[Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 24 05:11:37 CDT 2016
Namaste Praveen ji
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> Namaste Raviji,
> Looks like you sent this mail only to me by oversight. Reply inline...
I got a response from you to me only..
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>> If you accept there is no trace of avidyA in paramArthA sat,
> I suspect there is a mix up here in understanding when you say this.
> Having brahman as the locus of avidyA doesn't mean that brahman
> is affected by avidyA. The latter is mithyA, as said earlier. Moreover,
> avidyA is opposed to jnAnam and vice versa, but brahman is opposed to
> NOTHING. avidyA can "happily" have parabrahman as its locus.
On same page here ..
>> सदेव सदिति अस्तितामात्रं वस्तु सूक्ष्मं निर्विशेषं सर्वगतमेकं निरञ्जनं
>> निरवयवं विज्ञानम्,
>> That which is sukshmam, nirvishesham, sarvagatham, ekam , niranjanam,
>> niravayavam, viJnAnam is kevala sat, ekam eva adviTIyam, before creation (
>> paramArthika), is devoid of any mithyA (mUlAvidyA) or any nAma rUpa
>> vishesha that can be comprehended
> There is NO difference whatsoever in brahman before creation and after
> creation. The creation stories should not be taken as idam ittham. They are
> adhyAropa to explain the world that we perceive. If you go ahead and still
> differentiate in brahman prior to creation and that after creation, you
> will have to explain where from this creation cropped up? You will surely
> have to answer that it indeed came from Ishvara, who is nothing but brahman
> with mAyA upAdhi. Then where was mAyA? Was it different from brahman in
> which case advaita will become dvaita, or is it same as brahman in which
> case brahman will not remain pure.
The point raised is - whether from paramArthika standpoint (nirguna
nirvisesha brahman) or not , not differentiating in brahman :)
> Sureshvaracharya says that this mAyA/ avidyA rests in brahman itself,
> without affecting it in Naishkarmyasiddhi (NS).
> Some may differentiate between terminologies of avidyA and mAyA, but with
> the principle of Occam's razor, if you just see mAyA as that universal
> avidyA, it has to have its locus in sat padArtha brahman itself.
> If you differentiate between both and say Maya is shakti of brahman and
> avidyA is seen in individuals, where would this individual avidyA have its
> locus? Mind you, there is nothing other than brahman. jIva is brahman,
> (unless you think jIva has an anAtmA component like some do). So it really
> cannot rest anywhere else. And if doesn't rest in anything, it cannot come
> from nothing. We are not shUnyavAdis. :)
Yes, agreed :)
>> नामरूपक्रियावद्विकृतमुपलभ्यते - creation is nAma rUpa vishesha
>> superimposed on adhiSThAna sat (result of avidyA)
> The only other non-option left is that avidyA rests in anAtmA.
> Sureshvaracharya proves why this is a non-option in NS. If you think that
> is a possibility and not brahman itself, refer to NS or let me know so that
> I can jot down the points here.
I am clear ..Thanks
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list