[Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?
sujal.u at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 05:37:53 CDT 2016
... and to answer the question why one forgets, its explained by examples
like veiling of Sun by clouds as given in atmabodha. Forgetfulness of own
nature as atmasvarUpa is mentioned in Ch. Up 'You are that (Brahman)
Svetaketu' and is repeated nine times. This fact is also mentioned in
sadAnanda's vedAnta sAra
Throughout the entire process of neti-neti i.e. negation of non-self by way
of detachment, the first person i.e. 'I' never ever changes or vanishes
even for a moment. It is the same 'I' that is been sought at. After
negating everything else other than 'I', one experiences oneself as pure
consciousness. Now this 'I' is known as Brahman. Wise also says that since
there was never a time when Brahman or Atman never existed, it was always
in it's true form, only the veiling of ignorance and wrapping of
panchamahAbhUta-s created a false ego which claims everything as it's own.
Definition of truth and unreal is given in BG 2.16.
Also note that you cannot negate your own self. Hence 'I' stays, no matters
what happens. Anything that is perceived or experienced is because of
consciousness. This pure consciousness is the real 'I' - the first person -
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com> wrote:
> In panchadashI, SrI vidyAraNya svAmI has said that - after the removal of
> aGYAna, GYAnI (jIvanmukta) sees mithyA jagat, as mithyA and GYAna are nor
> opposite. However, GYAnI knows that samsAra is mithyA and hence do not get
> involved in it.
> It is like seeing sky meeting land. We know that it is an illusion, yet we
> keep seeing it :)
> In case of nirvikalpa samAdhi, one does not see (experience) any brAnti or
> mithyA jagat, as one is above mAyA, but when one's consciousness descends
> back to the plane of jagat, it comes under the influence of mAyA. Since
> mind is necessary to see or experience anything, and mind is under
> influence of mAyA, it sees or experiences jagat. However, a GYAnI is
> detached from mind and hence knows the truth.
> Hari OM
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > Had it really existed, then, like Brahman, it should be existing for
>> True..In that case, jnAna cannot dispel avidya if it really existed (as it
>> is not kartru tantra)..
>> jnAna can only illumine it ..
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 1:02 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Ramachandra Achar via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Yes, subbu sir ,
>> > > I accept because of agnana whatever we see is false,and
>> > > 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
>> > > 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
>> > > But we have to accept the existence of dream in past and present...
>> > > Similarly, agnana of seeing snake in rope maybe false....
>> > > But that agnana,which makes me to see snake in rope is not false...it
>> > > true and 100% exists...otherwise we can't account for this world....
>> > > So,there exist two things agnana and jgnana (brahman)......atleast at
>> > past
>> > > and present ,maybe at features only jgnana continues to exit....
>> > >
>> > The BG 2.16 says about 'Existence': na abhāvo vidyate sataḥ [Existence
>> > never go out of existence.] That which exists can never go out of
>> > existence. If X is admitted to no longer exist, then its former
>> > is in question. If māyā/ajñāna/avidyā were admitted to exist at any
>> time in
>> > the past and present but not in future, then its earlier existence is in
>> > question. Why? For the reason that it does not satisfy the above
>> > of existence. Since it is known to cease to exist upon the dawn of
>> > knowledge, it is deemed to be non-existent in all three periods of
>> time. It
>> > only appeared to exist but did not really exist. Had it really existed,
>> > then, like Brahman, it should be existing for ever.
>> > vs
>> > Then how do you prove there exists only jgnana (Brahman),in all three
>> > > and agnana doesn't exist in all three folds of time?
>> > >
>> > > Ramachandra
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list