[Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Venkatraghavan Ji

Understand from paramArthika dRSTi ( paramArtha jnAna standpoint, which is
the only real view ), there is no avidyA ( either as agrahana or kinchit
bhAva rUpa), no more questions or answers :)

But, the discussion here is from the sabeeja sath (or tinged Brahman) in
the context of deep sleep/creation, by admitting the presence of beeja /
seed in Brahman. This is mainly to get a better understanding of avidyA
locii in Brahman ( kAraNa or sushUpti ) and its possible effects
before/after arising of knowledge.

Are we saying that avidyA ( which is kinchit bhAva rUpa) is destroyed
completely ( in all formats and variants) with the arising of knowledge in
all 3 periods of time and in all 3 avasthAs ?

This would no longer attribute to the presence of any avidyA seed or beeja
( as mUlAvidyA or avidyA shakti) in kAraNa or sushUpti ?

Or, B) do we admit the presence of seed in sushUpti, even after the arising
of knowledge? since avidyA is traikAlika bAdhita for jnAni, he wakes up
from sushUpti as jnAni itself, as before. And this seed itself ( in kAraNa
or sushUpti) is no longer producing any future births, since it is
bAdhita/destroyed by arising of knowledge in waking? Here,we are not
discussing any further specifics/characteristics about this seed (
mUlAvidya or beeja shakti, its destruction?) itself, as it is not required
and has no tangible effects anymore (seen as mithyA), from jnAni's
standpoint.

Reading your response below,  it is inclined to the para B above. Pl
confirm.

Thanks


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,
> "jnAni cannot reasonably re-emerge from deep sleep"
>
> Initially we think moonlight is a thing. Then we realise there is no such
> thing. Only sunlight is. However, despite knowing it doesn't exist in
> reality we continue seeing moonlight.
>
> The basic principle is that experience cannot invalidate fact. JnAna will
> not destroy the experience of mithyA, it will only destroy the belief in
> its reality.
>
> Similarly, for the jnAni there is no avidyA in reality, but to answer
> questions like the ones you raised we provisionally say until the prArabdha
> is exhausted,  avidyAlesha is there. He cannot have avidyA because jnAna
> has destroyed avidyA, and it's harmful effects like delusion and bondage
> are not felt by the jnAni. But the experience of duality continues, so we
> say it's because of avidyAlesha.
>
> That is why even after jnAna, we say he wakes up from sushupti as before.
> After the body falls, avidyAlesha also goes.
>
> "How does this seed in tinged Brahman itself gets destroyed, after jnAna
> prApti ?"
>
> By the arising of the knowledge that ultimately it never was there,
> despite experiencing it's effects. Again we have to apply the principle
> that experience cannot invalidate reality. Experience allows us to say
> avidyA has kinchit bhAva rUpa, and it's traikAlika bAdha through knowledge
> allows us to preserve advaita of Brahman.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 23 Sep 2016 7:38 p.m., "Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, if tinged Brahman is accepted in the context of deep sleep/creation (
>> though Br.Up, Prasna.Up / bhAshya gives a different meaning ) , the seeded
>> Brahman in deep sleep (seed or beeja in Brahman) is admitted even after
>> avidyA is destroyed by jnAna ? (for the same reason, a jnAni cannot
>> reasonably re-emerge from deep sleep)
>>
>> what is this seed that remains in Brahman, even after avidyA ( tattva
>> agrahana) is destroyed ?
>>
>> How does this seed in tinged Brahman itself gets destroyed, after jnAna
>> prApti ?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> 2016-09-23 23:50 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Mandukya bhashya: 1.2 mantra:
>> >
>> >  ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६-८-२)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Chandogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%
>> E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%
>> A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%
>> AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83%E2%80%99%
>> 20%28%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%AC-%E0%A5%
>> AE-%E0%A5%A8%29#Ch_C06_S08_V02> इति
>> > श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Chandogya&page=06#Ch_C06_S02_V01> इति
>> > प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः,
>> बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः ।
>> > यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि
>> जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव
>> > प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं
>> > ब्रह्माभविष्यत्, ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-३)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Brha&page=04#BR_C04_S05_V03>‘यतो
>> > वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २-९-१)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Taitiriya&page=02#T_C02_S09_V01>
>> >  ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Kena_pada&page=01&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%
>> E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%
>> A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%
>> E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%
>> A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%
>> E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%A7-%
>> E0%A5%AA%29#KP_C01_V04> इत्यवक्ष्यत्
>> > ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३-१२)
>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=
>> Gita&page=13#BG_C13_V12> इति
>> > स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत्, सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः
>> > पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
>> > बीजाभावाविशेषात्, ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
>> > तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च
>> > कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।
>> >
>> > The translation of the above by Swami Gambhirananda, p.189-190 of
>> Advaita
>> > Ashrama edition, for the crucial portion: ///*Hence Existence is
>> referred
>> > to as prANa (in the Ch.Up.), and in all the Upanishads. It is spoken of
>> as
>> > the cause in all the Upanishads by *assuming* It (for the time being)
>> to be
>> > the seed of others (the whole creation).* And it is because of this that
>>
>> > It is referred to - *by refuting Its causal state* - in such Vedic texts
>> > as, 'Superior to the akshara (mAyA) (Mund. 2.1.2), 'from which speech
>> turns
>> > back (Tai.2.2), etc. That Supremely Real State, *free from causality,
>> > relation with body, etc. and modes of waking etc.* of that very entity
>> that
>> > is called prAjna, will be spoken separately in Its aspect as the
>> Turiya. If
>> > Brahman in Its seedless (non-causal) state be meant there, then the
>> > individuals that merge in It in deep sleep and dissolution cannot
>> > reasonably re-emerge. If anybody can re-emerge from sleep or
>> dissolution,
>> > conceived of as nothing but identity with the pure Brahman, then there
>> will
>> > be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again,
>> for in
>> > either case, the absence of cause is a common factor."// By saying the
>> > above, Shankara has indicated that ‘in all the Shruti passages,
>> wherever it
>> > is said that during deep sleep the jiva merges in Brahman’ the ‘Brahman’
>> > there is not the Absolute, Non-dual, Vedāntic Brahman, but the tinged,
>> > seeded, Brahman, that is the cause of creation.
>> >
>> >
>> > According to Shankara in all places where Brahman is referred to in the
>> > context of deep sleep/creation it is the tinged Brahman that is meant
>> and
>> > not the Nirguna chaitanyam.  The reasoning is what is stated by Shankara
>> > above.
>> >
>> > regards
>> > subbu
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >  the bhAShya there compares it with suShupti where avidyA is not
>> >> destroyed
>> >> > so we are still at the level of kAraNam brahma at this point. Same
>> goes
>> >> for
>> >> > 'tadaikShata'.
>> >> > Saying
>> >> >  यथा सुषुप्तादुत्थितः सत्त्वमात्रमवगच्छति सुषुप्ते सन्मात्रमेव केवलं
>> >> > वस्त्विति, तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यभिप्रायः
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> From sushupti, isn't the the bhAshya clearly referring to kevala sath -
>> >> सन्मात्रमेव केवलं वस्त्विति?
>> >> There is no mention of avidyA in the above line quoted when explaining
>> sat
>> >> before creation.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >>
>> >> For assistance, contact:
>> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>