[Advaita-l] avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference? Part III
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 06:40:47 CST 2016
3rd sentence of last paragraph should read: "In any way", not "In my way".
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> Namaste SadAji,
> "Essential point is the two aspects - aavarna and vishepa can be locussed
> separately one for jeeva and the other for Iswara"
> This is similar to one of the prakriyAs (number 3) mentioned by Appayya
> Dikshitar. However, he says that the upAdhi is still one, the amshAs are
> different. He does not say that AvaraNa is located in jIva and vikshepa in
> Ishvara - he says that the amsha of the upAdhi that is AvaraNa shakti
> pradhAna is the upAdhi of jIva, and amsha of the upAdhi that is vikshepa
> shakti pradhAna the upAdhi of Ishvara. The locus is still Brahman - the
> upAdhi is not the locus.
> "Conceptually I have a problem in classifying avidya as prakriti with
> trigunaatmikam. In deep sleep state - where ignorance alone prevails.
> avidya can only be classified with tamo guna while vikshepa can have all
> the three gunas. "
> One way to think about this is that prakriti and the guNas are always in a
> state of flux, so for the same individual, sattva can be predominant
> sometimes, rajas can be predominant at others and tamas can be predominant
> at others. Similarly, we can say that in deep sleep, tamas is the
> overpowering guNa. In my way, no aspect of prakriti (even Ishvara) can be
> said to have only one guNa, because prakriti is always tirguNAtmika. They
> can be in temporary states of equilibrium in different configurations, but
> we can never say there is only guNa there, and the other two are absent.
> If there is only guNa, how can the others ever come into being, as neither
> guNa is the cause of the other? It will lead to asatkAryavAda.
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 11:44 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms
>> Thanks for presenting various classifications by Shree Ayyaappa Dikshitar
>> on the existing opinions of the various acharyas at that time.
>> Yes, I remember the Vidyaranya swami's suuddha satva aspect for Iswara in
>> the 1st Ch. of Panchadashi.
>> Essential point is the two aspects - aavarna and vishepa can be locussed
>> separately one for jeeva and the other for Iswara
>> I have no problem in appreciating the three trigunaatmika aspect of
>> vishepa from the jeeva's point -as we find tamasic, rajasic and satvic with
>> different combinations of jeevas.
>> Conceptually I have a problem in classifying avidya as prakriti with
>> trigunaatmikam. In deep sleep state - where ignorance alone prevails.
>> avidya can only be classified with tamo guna while vikshepa can have all
>> the three gunas.
>> Maayantu prakRitim vidyaat . where maaya (in my notation - vikshepa
>> aspect) is prakRiti - pra - kriti - with trigunaatmikam can be easily
>> accounted with vikshepa involving tamasic rajasic, saatvic.
>> In creation, Lord does not have ignorance - sarvajnatvam- but does use
>> maaya with tamasic part of praKriti (maaya) to create all the inert matter
>> formed after pancheekaranam. Hence satvapradhana Iswara has maaya or
>> praKRiti with all the 3 gunas.
>> I agree with Bhaskarji - in terms of anyonya ashraya aspect here - Iswara
>> as reflection in maaya oneside, and Iswara with maaya shakti on the other.
>> In mandukya up. Iswara is defined from the samashti point when describing
>> the deep sleep state.
>> Since these are explanations of prakRiti which itself is maaya - yaa maa
>> saa maayaa - and reflection of pure consciousness in maaaya as Iswara - are
>> all only to satisfy the curious intellect - why and how - and are valid
>> only in vyaavahaarika satyam - They are all OK as long as one does not
>> waste his time to go into deeper analysis other than to transend these to
>> discover that they are all mithyaa only.
>> In essence - a jnaani is one who can declare:
>> Ignorance I never had, I lost it! or in Paramarthanandaji example of
>> fellow who thought he last a chain that his wife gave and ran to his friend
>> only to discover that he had the chain all the time even when he thought he
>> lost it.
>> Hence - four miles of running was necessary to discover that four miles
>> of running was not necessary.
>> Perhaps all these explanations and classifications are necessary to
>> discover that all these explanations and classifications are not necessary
>> - Every explanation has to be taken with the pinch of salt since they are
>> all only have to be discarded - adhyaaropa apavaada.
