gmane.culture.religion.advaita

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

kuntimaddi sadananda — 2013-05-24T11:37:06

Bhaskarji - PraNAms
I
recognize that these discussions are futile since there is no knowledge that
takes place via these discussions. Perhaps the bystanders may gain some
clarification if they have any doubts. 
 
avidyaa
also comes under mithyaa only since it is part of vyaavahaarika satyam and
therefore anirvachaniiyam. Shree Sureshwara gives an elaborate description in
his introduction to NaiShkarmya Siddhi how samsaara arises. 
 
The
maayaa cannot be different from avidyaa - we call it moola avidya since this
avidya, unlike the specific avidyaa-s of objective world or of objective sciences,
is the very basis for non-apprehension and subsequent misapprehension - which
are anaadi. Brahman is the ultimate locus for anything and everything by
definition since there cannot be anything other than Brahman. At the same time
Brahman cannot be the cause for anything including avidyaa as well as its
opposite jnaanam too since it is indivisible or without parts of any kind. In advaita
it is not contradiction since

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

2013-05-24T06:41:38

Is your opinion that avidyA is not equal to mAyA as per Sankara?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+AlfA< at >public.gmane.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:45:33 
To: <rajaramvenk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l< at >lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

mAyA used in positive (daivim maya), neutral (trigunatmika maya) and 
negative (kutastha - kuta = crooked)connotations. avidyA is always 
negative. Is that right? 

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

Yes, the term 'mAya' has been used under different contexts by 
shankara...some times it is said maya's svarUpa is brahmAnanya and mAya is 
brahmAdheena, some times it is said mAyA is anirvachaneeya, mAyA  is 
avidyA parikalpita, avidyA kruta, avidyA pratyupasthApita, and somewhere 
in geeta bhAshya shankara insists that parA & aparA prakruti dvaya which 
is Ishwara mAya is 'nitya' and krishna tells it is

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

2013-05-24T06:36:55

In BhG 13.2, Sankara elucidates the relationship, if that is right usage, between the Self and Avidya. It may be worth going through it carefully to understand his views. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:09:03 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/wxK< at >public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Namaste

In 'Method of Vedanta' book SSS Swamiji gives Sureshwara's opinion in Page
314. He is answering a question Who is Ashraya for Avidyaa? Self or not
Self. He is saying not Self is arising from Avidyaa only. Avidyaa cannot
have Ashraya in a thing produced by it. Na Anaatmanaha Ajnaanitva

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-24T04:39:03

Namaste

In 'Method of Vedanta' book SSS Swamiji gives Sureshwara's opinion in Page
314. He is answering a question Who is Ashraya for Avidyaa? Self or not
Self. He is saying not Self is arising from Avidyaa only. Avidyaa cannot
have Ashraya in a thing produced by it. Na Anaatmanaha Ajnaanitvam Na Api
Tad Vishayam Ajnaanam. He has said Ashraya for Avidyaa is Self only.
Parisheshyaad Atmanaha Eva Astu Ajnaanam Tasya 'Ajno Asmi' Iti Anubhava
Darshanaat.

But trick question is Who is Ashraya for Avidyaa? Jeeva or Brahma? It is is
trick question because Jeeva is not Anaatma only. Brahma and Jeeva are not
different. But Jeeva has Upadhis like body.


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+AlfA< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Bhaskar YR — 2013-05-23T12:22:57

But in 'Brahman assuming the jIvabhAva due to avidyA' Whose Avidyaa it is?
If you say Brahma has taken Jeevabhava because of his own Avidyaa it is 
not
correct because Brahma cannot have Avidyaa. If you say Brahma has taken
Jeevabhava because of Jeeva's Avidyaa there is a circular logic. Who is
first? Jeeva or Jeeva's Avidyaa? If Jeeva is first - How Brahma became 
that
Jeeva without Avidyaa? If Jeeva's Avidyaa is first - how that Avidyaa came
without Jeeva? You have not solved the Problem. The correct answer is
Avidyaa is for person having the Adhyaasa. Jeeva, Ishwara and Maayaa are
imagined through Avidyaa.

praNAms Sri Venkatesh prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Strictly speaking questions about avidyA Ashraya, vishaya etc. (avidyA to 
whom??  about which matter?? etc.) not at all arise in advaita, it is in 
dvaita vyavahAra only these question arise because here tiny jeeva without 
knowing his bhUma rUpa asking these silly questions by identifying himself 
with BMI and objectifying the avidyA as a separate thing!!

