[Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 00:16:14 CDT 2016
Let me see if I can explain it.
You are extending the dream example beyond what is correct and coming to
the wrong conclusion. Yes, that you were dreaming is real is true in that
example, but don't extend that example that far.
The shruti very clearly says na iha nAnA asti kinchana - there is no
plurality *here*. So even now and here, there is no avidyA OR it's effects.
All this is only an appearance.
AvidyA is only an explanation given to convince people to let go of the
notion that appearance is reality. To them, the shruti says you are wrong
because of avidyA, and there is only Brahman. Once they are convinced that
appearance is not reality and only Brahman is there, then the shruti says
drop the explanation for the appearance, because you no longer need it. And
since the effect, the world, never existed in any period of time, the
explanation, avidyA never existed in any period of time also.
Like how someone sees the moonlight and gives it a name as moonlight. In
reality the form of moonlight and the name are just nAmarUpa. No new form
of light was created, and the name moonlight is simply a convention. We
notionally say that a mistake made them imagine a form and name to it,
however, neither the name, nor the form nor the mistake really existed. It
is simply sunlight all along.
Similarly in the ultimate teaching, the shruti says there is no world. It
was never created. It is only an appearance. It doesn't exist in reality.
We mistakenly see a form and call it the world. Neither the form nor the
name is real.
Once you are convinced that the appearance never existed, don't go looking
for an explanation of something that never was there.
On 12 Aug 2016 5:22 a.m., "Ramachandra Achar via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Ok, I accept what ever we see in dream is false,when we wake up .....But i
was in dream ,is true right?
Seeing snake in rope is illusion,when we come to know that it is rope
only...but that illusion exists right ,at least untill we get brahma jgnana?
There exists at least two things untill we get brahma jgnana 1)jgnana
When we get brahma jgnana agnana sizes to exist......
I too accept the effect of agnana (maya ) is false and don't exist in all
but how do you prove that only jgnana exists in all three kaala and agnana
don't even exists in all three kaala
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Ramachandra Achar via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> ---------- 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>
>>> 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...
>> Just like the dream experience is real while one is in dream, and is
>> unreal (asatyam)
>> upon waking, ajnAna anubhava seems to be real, until Brahma Atmaikatva
>> jnAna is attained.
>>> 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...
> Once you realize that only rope existed, will you not conclude that - rope
> alone exists in all 3 kAlas,
> seeing snake in rope was brAnthi or brama and not yadArtha anubhava..
> rope alone is satya, seeing snake in rope (and the experience/effects it
> creates) is mithya..
>> otherwise we can't account for this world....
>>> So,there exist two things agnana and jgnana (brahman)......atleast at
>>> and present ,maybe at features only jgnana continues to exit....
>>> Then how do you prove there exists only jgnana (Brahman),in all three
>>> and agnana doesn't exist in all three folds of time?
>>> On 11 Aug 2016 11:09 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>>> > 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
>>> >> that notion....gumma is mithya
>>> >> Here comming out of notion means notion is present at this time
>>> >> And also at the beginning there was only brahman or paramarthika not
>>> >> 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
>>> > It need not be real. The apparent existence of ajnāna is admitted only
>>> > account for the samsāra. When the non-dual knowledge is appreciated
>>> > can be no place for ajnāna.
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list