[Advaita-l] Sattva, Rajas, Tamas - Maayaa/Prakriti and Avidya - Shankara

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste V Subramanian ji.

MAyA and prakriti are unambiguously stated to be triguNAtmikA. There is no
confusion here.

In PTB, avidyA is not so directly stated to be triguNAtmikA. The usage for
prakriti/MAyA (which is triguNAtmikA) is always
avidyAtmikA/avidyA-lakshaNA.

However, there should not be any confusion here because the word 'Atmak'
means 'mAtra'.

For e.g. sadAtmaka Brahman is san-mAtra Brahman. न खलु ब्रह्मणः *सदात्मकस्य
*कुतश्चिदन्यतः सम्भव उत्पत्तिराशङ्कितव्या । कस्मात् ? अनुपपत्तेः । *सन्मात्रं
*हि ब्रह्म । न तस्य सन्मात्रादेवोत्पत्तिः सम्भवति, असत्यतिशये
प्रकृतिविकारभावानुपपत्तेः ।

sanmAtra and sadAtmak are one and the same. SImilarly, avidyAtmikA and
avidyA-mAtra are one and the same. Therefore, avidyA is same as MAyA and is
triguNAtmikA.

Shiva-gItA (from Padma purANa) says in 9.4 directly establishing the
triguNAtmikA nature of avidyA -

अनिर्वाच्या महाविद्या त्रिगुणा परिणामिनी।
रजः सत्वं तमश्चेति तद्गुणाः परिकीर्तिताः।।

The identity of avidyA and mAyA is obvious by the usage of word
avidyA-AtmikA. There is no other meaning possible.

Some people cite GItA bhAshya 7.4 to distinguish avidyA and avyakta (which
is same as mAyA/prakriti) because the bhAshya uses avidyA samyuktam
avyaktam. I too used to have same doubt couple of years back. After all, if
A+B is stated, how can A and B be same. But this doubt also resolves on
careful perusal of bhAshya.

अहङ्कारः इति अविद्यासंयुक्तमव्यक्तम् । यथा विषसंयुक्तमन्नं विषमित्युच्यते,
एवमहङ्कारवासनावत् अव्यक्तं मूलकारणमहङ्कार इत्युच्यते.

ahamkAra refers to avyakta coupled with avidyA. Just as food coupled with
poison is called poison, similarly avyakta possessing ahamkAra-vAsanA is
called primal cause ahamkAra.

Here, AchArya says ahamkAra = avyakta +avidyA. Then He uses food-poison
analogy. Thus, poison = food + poison. So, logically, the correct usage
should be -- avyakta (food) + avidyA (poison) is referred by the word
avidyA (poison). But, AchArya has stated "avyakta+avidyA" to be referred by
the word ahamkAra.

People ignore such a crucial point and imagine useless things.

The correct understanding is -- ahamkAra is avidyAtmaka-avyaktam (poison).
How come? avidyAtmaka-avyaktam is akin to food. How can it be poison?
Because it is coupled with ahamkAra-vAsanA (poison).

All AchAryAs have held avidyA-samyuktam-avyaktam to be avidyAtmaka-avyaktam
which is in sync with all other bhAshya-vAkyAs. And the food-poison analogy
is .. ahamkAra is ahamkAra-vAsanA-vAsita-avidyAtmaka-avyaktam i.e.
ahamkAra-vAsanA-vishishTa-avidyAtmaka-avyaktam.

Thus, ahamkAra = avidyAtmaka-avyaktam (food) + ahamkAra-vAsanA (poison).

BhAshya, smriti, logic all point to the identity of avidyA and mAyA. I was
foolish enough couple of years back to hold their distinction. That
emanated from insufficient study which was assumed by me to be sufficient 😀

The word avidyA is used to explain the jnAna-virodhI nature of avidyA.
Because it is sublated by vidyA, it is called avidyA. It is called mAyA to
demonstrate its non-existential (yA mA sA mAyA) and also deluding nature
(like that by magic).

Synonyms serve this purpose only. To indicate different aspects of same
thing. Aditya and DivAkar are same thing -sun. They indicate different
aspects of Sun. That is it.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.



On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:23 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In the following are some quotes, from Shankara, where both Maya/Prakriti
> and Avidya are stated to be endowed with Trigunas - sattva, rajas and
> tamas.
>
> If Shankara were to clearly demarcate maya/prakrit from avidya, he should
> not be using the Trigunas in connection with both maya/prakriti and avidya.
> In other words Shankara would be at fault to use the Three gunas in respect
> of both prakrit/maya and avidya.  But he uses that.  That shows that for
> Shankara maya and avidya are both of the same non-distinguishable nature.
> The Gita shastra is very clear that the means to moksha is going beyond the
> three gunas: 14th Chapter. That means, the Gita specifically says, one has
> to transcend maya/avidya. The Gita does not make a difference between the
> means to transcend maya and the means to transcend avidya/ajnana.     The
> constituents of maya and avidya are sattva, rajas and tamas.  It would be
> impossible for anyone to distinguish between how the three gunas constitute
> maya and how they constitute avidya.
>
>
> श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्अष्टादशोऽध्यायःश्लोक ४१
>
> ………सर्वः संसारः क्रियाकारकफललक्षणः सत्त्वरजस्तमोगुणात्मकः अविद्यापरिकल्पितः
> समूलः अनर्थः उक्तः, वृक्षरूपकल्पनया च ‘ऊर्ध्वमूलम्’ (भ. गी.………
>
>
> श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्अष्टादशोऽध्यायःश्लोक ४१ - भाष्यम्
>
> ………। ‘स्वभावः कारणम्’ इति च कारणविशेषोपादानम् । एवं स्वभावप्रभवैः
> प्रकृतिभवैः सत्त्वरजस्तमोभिः गुणैः स्वकार्यानुरूपेण शमादीनि कर्माणि
> प्रविभक्तानि ॥ ………
>
>
>  त्रिगुणात्मिकां स्वां मायां मूलप्रकृतिं   Gitabhashya
>
>
> प्रकृतिं स्वां मम वैष्णवीं मायां त्रिगुणात्मिकाम् , यस्या वशे सर्वं जगत्
> वर्तते, यया मोहितं सत्………
>
>
> कथं पुनः दैवीम् एतां त्रिगुणात्मिकां वैष्णवीं मायामतिक्रामति इत्युच्यते —
>
> सर्वभूतानि कौन्तेय प्रकृतिं त्रिगुणात्मिकाम्
>
>
>  मम माया त्रिगुणात्मिका अविद्यालक्षणा
>
>
> प्रकृती ईश्वरस्य — त्रिगुणात्मिका
>
> प्रकृतिश्च त्रिगुणात्मिका सर्वकार्यकरणविषयाकारेण परिणता
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com