[Advaita-l] Lord's mama guNamayi mAya Vs Jeeva's avidyA

Sudhanshu Shekhar sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
Sat Sep 30 09:19:25 EDT 2023

Hari Om Bhaskar ji

There is no contradiction in avidyA=mAyA.

Your objections arise because of incorrect application of avidyA as a
qualifying factor with respect to jIva and Ishwara.

JIva= avidyA-pratibimbita-Brahman

Ishwara = avidyA-upahita-Brahman

While for jIva, avidyA acts as visheshaNa, for Ishwara, it acts as upAdhi.

Having explained the position, as I understand, of the "traditionalists",
we need to understand how "1%" explain jIva and Ishwara.

1. Please explain how the "1%" define jIva and Ishwara.

2. If mAyA as per 1% is avidyA-kalpita, then how come anartha-hetu-avidyA
gives rise to daivi mAyA?


On Sat, 30 Sep, 2023, 3:40 pm Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> My God!!  I am in wonderment, verses in BG (like 7.14 & 7.25) can be
> interpreted like this also just to equate mAya with avidyA!!  Anyway, we,
> the 1% weaker section 😊  should not open our mouth against ‘traditional’
> interpretation of these verses as they have been accepted as ‘authority’
> since ages.  However, this 1% still have the conviction that they are too
> representing shankara vedAnta, so parallel view points need to be shared.
> There is one saying in Kannada : kaamaale kanniddavarige kandiddella
> haladi, (a jaundiced eye would see everything as yellow)  I the jeeva have
> the avidyA, so whatever I  see is avidyA  and whoever termed as Ishwara /
> brahman must be having avidyA as well but since he is Ishwara let us say he
> too have avidyA but he is not influenced by avidyA let us spare him
> nevertheless fact remains that Ishwara / brahman too has avidyA 😊 but when
> it is with Ishwara you call it as mAya ( for all diplomatic purposes) and
> freely call it as avidyA when it is pasted to jeeva.  IMO, atleast it is
> one way or the other a healthy development among avidyA-mAya abedha
> vAdins,  atleast now they have started to say It is Ishwara’s mAya and
> jeeva’s avidyA instead of asserting Ishwara’s / brahman’s avidyA due to
> which brahman itself or Ishwara himself got deluded etc. by quoting svayaM
> mOhitaH etc.😊 I sincerely hope days are not too far away when they started
> to say avidyA is not mAya and mAya is Ishwara adheena but avidyA /adhyAsa
> is jeeva’s defect which is ultimately the perspective presented by PTB
> bhAshyakAra.
> Let us take 7.14, Lord here avidly clarifying  daivi hyesha ‘guNamayi’
> ‘mama mAya’ duratyayaa etc.  Here mAya defined as mama mAya, of mine i.e.
> the Lord, Krishna, vishNu, nArAyaNa, my own ( its entirely belongs to him)
> he is owning and having the absolute control over it.  And most importantly
> he is describing it as ‘daivi’ divine, sublime, guNamayi constituted by
> guNa-s etc.  Can the anishta like avidyA fit these descriptions??  Can
> avidyA be divine??  Can avidyA be guNamayi when it is categorically
> explained as dOsha ??  can this anishta, tuccha, duHkha mUla, anartha hetu,
> apavitra avidyA  is hugged by the parama parishuddha lord and saying it is
> mine and my own etc. ??  Oh, my God, where  are we heading here?? And in
> 7.13 itself bhAshyakAra himself saying tribhiH, guNamayaiH guNa vikAraiH
> ‘raaga, dvesha mOhAdi prakAraiH etc.  how can this glaring difference
> between guNa and guNa vikAra rAga dvesha etc. be ignored and illogically
> striking the similarities between mAya (triguNa) and avidyA (rAga, mOha,
> dvesha etc.)??
> And in 7.25 Lord saying he is yOga mAya samAvruta (being covered by yOga
> mAya)  does it mean Lord binding himself with this yOga mAya??  Like sun
> dragging the cloud covering himself to say he deluded himself due to mAya
> ??  This is gross misrepresentation of very Advaita tattva.  If some one
> sees dviteeya Chandra is it a problem of original moon??  If some rich
> person say See I am a multi billionaire this idiot (some other person) does
> not know that, can we say rich person’s wealth is as same as mUdha’s
> ignorance??  Illogically and unwarrantedly stretching these analogies would
> cause more harm than good.  Ishwara’s mAya can never ever be compared with
> jeeva’s avidyA.  All these gymnastics of avidyA-mAya abedha vAdins started
> because they deliberately ignore when we are talking about jeeva it is
> shAreeri ( he is encompassed ONLY is shareera) only and not Ishwara/brahman
> IOW,  jeeva is the nature of brahman but brahman is NOT the nature of
> jeeva.  It is because of this there is hell a lot of difference between
> mAya and avidyA which nobody can ignore.
> Earlier also we have said enough of this and everything is done and dusted
> but despite this we are still seeing this desperate effort to strike a
> similarity whenever opportunity arises but unfortunately it is totally out
> of context and concocted inter pretation of some of the plain bhAshya
> vAkya-s.
> Again this is a parallel view point one can think of after seeing the
> bhAshya from different perspective.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list