verse numbers.

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

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Hari Prasad Dasji,

 

1. It is unfair to guide a neutral seeker of information to a negative comment on the topic.

 

2. The thread initiator seems to be as new to the topic as to enquire "Is there any relation between mAyAvAda and Mayan civilization??"

 

3. Let me try to provide the neutral information to the enquirer:

 

      Dear Kumud Prasad Dasji,

 

    1. ' Mayavada' is the name used in reference to a school/tradition of Vedanta called Advaita Vedanta

 

     2. It is popularized (sometimes mistakenly considered to be founded) by Sri (Adi) Sankaracharya.

 

     3. There is absolutely no relation between Mayavada and Mayan Civilization.

 

     4. Specifications on Mayavada? Do you mean salient features?

        

          1. To consider Jivatma (individual self ) is nondifferent from Paramaatma (ultimate/cosmic self)

     

          2. To consider Jagat (manifest universe) to be nondifferent from 'Brahman' ( the ultimately imperishable, unique entity )

 

          3. To interpret the inability of the subject (individual self) to realize the nondifference mentioned in 1 & 2 as 'Maya' ( nature/quality of perceiving

 

             one thing for the other). 

         

         are some of the basic features of Advaita Vedanta.

 

         There are some simple books written for beginners on various schools of Vedanta ( e.g. by Ramakrishna Math)

 

         Just as it happens in any debate, opponent -schools of Vedanta use the word 'Mayavada' in a pejorative sense.

 

          Regards,

 

          Nagaraj

 

          

         

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Kumud Prasadji,

 

Sorry to have addressed you as Kumud Prasad Dasji.

 

Parshad and Das going together in Hari Parshad Dasji's name probably had an impact.

 

My appologies.

 

Nagaraj

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Hari Prasad Dasji,

 

1. It is unfair to guide a neutral seeker of information to a negative comment on the topic.

 

2. The thread initiator seems to be as new to the topic as to enquire "Is there any relation between mAyAvAda and Mayan civilization??"

 

3. Let me try to provide the neutral information to the enquirer:

 

      Dear Kumud Prasad Dasji,

 

    1. ' Mayavada' is the name used in reference to a school/tradition of Vedanta called Advaita Vedanta

 

     2. It is popularized (sometimes mistakenly considered to be founded) by Sri (Adi) Sankaracharya.

Dear Sri Nagaraj Paturi,

In support of the above I quote from a Kannada book 'mata traya samīkṣā' authored by Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, Director of Purna Prajna Samshodhana Mandiram, Bangalore: 

page 63 (conclusion for the section on Advaita):   

ಉಪಸಂಹಾರ

ಹೀಗೆ ಸನಾತನ  ವೇದಗಳಿಗೆ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತುಗಳಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಾಚೀನವಾದ ಗೌಡಪಾದಾಾರ್ಯರೆ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಚಿಂತನಶೀಲರು ನೀಡಿದ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ಸ್ಫುಟವಾಗಿ ವಿವರಸಿದ ಶ್ರೀಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ’ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾದ್ವೈತ ವಾದ’ ವನ್ನು ಮಂಡಿಸಿುದರು.

[Here the author says that Shankaracharya only gave increased clarity to the explanations given to the Upanishads by the 'ancient' thinkers such as Gaudapada, etc.]

.ವಿಶ್ವಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧವೂ ಅಪಾರಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಅನುಯಾಯಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದ ಶಾಂಕರದರ್ಶನ ಪರಂಪರೆಯು ದೇಶ-ವಿದೇಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.  ಈ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯ ಪರಂಪರೆಗಳು ವಿಶ್ವವಿಖ್ಯಾತ ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ತಪಸ್ವಿಗಳಾದ ಸಮಾಜದ ಡೊಂಕತಿದ್ದಿ ಮೆರೆದ ಶ್ರೀವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರಂತಹ ಅನೇಕ ಸಂತರನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದೆ. ಸತ್ಯಶೊಧನೆಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಅದ್ವೈತದ ಕೊಡುಗೆ ಅವಿಸ್ಮರಣೀಯವಾದುದು.  ಬೌದ್ಧ-ಜೈನ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಅವೈದಿಕಕರನಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ವೈದಿಕವೆನಿಸಿದ ಸಾಂಖ್ಯ-ಯೊಗ-ನ್ಯಾಯ-ವೈಶೇಷಿಕದರ್ಶನಗಳ ಅಸಾರತೆಯನ್ನು ಮನಗಾಣಿಸುವುದರ ಜೊತಗೆ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಸಂದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಸುಂದರ-ಸರಳ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಶ್ರೀಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ಅಭಿವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೊಳಿಸಿದರು.  ಬುದ್ಧಿಜೀವಿಗಳು, ಇತರ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕರು ಅದ್ವೈತ ದರ್ಶನದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಭಿನ್ನ ನಿಲುವು ತಾಳಿರಬಹುದಾದರೂ ಶ್ರೀಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರ ಸಾಧನೆ-ಸತ್ಯಶೊಧನ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವನ್ನು ಗೌರವಿಸದಿರಲಾಗದು.  ಈ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ದರ್ಶನವು ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ವೈಚಾರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿ ಗೌರವಾರ್ಹವೆನಿಸುವುದು.  ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ ಅದ್ವೈತದರ್ಶನವು, ವೇದ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತುಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ, ಆದರೆ ಸಾಂಖ್ಯರು-ಮೀಮಾಂಸಕರು ಮರೆತ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸ್ವರೂಪದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿನೂತನವಾದ ವಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆ ನೀಡಿರುವುದು ದರ್ಶನ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದಾ ಗೌರವಾರ್ಹ ಸಂಗತಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

