[Advaita-l] Brahman and Avidya - mutually exclusive?
agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 09:44:20 CDT 2015
>>Do you say that mAyA which has no fundamental existence has a location in
Yes, with one small change to the wording - mAyA which has no fundamental
existence, *appears to exist* in Brahman.
That apparent existence is only possible because of brahman lending
existence to it.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <
aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
> 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.
> Aurobind Padiyath
> 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