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-23T12:22:16



I will have no problem for I will easily show what Shankara has said in the
ArambhanAdhikaraNam bhashya: atashcha idam shAstrIyam brahmAtmatvam
avagamyamAnam svAbhAvikasya shArIrAtmatvasya bAdhakam sampadyate,
rajjvAdibuddhaya iva sarpAdibuddhInAm.  bAdhite cha shArIrtmatve
tadAshrayaH samastaH svAbhAviko vyavahAro bAdhito bhavati.

Shankara is refuting the view that 'nAnAtvam in bandha is satya and ekatvam
in moksha is also satyam.  He is showing the fallacy in such a view.  He is
pointing out that if shAstra jnAnam is to falsify the jIvabhAva it has
necessarily to be mithyA.

That is enough to convey to the pUrvapakshin that Advaita never accepts the
avidyA and its kArya to be real.  So, the pUrvapaksha you raise above is
unfounded. In advaita avidyA and the resultant jIvabhAva/samsAra are never
admitted to be real.  And the following is crucial in understanding the
tAtparya of the Br.up. 1.4.10 bhashya:

श्रयत्वविषयत्वभागिनी  निर्विभागचित

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

Bhaskar YR — 2013-05-23T12:16:36

praNAms Sri lalitalAlita prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I don't know which of vyAkhyAnakAra-s is being talked here. At least, none 
from traditional-s talked like that.

there exists some anirvachaneeya and anAdi avidyA in Atma chaitanya. Since 
this avidyA is dependent on anAdi chaitanyasatta this avidyA too anAdi, 
since it is neither sat nor asat it is anirvachaneeya.  And I think here 
in this work only it has been said that avidyA does not mean an abhAva of 
the nature of not knowing (agrahaNa or jnAnAbhAva), nor it is a nature of 
wrong knowledge ( mithyAjnAna or vipareeta grahaNa or anyathAgrahaNa) nor 
it is samskAra rUpa..exact references I cannot give right now...But I have 
read this in panchapAdika vivaraNa works.

You are saying that avidyA is not anirvachanIyA. But, that's not correct. 
Every vyAkhyAnakAra supports it's anirvachanIyatvam, otherwise it would be 
real. 

bhAshya he counts the avidyA lakshaNa and says it will be of three types 
i.e. agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya and in adhyAsa bhA

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

ललितालालितः श्रीमान् — 2013-05-23T11:32:33

[lalitaalaalitah] 
I don't know which of vyAkhyAnakAra-s is being talked here. At least, none from traditional-s talked like that.
You are saying that avidyA is not anirvachanIyA. But, that's not correct. Every vyAkhyAnakAra supports it's anirvachanIyatvam, otherwise it would be real. How could anything apart from brahma be accepted as nirvachanIya, i.e. real in advaitamatam?
You are saying that avidyA is not bhAvAbhAvavilakShaNa because it is bhAvarUpA and upAdAnakAraNa of jagat. It is also not GYAnAbhAvarUpA. Most of it is correct, but not the whole.
avidyA is said bhAvarUpA to distinguish it from GYAnAbhAva, and not to give it bhAva-status. Because, if any anAdi thing is also bhAva-vastu, as brahma, it must be nitya or GYAnAnivartya. So, bhAvAbhAvavilaxaNatvam is also correct for avidyA, because it maintains it's mithyAtvam.
See chitsukhI for it :
bhAvvAbhAvavilaxaNasyAGYAnasyAbhAvavilaxaNatvamAtreNa bhAvatopachArAd ।

I was just attracted by wrong projection of vyAkhyAnakAra-s. So, the relevant part i

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Bhaskar YR — 2013-05-23T10:54:15

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Shankara is saying in very clear terms: Ok, let it be that 'Brahman is not
the originator of avidyA or one that is deluded'. * But there is no other
sentient being that is not Brahman that is the subject of avidyA and who 
is
deluded.  'kintu naiva abrahma avidyAkartA chetano bhrAnto anya iShyate*'.
And He cites a number of upanishad and Gita statements like: na anyo ato
asti vijnAtA', tattvamasi, 'AtmAnameva avet aham brahma asmi, 'ahamAtmA
guDAkesha', etc. All these statements show in clear terms that there is no
such person called jIva apart from Brahman. 

chaitanya or jeeva apart from brahman, because brahman is the only 
chaitanya.  But do you think this bhAshya can be shown as the proof for 
the 'deluded brahma' in advaita vedAnta  !!??  If your pUrva paxi quotes 
this bhAshya vAkya and says : see, your Acharya himself saying that your 
brahman is deluded, what you are going to do with the realization of this 
'deluded' brahman??  Dont you justify this bhAshya

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

Bhaskar YR — 2013-05-23T08:49:03

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji
Hare Krishna

1. avidyaa either at jiiva level or maayaa at Iswara level are also part 
of vyaavahaarika only - hence mithyaa - hence sat asat vilakshanNam - 
hence bhaava-abhaava vilakshaNam too. 

