Maya & Why a Commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathiresanji, and all,

 

It is kind of you to read my posting on “Maya”

 

I do not know the period of Tirumular. I mentioned in my posting that the book

“I have read” states the period as 6000 BC.

 

However, the only purpose of my posting was to state that “Maya” concept was

there much before Sri Adi Shankaracharya, as He is branded as “Mayavadi” by many

schools, who have not appreciated/understood his Teaching. He used the concept

of Maya and Avidya only to correct the fundamental error in our knowledge about

the creation, creator, i.e. Eswara, and about one’s own Self.

 

You kindly mentioned in another post that Sabda Pramana is a direct means of

knowledge. Agreed, Sabda Pramanam is one of the Valid Means of Knowledge.

However, in the case of Sabda Pramanam (SP), even after hearing the Sabda or

even after the pramana (means of knowledge), Prameya (object of knowledge) and

Pramaatru (knower), are there, Prama (knowledge) can take place generally only

after enquiry. The Guru helps in this enquiry. For example in the case of

“Tatwam Asi”, i.e. You are That, the knowledge of You being That does not take

place immediately. It is not like the knowledge that takes place when one sees a

jar “This is a jar”. In the case of “Tatwamasi” the knowledge of unity of two

“objects” (?) having entirely opposite natures, i.e. “That” is Sarvajna,

Sarvavyapi and Sarvashaktiman, and “Thou” is Alpjna, Alpavyapi and

Alpashaktiman, is unfolded after enquiry with the help of a Guru. This knowledge

requires enquiry and Guru’s (maybe even in the form of Bhasyas, etc.) help so

that the intended knowledge takes place. It is in this connection that I

mentioned in my mail that there is the necessity of a Guru, and also one’s own

“manana”. Otherwise, why so many Bhashyas and commentaries on Vedanta

particularly? Even the sons of Brahma, i.e. Sanaka, etc. had to go to Lord

Dakshinamurthy although they did have exposure to the sabda pramanam. Even for

mathematics, etc. we require a teacher, although the books on such subjects also

are sabda pramanas. Even for knowing that SP is a valid means of knowledge we

require a Guru like Poojya Swami Dayanandaji; then what to speak of “Tatwam

Asi”.

 

In this context, the question of Anthakarana Shudhi is always brought up for

Prama, i.e. knowledge to take place through Sabda Pramana i.e. knowledge of

“Jeevabrahmaikyam” to take place. However, what is this degree of Anthakarana

shudhi? I feel although antharana shudhi should be there to some extent, i.e. a

mind free from prejudice, and full of Sradha for the words of the Shruties and

the Guru, further anthakaranashudhi takes place side by side, slowly but

certainly, as one proceeds with the assimilation of self knowledge. This

assimilation requires not only one’s own effort (Manana), but also guidance from

a Guru and, and such guidance can be from the Bhashyas, and Bhashyakaras

themselves are Gurus. The assimilation of the knowledge in my opinion, is very

very important, without which though the knowledge is there, it will not help

one to reach the goal.

 

It is from the above angle that I mentioned sabda pramana as indirect knowledge,

and I did not mean SP is an indirect means of knowledge. SP gives indeterminate

knowledge and not determinate knowledge like “This is a jar”.

 

This is how I understand the whole subject, and I am sure our learned members

always are there to help me to correct wherever required, and, I am sure, it is

for such correction through parasparabodhanam, the Group is striving for.

 

Hari Om and warm regards to all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today