# [Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?

Ramachandra Achar ramachandraachar2 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 11 20:33:12 CDT 2016

```---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ramachandra Achar" <ramachandraachar2 at gmail.com>
Date: 12 Aug 2016 7:02 a.m.
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?
To: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Cc:

Yes, subbu sir ,
I accept because of agnana whatever we see is false,and that
object doesn't exist in all three "kaalas",
For example snake seen on rope,person seen on dream......

I too accept Maya ,which is due to agnana is false and doesn't exist in
three  folds of time.

But we have accept the existence of agnana in past and present.
For example in dream whatever we see maybe false and doesn't exist.....
But we have to accept the existence of dream in past and present...
Similarly, agnana of seeing snake in rope  maybe false....
But that agnana,which makes me to see snake in rope is not false...it is
true and 100% exists...otherwise we can't account for this world....
So,there exist two things agnana and jgnana (brahman)......atleast at past
and present ,maybe at features only jgnana continues to exit....

Then how do you prove there exists only jgnana (Brahman),in all three kalas
and agnana doesn't exist in all three folds of time?

Ramachandra

On 11 Aug 2016 11:09 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Ramachandra Achar <
> ramachandraachar2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Subbu sir,
>>
>>                You gave "gumma," example and said,when you come out of
>> that notion....gumma is mithya
>>
>> Here comming out of notion means notion is present at this time right?
>>
>> And also at the beginning there was only brahman or paramarthika not even
>> a pinch of agnana
>>
>> From there how vyvaharika jgnana or agnana came?
>> Without existance can some notion of agnana come?
>>
> Prakṛti/ajnāna/māyā is anādi. samsāra is anādi. But it can come to an end.
> It need not be real. The apparent existence of ajnāna is admitted only to
> account for the samsāra. When the non-dual knowledge is appreciated there
> can be no place for ajnāna.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
```