[Advaita-l] (no subject)
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sun Jun 25 03:21:24 EDT 2017
Namaste Praveen Ji,
Reg << but chaitanya itself can be called as shrotra, etc, with the upAdhi,
but not Maya/ avidyA with the upAdhi.>>,
wherever it is said avidya covers (AvaraNa) chaitanya, the position is
exactly the same as with shrotra etc. Avidya by itself cannot cover, it is
enabled to do so only because of Chaitanya. But then Chaitanya goes by the
name of avidya itself, just as with shrotra etc. I hope I have at least
made my point understandable.
Reg << I try to maintain that whenever mAya or avidyA are talked of as the
cause of the world, it is with chaitanya as adhiShTAna, but when jIva is
talked of as the cause of the world, it is with mAya/ avidyA as upAdhi >>,
I hope I have understood you correctly when I make the following point. It
just represents my understanding, different from the above, but no claim is
made that my view only is correct. Just take it at its face value and if
you disagree, fine. No issues. BU states
<< तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत् (taddhedaM tarhyavyAkRRitamAsIt) >>.
At this stage chaitanya is adhiShTAna only, but Creation has not taken
place. TU states
<< सोऽकामयत (so.akAmayata) >>.
This represents association with upAdhi after which only Creation takes
place. Hence it is only after mAyA becomes an upAdhi for Chaitanyam,
Creation takes place. Not when Chaitanyam is an adhiShTAna only. I have
resorted to different Upanishads since I could not readily get the
references I wanted from the same Upanishad. This should not be a problem.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> Namaste Chandramouliji,
> I'm just a little lost on some of what you said, clubbing them together
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:27 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just wanted to clarify my earlier statement. Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal
>> did not mention mAyA or avidyA. They are just my question.
> I'm assuming that your reference to what Shastriji says was about the
> crux of Kena being that chaitanya itself gets the upAdhi name. Even if we
> take it that way, we can't say chaitanya itself gets the name Maya/ avidyA
> and hence such phrases cannot be used for them.
>> In some contexts, when it is declared mAyA/avidya or jIva for that matter
>>> is the cause of srishti, (cannot give references readily for this), does it
>>> not mean the same way?
>> In the same way as shrotrasya shrotram? I do not think so. You may be
> able to do so only with the first part of Shastriji's explanation in that "Any
> upAdhi is active due to its association with Chaitanyam alone" but not and
> Chaitanyam gets the name of the upAdhi itself in that context." since
> chaitanya is surely what helps shrotra, etc, as well as Maya/ avidyA act,
> but chaitanya itself can be called as shrotra, etc, with the upAdhi, but
> not Maya/ avidyA with the upAdhi. The reason is that shrotra, etc, are
> upAdhis due to Maya/ avidyA.
> Moreover, I try to maintain that whenever mAya or avidyA are talked of as
> the cause of the world, it is with chaitanya as adhiShTAna, but when jIva
> is talked of as the cause of the world, it is with mAya/ avidyA as upAdhi;
> the exact other way around, since jIvobrahmaiva nAparaH.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list