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

Sun Sep 25 08:44:55 CDT 2016

```Ravi Kiranji - PraNAms
There are two ways to look at it.
>From the point of ajnaana - Jnaana eliminates it - this is vRitti ruupua jnaanam for vRitti ruupa ajnanam. This happens even in paroxa jnaanam.
>From the point of the mind because of lingering vaasanaas which cannot be 100% eliminated, the abidance or jnaana nishTa or sthitaprajna becomes not a discrete event but asymptotically approaching process.

Hence Goudapaada treats exhaustively the obstacles for aparoxa jnaanam.

Hence for all practical purposes it is eliminated. The rest is only academic. One can keep arguing about it but the nature of the problem has to be clear.

From: Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T

True, but, if jnAna is not 100% (samyak), avidyA is not completely bAdhita ..

Regards,

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> Just reading some mails on the topic.
>
> Yes, jnaani sleeps as jnaani and ajnaani sleeps as ajnaani. The sleep is
> the absence of subject-object duality as anandamaya kosha is there for both.
>
> Just one thought.
>
> From thermodynamics there is no 100% purity as in there is no 100% pure
> gold. It is always 99.999999...%.
>
> Similarly jnaanan involve first paroxa jnaanam and for it to become
> aparoxa jnaanam purity of the mind is needed. It is not a discrete event
> since there is no 100% purity. Hence Swami Paramarthanandaji calls it as
> FIR reduction - F frequency of perturbation from the samatva dRishTi, I is
> the intensity of disturbance and R-recovery time from perturbation - FIR
> gets reduced as one abides in the knowledge of aham brahmaasmi.
>
> Hence 100% jnaani is not there and therefore one can still say there is
> identification with BMI can be there which gets reduced.
>
> My 2c
>
> Hari Om!
>
>
> ------------------------------
> vedanta.org>
> *To:* Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> vedanta.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:13 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and
> avidhya ?T
>
> Yes, that seed where all knowledge is resolved into potential form
> (prajnAnaghana) and all objects are resolved into potential form (ekIbhUta)
> is there as long as prArabdha is there. That is why a jnAni wakes up as a
> jnAni - his kAraNa sharIra has that Atma jnAna in its resolved, potential
> form.
>
> So the three avasthAs continue as normal even after jnAna, until the
> fructified prArabdha is resolved and all three bodies go back to their
> source.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 24 Sep 2016 10:54 a.m., "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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