The above rendered in English: // The Śānkara darśana tradition is endowed with universal fame, with a very large following and has a spread all over the world.  The tradition has contributed many saints, world-famous scholars and tapasvin-s and social reformers such as the legendary Sri Vidyāraṇya.  From the angle of examining the truth, the contribution of Advaita is unforgettable.  (He says further).. Apart from revealing the emptiness of the Bauddha-Jaina avaidika schools and those schools which go by the name of vaidika namely sāṁkhya, yoga, nyāya, vaiśeṣika, Sri Śankarācārya, through His lovely and easily comprehensible language brought to light the message of the Upanishads.  Thinkers and other schools might harbour different opinions about Advaita.  Yet its achievement and the efforts in the distilling of the truth cannot be left un-honoured.  ....To conclude, the bringing to light the Brahmasvarūpa of the Upaniṣads that was missed by the Sāṁkhyas and the Mīmāmsakas and presenting it in a very novel way by the Advaita system always deserves commendation. //

From the quotes provided by Sri Hari Parshad Das by image form, we understand that Śiva, by His 'śakti-āveśa' caused Jaimini, Kaṇāda, Gautama and Kapila to propound the pūrvamīmāmsā, the vaiśeṣika, the nyāya and sāṁkhya śāstram-s.  And Shiva says: The Bauddha doctrine was expounded by Viṣṇu Himself in the form of Buddha.  And with regards to māyāvāda Lord  Śiva says:मयैव कथ्यते देवि कलौ ब्राह्मणरूपिणा.  While 'Śiva named the exponents of all the above tāmasa' śāstra-s by name, with regard to 'māyāvāda', however, no specific name of the exponent is given; a vague reference to a 'brāhmaṇarūpin' is made, while for bauddha, it is clearly stated 'विष्णुना बुद्धरूपिणा’.  Is it because Lord Śiva Himself did not know who would be (tमयैव कथ्यते) he exponent of ṁāyāvāda?.  While it is popular belief that Viṣṇu took a bauddāvatāra, is there any popular belief about Śiva taking a 'brāhmaṇa' avatāra? Since there is a paurvāparya implied in Śiva's narration by stating the bauddha doctrine in the past tense and the māyāvāda in the 'would be' sense, there must be popular purāṇic story of Śiva taking a brāhmaṇa form which is believed by all people commonly.

Also, since the specific words giving out the 'salient features' of māyāvāda:

कर्मस्वरूपत्याज्यत्वमत्रैव प्रतिपाद्यते (मया). सर्वकर्मपरिभ्रष्टो विकर्मः स उच्यते whom does the 'सः’ here refer to - the 'brāhmaṇarūpī Śiva or the one who follows the ṁāyāvāda with the above stated feature regarding giving up of karmasvarūpa?

In any case, since this above-stated feature is impossible to be found in the available works of Advaita, right from the Gaudapāda kārikā-s, the only way the veracity of these lines of the Padmapurāṇa can be maintained is to hold that the event Lord Śiva is alluding to is yet to happen. So, the ṁāyāvāda the Lord is speaking of here with all those specific features is definitely not the Advaita that is popularly known.   

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Hari Parshad Das]

śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ

Dear V. Subramaniaan ji and others,

When i posted the verses, I did not say at all that it is linked to Advaita or Sri Adi Shankaracharya. I mentioned it clearly that it is "just for reference". I have not made any personal remarks on any personality in my previous email.