NOT bhAvAbhava vilakshaNa it is bhAva rUpa and the upAdAna kAraNa to the 
adhyAsa and kindly note this upAdAna kAraNa bhAva rUpa avidyA is NOT 
jnAnAbhAva, it is something special and separate from jnAnAbhAva.  However 
prabhuji I agree with you that avidyA is at jeeva level only, Ishwara does 
not have this avidyA which shankara also confirms :-))


However the sopaadika adhyaasa remains as long as BMI of the jiivan mukta
remains since it is Iswara sRishTi and not jiiva sRishTi. Hence here 
vidyaa of
jiiva does not eliminate the maayaa of Iswara. 


even in muktAvasthA in what way we can call the jnAni as jeevan muktA?? 
where shankara says jeevan mukta-s would continue to experience the 
sOpAdhika adhyAsa even after the dawn of 'ekatva' jnAna??  On the other 
hand shankara categor

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

Bhaskar YR — 2013-05-23T06:15:33

mAyA used in positive (daivim maya), neutral (trigunatmika maya) and 
negative (kutastha - kuta = crooked)connotations. avidyA is always 
negative. Is that right? 

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

Yes, the term 'mAya' has been used under different contexts by 
shankara...some times it is said maya's svarUpa is brahmAnanya and mAya is 
brahmAdheena, some times it is said mAyA is anirvachaneeya, mAyA  is 
avidyA parikalpita, avidyA kruta, avidyA pratyupasthApita, and somewhere 
in geeta bhAshya shankara insists that parA & aparA prakruti dvaya which 
is Ishwara mAya is 'nitya' and krishna tells it is 'mama 
mAyA'...nityAshvaratvAt Ishwarasya tatprakrutyOrapi yuktaM nityatvena 
bhavituM. prakruti dvayavatvameva hi Ishwarasya IshwaratvaM..Whereas when 
shankara talks about avidyA he always tells us that it has only three 
lakshaNa-s  i.e. jnAnAbhAva, adhyAsa and saMshaya.  He never equates 
avidyA with Ishwara and his prakruti dvaya nityatva to say avidyA = mAya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-23T05:04:49

Namaste
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:56 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

But in 'Brahman assuming the jIvabhAva due to avidyA' Whose Avidyaa it is?
If you say Brahma has taken Jeevabhava because of his own Avidyaa it is not
correct because Brahma cannot have Avidyaa. If you say Brahma has taken
Jeevabhava because of Jeeva's Avidyaa there is a circular logic. Who is
first? Jeeva or Jeeva's Avidyaa? If Jeeva is first - How Brahma became that
Jeeva without Avidyaa? If Jeeva's Avidyaa is first - how that Avidyaa came
without Jeeva? You have not solved the Problem. The correct answer is
Avidyaa is for person having the Adhyaasa. Jeeva, Ishwara and Maayaa are
imagined through Avidyaa.

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

Venkatesh Murthy — 2013-05-23T04:46:46

Namaste
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

By looking at sayings and behaviour of another person we cannot very
definitely say he has Avidyaa.Why? Because Mukta persons have also shown
bad behaviour like Kashyapa Rishi with his wife in Sandhyaa Kaala.Only I
can say definitely I have Avidyaa because I know I am not Happy always.This
is the one and only test. If I am always Happy I am Mukta. If I am
sometimes Happy and sometimes Unhappy I am Baddha. I do not know another
person he is always Happy or not Happy.


In Method of Vedanta SSS Swamiji has given objection of Bhaskaracarya like
this. If you say Avidyaa belongs to Jeeva there is circularity. Jeeva is
Avidyaa Kalpita. But Whose Kalpana? It cannot be Brahma's Kalpana because
Brahma cannot have Kalpana. It is Jeeva's Avidyaa Kalpana. This will be
Jeeva. You are saying Jeeva is Jeeva's Avidyaa Kalpita. There is a circular
logic.

But if you say Avidya is attached to Brahma it is i

Re: Advaita Bodha Deepika

ललितालालितः श्रीमान् — 2013-05-23T00:46:57

I request all to see this post in another forum:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/bvparishat/-43IwoG2mHg
It shows that there are chances that author of advaita-bodha-dIpikA, although similarly named, is not same as karapAtrI svAmI of kAshI.
I hope, if we consider life-span of ramaNa and karapAtrI svAmI(of kAshI) and their meetings, etc. we will be able to make everything clear.
As far as I know, there is no such book titled advaita-bodha-dIpikA ascribed to karapAtrI svAmI(of kAshI). It is nowhere in their publication list, at least.
I may be wrong though, if someone could show otherwise.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