>> Hari Om!
>> *From:* Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
>> *To:* kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion
>> group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 2, 2016 2:24 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference?
>> Part III
>> Namaste SadAji,
>> Thank you for the detailed reply. Instead of going through a line by line
>> analysis (which is somewhat difficult given the formatting issues), I
>> thought I will instead present a compendium of various prakriyAs in this
>> regard adopted by sampradAya, as outlined by Appayya DIkshitar in
>> Lesha Sangraha.
>> Appayya DIkshitar in defining Ishvara and jIva presents 4 alternatives
>> considered by AchAryas which sheds a very interesting light on how avidyA
>> and mAya are viewed by the sampradAya.
>> 1) From the prakaTArthavivaraNa by AnubhUtisvarUpAchArya: mAya is anAdi,
>> anirvAcya, bhUtaprakriti, located in consciousness. The reflection of
>> consciousness in that mAya is Ishvara. avidyA is the name for the infinite
>> number (ananta) of limited instances (paricchinna pradesha) of the very
>> same mAya endowed with AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti. The reflection of
>> consciousness in that avidyA is jIva. In this definition, avidyA is a
>> subset of mAya.
>> 2) From tattvaviveka (Ch 1 of Panchadashi of VidyAraNya svAmi): Based on
>> the Nrsimha tApini upanishad vAkya जीवेशावभासेन करोति माया च अविद्या च
>> स्वयमेव भवति, this view holds that avidyA and mAya are two forms /
>> configurations of triguNAtmika mUlaprakriti. The configuration of
>> mUlaprakriti where rajas and tamas are dominated by shuddha sattva is
>> called mAya. Where rajas and tamas dominate the sattva, it is called
>> avidyA. Thus, says Appayya DIkshitar, differences are imagined/postulated
>> (parikalpya) between avidyA and mAya. Here, avidyA and mAya are two
>> configurations of the same prakriti.
>> 3) Appayya DIkshitar doesn't name who holds this view: Within one
>> mUlaprakriti, the amsha where the vikshepa shakti is dominant is called
>> mAya, and the amsha where AvaraNa shakti is predominant is called avidyA.
>> Even though the upAdhi's of Ishvara and jIva are the same, because only
>> jIva is associated with AvaraNa shakti, he says "I am ignorant", whereas
>> Ishvara does not. Here avidyA and mAya are two amshas of the same upAdhi.
>> 4) In samkshepa shArIraka of sarvajnAtma muni: Based on the shruti
>> statement "कार्योपधिरयं जीव: कारणोपाधिरीश्वर:" (Shukarahasya upanishad)
>> this view states that Ishvara is the reflection of consciousness in avidyA
>> (the kAraNa) and jIva is the reflection of consciousness in antahkaraNAm
>> (the kArya). In this view, avidyA and mAya are not distinguished at all as
>> Ishvara is said to have the upAdhi of avidyA.
>> In summary, the prevalent views are 1) one is a subset of the other 2) the
>> two are different configurations of the same fundamental guNas 3) They are
>> two different amshas (parts) of the same prakriti, with one amsha being
>> vikshepa pradhAna and the other AvaraNa pradhAna 4) they are absolutely
>> Therefore, your view that avidyA and mAya have been considered as
>> in VedAnta shAstra is correct, as there are some groups within the advaita
>> sampradAya who do hold that view, as evidenced by Appayya DIkshitar. I
>> stand corrected.
>> However, there is an acknowledgment in all views outlined that one is
>> related to the other in some fashion (from absolute identity in one end of
>> the spectrum, to both made of the same "stuff", to one being derived from
>> the other). I am not suggesting this is a comprehensive list of all views
>> within the advaita sampradAya, but among the ones prevalent in DIkshitar's
>> time, he deems these 4 to be the important ones. There could be other
>> that have emerged since then which postulate an absolute difference
>> avidyA and mAya, but I am not aware of these.
>> In any case, as you have identified, holding the view that avidyA and
>> are absolutely the same, or absolutely different, or somewhere in the
>> middle, are merely prakriyA differences and not fundamental to siddhAnta.