I am sure that there must be email groups where Nyayamrita vs. Advaita Siddhi are being discussed. I feel that the discussion as to whether these verses refer to any specific personality or not is better suited in that forum.

regards,

hari parshad das.

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/sDJvRaqyoys/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ

 

Dear Hari Parshad Dasji,

 

I am sure that there must be email groups where references with negative comments are provided in response to a seeker of information on a certain vāda . Your response to Kumud Prasadji is better suited in that forum.

 

śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ

 

 

भगवद्दास:

 

नागराज:

 

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Note===

If the query has been answered lets move on Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

It is answered.

 

You are right.

 

Thanks.

 

Nagaraj

[Nityanand Misra]

 

Although the moderator has requested to move on, I would like to make two comments since I think a list member is being unfairly criticized and moderation is being taking up by non-moderators.

 

1) The responses on any thread have to be read in the context of the thread, and the chronological sequence of postings is an important part of that context. In this thread, the reference to the use of the term Māyāvāda in Padma Purāṇa Uttarakhaṇḍa verses (as well references to its use by Bhāskara, Vācaspati Miśra, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, and the use of the term as documented by Hajime Nakamura) was provided initially by me - these are well-known sources which have used the term in both pejorative and non-pejorative senses. If anybody has a problem with my listing the references, they could have discussed with me off this list or with the moderators. Shri Hari Prashad Dasji merely provided citations, from reliable published sources and without any comments, to verses which were already discussed on the thread. Targeting a post for providing citations is unexpected in an academic forum. Reliable and traceable citations are always welcome in an academic forum – they are useful to both proponents and opponents of a position and form an integral part of any intellectual discussion.

 

2) The moderators, and only the moderators, are to decide what is suitable and what is not suitable for this forum. When we have one owner and four moderators already on the list, non-moderator members are requested to refrain from making comments like “this is suitable and this is not suitable for this list”.

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Nityanand Misraji,

 

1. My post

 "I am sure that there must be email groups where references with negative comments are provided in response to a seeker of information on a certain vāda "

 was not intended to be, nor in the nature of moderation.

 

It was just in response to the following words of Sri Hari Parshad Dasji 

 "I am sure that there must be email groups where Nyayamrita vs. Advaita Siddhi are being discussed. I feel that the discussion as to whether these verses refer to any specific personality or not is better suited in that forum".

 

I think Sri Hari Parshadji did not intend to moderate through that statement either.

 

2. The query in the initiating thread was not seeking to know the source of a certain statement on mAyAvAda.

 

It was,

 

"

What is mAyAvAda?

who is its founder?

How to know it?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

Is there any relation between mAyAvAda and Mayan civilization??"

 

Sri Hari Parshad Dasji's response did not attend to any of the questions. The response would have been appropriate to an enquiry such as "What is the source of the statement 'मायावादमसच्छास्त्रम्' " 

 

I do not think you cited the references listed by you in response to an enquiry of this kind.

 

3. There was a thread on certain Puranas calling certain Shastras tAmasik. No response in that thread was called inappropriate. The topic of the thread itself was on Puranas calling certain Shastras tAmasik.

 

4. I answered the questions of the thread initiator in my own way within my knowledge.

 

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hari Parshad Das]

śrī-śrī-rādhā-dāmodarāya namaḥ

dear Sri Nagaraj ji and other esteemed members,

there were two questions asked by the member who initiated the thread:

who is its founder?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

my responses were partly in reply to these queries and partly in continuation with what Sri Nityanand ji said about Bhaskar, Vijnana Bhikshu etc.. Since I have not seen any other citations in the purāṇas, I provided what I had seen to the best of my capacity.

Certainly I will not object if any positive references to māyāvāda are provided in this thread. Whatever positive references exist, I would request everyone to bring them out in a non-polemic way.

I am thankful for the references which Sri Nityanand ji and other members provided during the discussion.

Also, my intention is not to moderate this forum in any way. I am sure that the admins are more capable for the same.

regards,

hari parshad das.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

 

"

What is mAyAvAda?

who is its founder?

How to know it?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

Exactly these were answered in the quotations from the pages cited without any specific explanation or interpretation in the post of Hariprasad withoutany comment as it was referring to the concept of माया in the Advaita school or the term used for it. 

 

The last question makes the intention of the questioner who is ignorant of anything in the field of Phylosophy than he has heard the word from some other source (which he has not specified) and was confused with मय or wanted to co-relate the term to Mayan Civilization in history or archaelogy he has read. Nothing more was required. I am not sure whether he himself would understand from the references, about any Philosophical theory or if he knows Sanskrit for that. Even for those knowing Sanskrit, the style and the content of the citations is too complex in the pages, to make a reasonable interpretation or translation of the lines. 