_______________________________________________
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

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

kuntimaddi sadananda — 2013-05-22T20:01:28

Shree
Rajaram - PraNAms 
No. I do not have anything in
hand to provide for you. You can ignore my statements if you like and I have no
problem with that.
The others may be able to provide them for you if they wish. 
Just as a closing note, both positive and negative, whatever that mean, are
within avidyaa only since they are part of vyaavahaarika. vidyaa and avidyaa,
jnaani and ajnaani, etc are all within the realm of vyaavahaarika only; all
products of muula avidya. 
A jnaani will see the whole
creation as vibhhuti of the Lord or of his own self. yo maam pasyati
sarvatra... and sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani.. If that
is what you mean by positive that is OK. The vishepa aspect of muula avidya or maayaa
is still there but aavaraNa aspect is gone by vidyaa.
There
is a sloka in VivekachuuDamaNi that equates both maayaa and avidya.
It
starts with 
avyaktanaamnii
paramesha shakti, anaadyavidyaa triguNaatmikaa paraa|
kaaryaanumeya sudhiyaiva maayaa,
yayaa jagat sarvam idam prasuuyate|

I  a

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

2013-05-22T19:14:36

Namaskaram. Do you have references to use of term mUlAvidyA by Sankara? And its parts - vidyA and avidyA? mAyA used in positive (daivim maya), neutral (trigunatmika maya) and negative (kutastha - kuta = crooked)connotations. avidyA is always negative. Is that right? 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 07:41:17 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/wxK< at >public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>,
A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

Shree Rajaram - PraNAms
In relation to muula avidya, yes; as I understand - That is what Subbuji has been presenting.

Re: Advaita Bodha Deepika

Jaldhar H. Vyas — 2013-05-22T08:55:12


Yes.


One thing I forgot to mention is that these four chapters are missing from 
the English translation only, not the original Sanskrit.  Karpatra Maharaj 
was a prolific author and had many disciples all over the country so there 
is a good chance they are still available.

Re: Avidyaa is Subjective not Objective

V Subrahmanian — 2013-05-22T18:26:51



Shankara is saying in very clear terms: Ok, let it be that 'Brahman is not
the originator of avidyA or one that is deluded'. * But there is no other
sentient being that is not Brahman that is the subject of avidyA and who is
deluded.  'kintu naiva abrahma avidyAkartA chetano bhrAnto anya iShyate*'.
And He cites a number of upanishad and Gita statements like: na anyo ato
asti vijnAtA', tattvamasi, 'AtmAnameva avet aham brahma asmi, 'ahamAtmA
guDAkesha', etc. All these statements show in clear terms that there is no
such person called jIva apart from Brahman.  Therefore, according to
Shankara it is Brahman alone that takes the form of a samsArin owing to
avidya.  He is using the arthApatti pramANa here.  On  the one hand we have
Brahman as nitya shuddha mukta svabhAvaH (as you have cited) and on the
other hand we have the very Br.Up.1.4.10 which declares that 'AtmAnamevAvet
aham brahma asmi iti'.  Here the subject in this mantra is the advitIya
brahman itself.  So, in order to reconcile these two facts whic

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

kuntimaddi sadananda — 2013-05-22T14:55:53

Shree Rajaram - Forgot to mention - In the Bhaashya of Maitreyee Brahmana, which we are going to do exhaustive analysis during the coming Memorial Day camp, Shankara provides a very beautiful introductory analysis - that starts with quote from previous chapters - aatmetyevopaaseeta - where during furture discussion both vidya and avidya aspects are illustrated showing how karma and varnaasrama dharmaas etc orginate due to avidyaa - justifying why sanyaasa is required to abide for nidhidhyaasana and why yagnyavalkya was getting ready to leave the house for higher pursuits.
For those who are interested the talks will be available on livestream 
www.livestream.com/advaita_sadaji - coming Saturday and Sunday from 9:00AM on. 
Hari Om!
Sadananda

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

kuntimaddi sadananda — 2013-05-22T14:41:17

Shree Rajaram - PraNAms
In relation to muula avidya, yes; as I understand - That is what Subbuji has been presenting.
Hari Om!
Sadananda

Re: Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

2013-05-22T14:32:15

Did Sankara interchange-ably use avidya and maya or not? 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 05:58:10 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9jxlLJML/wxK< at >public.gmane.orgorg>
Reply-To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>,
A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9vvFubtSpUex2LY78lusg7I< at >public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Locus of maayaa and avidyaa

Bhaskarji - PraNAms
I
just want to specify not knowing what you agree and what you do not agree with
the statements I made based on my understanding. I am making it clearer in case
if there is any misunderstanding of what I stated. I have no disagreements with Subbuji - only
mine are clarifying statements for purpose of clear