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

Ravi Kiran ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 24 02:55:03 CDT 2016


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> If it is admitted in sabeeja sath or apara brahman (kArana brahman) as
> Ashraya in Brahman, do you see any conflicts ?
> Ø   Sabeeja sath or apara brahman or kArya brahman is not different from
> para brahman.  One and the same brahman is regarded as para and apara by
> not ascribing or ascribed specific features.

> Now the question is, whether specific feature including the avidyA beeja
> Shakti aslo in apara brahman??
since the beeja Shakti portion ( or mUlAvidya) is not clearly defined (not
clear to me), let us limit to avidyA (jIva) or mAya (Ishvara) ..

why not we accept apara or saguNa brahman endowed with mAya (upAdhi) as
sabeeja sath ?

> If the apara brahman is with avidyA as Shakti then it is NOT same
> parabrahman with attributes.  Shankara in sUtra bhAshya somewhere
> clarifies, since the qualities intended to be taught by the shruti apply to
> ‘parabrahman’ only, we have to conclude that it is para brahman alone that
> is to be meditated upon.  We are forgetting the fact that aparabrahman is
> not only srushti karta he is also upAsya and through the upAsana we are
> getting the hiraNyagarbhAdi lOka in krama mukti and through him only
> ultimately paramAtha jnana.  If he himself endowed with avidyA beeja how
> can he bestow the krama mukti to upAsaka-s??  After all we are all talking
> about the particular concept ‘shakti’ to differentiate para brahman from
> apara (kArya) brahman, but what is this Shakti?? Is it avidyA Shakti or is
> it inherent power of brahman??  The clincher is in the clarification of
> shankara in sUtra bhAshya :
> Ø  // quote //
> Ø  The power which may be supposed to inherent in the cause in order to
> ensure a particular effect (and no other), cannot ensure the production of
> the particular effect if it is other than the cause, or non-existent.  For
> in that case it would be quite like any other thing which is non-existent
> or other than the cause (and there could be no valid reason why that cause
> alone should produce the particular effect).  Hence we have to conclude
> that the power is ‘identical’ with the cause, and the effect is identical
> with the power.
> Ø  //unquote//
Ø  Now tell me prabhuji, if the power of brahman is avidyA can we say his
> power is identical with cause and effect is nothing but that power??

Noted you are bringing out kArya kArana ananyatvam here.. saguNa brahman
endowed with mAya - dont see an issue ..

The issue arises only if any trace of avidyA is admitted in paramarthika
> sat ( or nirguna nirvisesha nirupAdhika brahman) ..is it not?
> Ø   Issue also arises if we illogically attribute avidyA to saguNa
> brahman or upAsya brahman or mukti dAta kArya brahman.  Since Ishwara is
> nitya shuddha, Buddha, mukta svarUpa always.  Without going into these
> details some quote shankara’s commentary in arAbhaNAdhikaraNa where
> shankara says brahman conditioned by name and form set up by avidyA becomes
> Ishwara.  It is regret to note that they failed to understand that  it is
> not there to attribute Ishwara with avidyA beeja as Shakti but to show that
> in parabrahman there is no bhedha like Ishwara, jeeva and jagat..neha
> nAnAsti kiMchana.

Noted ...hoping those members with more clarity of mUlAvidyA ( beeja
shakti) may throw light on this ...

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list