[Nityanand Misra]

 

 

On Monday, June 16, 2014 9:59:50 AM UTC+8, nagarajpaturi wrote:

 

Sri Hari Parshad Dasji's response did not attend to any of the questions. The response would have been appropriate to an enquiry such as "What is the source of the statement 'मायावादमसच्छास्त्रम्' " 

 

I do not think you cited the references listed by you in response to an enquiry of this kind.

 

It is a well-known fact that the term māyāvāda has historically been (and continues to be) mostly used in a pejorative and derogatory sense – the term may even be offensive to some. A questioner, who seemingly is not aware of this fact, needs to be made aware of the same. Hence, IMHO, the references to origins of the term and its historical use are helpful in a response. As the historical use has been mostly in critical contexts, critical references (e.g. its use in Padmapurāṇa or by Bhāskara) would naturally outnumber favourable or self-descriptive references (e.g. its use by Vācaspati Miśra in Bhāmatī).

 

Here is a very neutral extract (underline emphasis is mine) from Nakamura, Hajime (1990). A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy (Translation by Trevor Leggett). Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 9788120806511. pp. 120-122 –

 

Occasionally the term advayavādin also is used. This "non-dualistic monism" or its exponents can also be called māyā-vāda or māyā-vādin. The most ancient use of this example known at present exists in the Padmapurāṇa; occasionally the exponents were called “Māyā-Vedāntins,” and Bhāskara, in rejecting the Śaṅkara theory, called it māyā-vāda in his Brahma-Sūtra-bhāṣya, but Śaṅkara himself never called his theory māyā-vāda, and, moreover, none of the thinkers prior to him had ever proclaimed it as their own theory. Māyā-vāda may be said to be the idea that only the Brahman is real, and that everything else is completely phantasmagoric or false, but this term is not applicable to Śaṅkara’s philosophical theories. Rather, the name is a derogatory term which the men of other systems within the Vedānta school used for the thought of Śaṅkara or to the thought resembling his. Originally, the term māyā-vāda always carried an implication of rejection. In later centuries, however, even the Advaita school came to admit that this designation was adopted as a name of its own theories.

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. My response to Sri Hari Parshad Dasji's response to Sri Kumud prasadji was with the same spirit as that of Dr. HN Bhat.

 

2. The idea Sri Nityanand Misraji is confirming through his recent post is what I communicated to the enquirer in a beginner-friendly language. I ended my answer by saying : " Just as it happens in any debate, opponent -schools of Vedanta use the word 'Mayavada' in a pejorative sense "

 

3. Sri Hari Parshad Dasji's reply in saying:

 

"there were two questions asked by the member who initiated the thread:

 

who is its founder?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

 

my responses were partly in reply to these queries"

 

is still not to my reach. I am confounded to understand how his references were answers to the two questions mentioned here.

 

4.Sri Nityanand Misraji's recent response helps to understand why it is not reasonable to look for 'positive references' using the word 'mAyAvAvAda'

 

Readers are witness to the rest.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj   

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

who is its founder?

Are there any specifications on mAyAvAda?

​Let me try to answer this question. Advaitns don't accept Mayavada. They don't call their theory as Mayavada. When the don't call their theory as Mayvada there is no question of a founder. As said  by scholars​ the term is often used in a pejorative sense . One can find several stray references to it in purnas and several vedantic texts which don't accept Advaita Vedantas view. Now all references to so called Mayvadins theory or mayavadins view can be collected if one desires and then find out its context and relevance which can be an area of research. Scholars may point to such researches if they are made already. I hope by this i am able to get a sense out of this thread. I might be wrong here in my understanding about what this thread means.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Ajitji,

 

1. Your moderation was timely.

 

2. I answered the questions of the thread initiator in one of the very early posts of this thread itself. There I answered these two questions also there.

 

3. māyā is certainly one of the most important key concepts of Advaita Vedanta. Hence if someone uses the word māyāvāda as a name of the Advaita Vedamta, there should be no objection to it.

 

4. That is why I answered the questions with the approach of māyāvāda = advaita vēdāṁta .

 

5. I also made the questioner aware of the fact that the word māyāvāda in a pejorative sense by the polemical rivals.

 

6. Some Puranas might reflect the position of such polemical rivals just as you said :

 

"One can find several stray references to it in purnas and several vedantic texts which don't accept Advaita Vedantas view"

 

Thanks,

 

Nagaraj   

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Please don't reiterate you point several times. You are well understood thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।