>> Whatever one likes one can choose, so long as they get to Atma jnAna
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:55 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > Venkatraghavan: If he only does the former, but notthe latter, we end up
>> > with sAnkhya darshana, where the jIva identifies withkUtastha, but still
>> > attributes reality to prakriti, seen in the form of theworld. This would
>> > lead to advaitahAni. Therefore, a second step to negate mAyawould be
>> > in your state. This obviously hurts the principle of lAghava,which was
>> > one of the advantages of the proposal in the first place. Sada:
>> > Venkatraghavanji –separation occurs by jnaanam while a jnaani becomes a
>> > jeevan mukta. He will beseeing Iswara sRiShti as part of Iswara’s
>> > or his own vibhuti since hehas moved from jeeva-jagat-Iswara triad to
>> > aatma-anaatma binary format. IswarasRishTi remains as long as jnaani’s
>> > which is a product of Iswara sRiShTiremains. I am not sure I understand
>> > therest of your arguments. ----------------------------------Venkatraghavan:
>> > purpose of shAstra is to givemoksha, so any system should not only be
>> > internally consistent, it should alsoseek to achieve that purpose in the
>> > easiest manner possible. Sada:
>> > Indeed Yes, that is true. As peradvaita, moksha involves understanding
>> > a fact that I am already liberated orI am Brahman and taking myself
>> what I
>> > am not is due to avidya which is gone bythe knowledge of who really I
>> > This is not compromised by making avidya thatcauses aavarana and maaya
>> > cause vikshepa. Avidya that I am limited guy(desha-kaala-vastu
>> > paricchinnatvam) is gone by vidya. The rest is IswarasRiShTi beyond the
>> > individual mind. Therefore a jeevan mukta sees as vibhuti.
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Venkatraghavan – from the secondmail:
>> > Namaste SadAji
>> > You can ignore the multiple Ishvara , multiple jagat point, because as
>> > your system, avidyA will be many, but mAya is only one.
>> > However, one more point which you mentioned, but I did not refer to in
>> > email previously:
>> > 4) if the purpose of this formulation is to explain the continued
>> > perception of the world, even after jnAna removes avidyA, one need not
>> > this. The appearance of the world is no proof of either the existence of
>> > the world or it's creation. One need not postulate Ishvara srishTi to
>> > explain continued appearance to jnAnis. Mirage water continues to be
>> > even if one knows it's a mirage. One need not say "God created it" to
>> > explain it's continued appearance after sublating
>> > knowledge. ----------------- Sada:
>> > Venkatraghavanji – Iswara sRishti isonly when I identify I am separate
>> > from the rest of the world due to avidya.When I have gained the
>> > that there is absolutely nothing real otherthan me, everything that I
>> > perceive comes under anaatma, since perception viaBMI will continue as
>> > before. The understanding now will be it is my own vibhutisince
>> > mahaavaakyas help me understand that there are no separate Iswara
>> > sRishTi.pasyam me yogamaiswaram – Look at my glory Arjuna. With avidya
>> > gone, I am moving fromjeeva-Iswara-jagat triangular format to the binary
>> > format of aatma-anaatma. Yesat transactional level – there is a teacher
>> > there are students and theteaching is going on. Hence knowledge does not
>> > eliminate viskhepa aspect; onlytrasforms the sRiShti as vibhuti – of
>> > self or to be more polite – Iswaravibhuti. Jnaani can also pray and see
>> > Iswara as though separate – and yet canunderstand that what is there is
>> > pure self that I am. Mirage waters will beseen as mirage waters and one
>> > glorify the beauty of creation that a drysand and at a glancing angle
>> > sunlight gives the impression of waters. That isall part of vibhuti
>> > Addition to the above. I amconsidering praatibhasika adhyaas comes
>> > jeeva sRiShTi whilevyaavahaarika adhyaasa comes under Iswara sRiShTi.
>> > creation is a commonexample of jeeva sRiShTi. Both aavarana and vishepa
>> > involved.
>> > The mirage waters, the sunrise andsunset, blue sky, pencil appearing as
>> > bending in water when placed half way,etc, are not jeeva sRiShTi as
>> > evidenced by the fact that is notsubjective error but objective error in
>> > the sense that everybody sees. It ispart of Iswra sRiShTi and hence
>> > knowledge that sun does not rise or set viashastra pramana does not
>> > eliminate it since it is not jeeva’s creation. Hope I am clear.
>> > Hari Om!Sadananda
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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