[Advaita-l] Brahman and Avidya - mutually exclusive?
aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 09:40:11 CDT 2015
When you say
" mAyA cannot be destroyed because it does not exist fundamentally. That
does not mean that experience of mAyA doesn't exist. mAyA and its effects
are experienced by gyAnI also, but he knows that a) mAyA does not exist and
b) He, the Brahman, is not the one apparently experiencing the effects of
mAyA. In deep sleep he doesn't experience mAyA, but it does not mean that
the kArANa sharIra is destroyed."
Do you say that mAyA which has no fundamental existence has a location in
Brahman? mAyA is like the X introduced in a mathematical equation to know
the Unknown. So it has to have location only where the unknown need to be
located. But when the unknown is the only One and all pervading, then?
That's why it becomes mystical in expressions.
On 23 Jun 2015 19:56, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sri Aurobind,
> There is a risk that we are debating all over the place. The topic under
> discussion is not whether mAyA has fundamental existence or not - it does
> not. We are only debating whether avidyA and Brahman can co-exist or not.
> My contention is that it can and does.
> You say >> Maya or MoolAvidya or what ever we call it is not in Swaroopa
> or Brahman, both being the same, but in the
> Anthakarana thru which the Jeeva bhava is assumed.
> My point is that Brahman, being asangA, is not affected by mUlAvidya - so
> yes, mUlAvidyA is not "in" the svarUpA of Brahman, however, you cannot say
> mUlAvidyA is not "in" Brahman. mUlAvidyA has to exist with brahman as its
> locus. Nothing else can lend apparent existence to mUlAvidyA. mUlAvidyA
> cannot have antahkaraNa as its substratum - in fact, the antahkaraNa is a
> projection of mUlAvidyA, which in turn, depends upon Brahman for its
> apparent existence.
> mUlAvidyA's apparent existence in Brahman does not affect the asangatvam
> of Brahman in any way whatsoever.
> mAyA cannot be destroyed because it does not exist fundamentally. That
> does not mean that experience of mAyA doesn't exist. mAyA and its effects
> are experienced by gyAnI also, but he knows that a) mAyA does not exist and
> b) He, the Brahman, is not the one apparently experiencing the effects of
> mAyA. In deep sleep he doesn't experience mAyA, but it does not mean that
> the kArANa sharIra is destroyed.
> All this talk of turIyam etc. are introducing elements of mysticism, which
> is not really needed for mokshA in my opinion.
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>> Your two questions are:
>> So two questions here:
>> 1) Are you saying that mAyA or mUlAvidya is non existent in deep sleep?
>> mAyA is only to him who in waking feels or experiences the effects of it.
>> In his deep sleep he doesn't have any experience (visheSha vigjnanam) since
>> his all types of sharIrA is in laya and has merged into the Turiya. When
>> that Turiya vibrates (spandanam) again, the cycle repeats. This laya is in
>> fact becoming one with IT as there is no two in reality. But what happens
>> or seems to happen, even though in reality it is not happening, is the all
>> pervading when reflects through the same sharIrA the individuality appears
>> to come back to life in the waking as Jnani or AJnani or the Jagat through
>> their respective Upadhis. These explanations of theory of mAyA etc are only
>> to make one inward and not in reality. In reality only That is there. Rest
>> are for the inquisitive mind to calm down and realise that "Brahmaivedam
>> sarvam" or "Atma vyatirekena nasti kinchit".
>> 2) Are you saying that the lack of experience of sharIrA is equal to the
>> lack of existence of the sharIrA
>> From the above you can understand that the laya is a temporary absence
>> like a wave when not seen does not mean it is absent in the ocean.
>> Aurobind Padiyath
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list