Guest guest Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Namaste, A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the false notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am wrong. Consider statements below A) Avidya is in antahakaran B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed on the clay. D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman E) Avidya is lighted by atman F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence Is there any contradiction in the above statements ? Pujya Swami Dayananda actually negates A and says it is B. In another place in his Gita commentary he says that Sankara has a very drastic answer to the issue of where is avidya located. If you know that you are sat-chit-ananda brahman, then there is no avidya. If you do not know this, then you have avidya and if you have avidya is it known to you or unknown ? If it is known to you then it falls in the kshetra. The kshetrajna is free from it. So it is not clear if antahakaran is a product of avidya or avidya is a product of the antahakaran ? Similary if we consider yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? thanks, Om Namah Sivaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Shiman Mahadev Ji Om Om. I think you have very rightly described nescience (avidya). We can also call it illusion (maya). I think I can also put some words about nescience (avidya) or illusion (maya). As we all know that this world is manifested by Brahman using his power nescience or illusion. This power is neither real (sat), because real is only Brahman nor is unreal (asat), because some how shows this play. In fact this is all confusion and this power is that cause of this confusion which can't be described. Thus it is now clear that nescience (avidya) is that power of Brahman by which this world is manifested and it can't be described in words. Dhananjaya. On 1/2/07, mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: Namaste, > > A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the false > notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am > wrong. > > Consider statements below > > A) Avidya is in antahakaran > > B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya > > C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is > dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed > on the clay. > > D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman > > E) Avidya is lighted by atman > > F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence > > Is there any contradiction in the above statements ? Pujya Swami > Dayananda actually negates A and says it is B. In another place in > his Gita commentary he says that Sankara has a very drastic answer > to the issue of where is avidya located. If you know that you are > sat-chit-ananda brahman, then there is no avidya. If you do not know > this, then you have avidya and if you have avidya is it known to you > or unknown ? If it is known to you then it falls in the kshetra. The > kshetrajna is free from it. So it is not clear if antahakaran is a > product of avidya or avidya is a product of the antahakaran ? > > Similary if we consider > yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... > shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... > > Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? > > thanks, > Om Namah Sivaya > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: Namaste, A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the false notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am wrong. Consider statements below A) Avidya is in antahakaran B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed on the clay. D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman E) Avidya is lighted by atman F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence .. It is all a matter of semantics.What does it matter if the anthakarana is a product of avidya or that avidya is anthakarana, all these things making us only satisfied at the verbal level, leading us too much into the debris of thought, unless one has the ambition of becoming a scholar? The question is better framed if one asks, " For whom is this avidya," which is not an invitation for the ego to answer, but to stop searching, remaining mute, not being able to answer anything, knowing its irrelevance. with regards Sankarraman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > Namaste, > > A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the false > notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am > wrong. > > Consider statements below > > A) Avidya is in antahakaran > > B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya > > C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is > dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed > on the clay. > > D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman > > E) Avidya is lighted by atman > > F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence > > Is there any contradiction in the above statements ? Pujya Swami > Dayananda actually negates A and says it is B. In another place in > his Gita commentary he says that Sankara has a very drastic answer > to the issue of where is avidya located. If you know that you are > sat-chit-ananda brahman, then there is no avidya. If you do not know > this, then you have avidya and if you have avidya is it known to you > or unknown ? If it is known to you then it falls in the kshetra. The > kshetrajna is free from it. So it is not clear if antahakaran is a > product of avidya or avidya is a product of the antahakaran ? > > > Similary if we consider > yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... > shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... > > Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? > > thanks, > Om Namah Sivaya > ShrIgurubhyo namaH Namaste ShrI Mahadevadvaita, Without going into the complications (seeming although) of the issue, let us try to work out a hypothesis that is easily appreciable and practicable. In the Gita 13th Chapter, verse 19 says: Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and know also that all forms and qualities are born of Prakriti. Purusha, Brahman, is the Material Cause in association with Prakriti, Maya, of the universe. From sadhana point of view we can have this understanding; The all-pervading Brahman, the Cause, persists in everything created by It. Jiva, a creation of Brahman, also is pervaded by It. The Shastra says that Brahman is realizable in the mind, buddhi, otherwise known as antahkaran. We are asked to look for Brahman in the antahkaran and realize it there. Similarly, Prakriti, the material cause of the universe, is pervading the entire universe and is available in all its creation/effects. It is available in the antahkaran, its product. Practically, we know that ignorance, avidya, is experienced in our antahkaran. There are many ways we can know this. The scripture teaches that we are doers and enjoyers only due to avidya. We experience doership and enjoyership only in the antahkaran. We see, perceive duality outside and develop likes and dislikes and a host of other negative and positive qualities. All these are experienced in the antahkaran only. The scripture teaches all these qualities are due to avidya. Hence we can safely have that avidya is experienced in antahkaran and therefore its locus. The scripture also in no unmistakable terms says that we have to eradicate avidya by gaining Brahman realization. This can happen only in the antahkaran were both Brahman is realizable, being experienceable there as our PUre Consciousness, ATman AND avidya is experienced as sukha, duHkha and moha and targettable and annihilatable. Thus, it is beyond doubt that avidya is located in the antahkaran.There is a specific verse in the Gita: IV chapter end saying: Arjuna, destroy the ignorance seated in your antahkaran, with the sword of knowledge. >From the foregoing we can safely and perfectly conclude: Prakriti, Maya is the cause of antahkaran. And antahkaran is where prakriti is available as avidya. This could be readily appreciated if we recognize that in Vedanta Maya, Prakriti is made up of Sattva, rajas and tamas. The sukha, dukha and moha that we experience in the antahkaran, due to avidya, are the corresponding effects of sattva, rajas and tamas. The Shankara Bhashya for Gita 13th ch. verse 19 clearly says that the buddhi (antahkaran) is a product of Prakriti. By the above analysis, avidya is clearly an object, a vishaya for the Kshetrajna, the Seer, Knower of the Kshetra, the mind-body complex. This means, avidya is located in the mind, kshetra. Only he who can see avidya as an object can separate himself from it and its effects and engage in sadhana to eradicate it. It is only because this is a possibility the scripture teaches us to target avidya and annihilate it. Your last question: Similary if we consider > yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... > shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... > > Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? Yes. It is undoubtedly in the antahkaran. Antahkaran is the repository of all our past. All this along with what we develop in the present constitute the shraddha, our make-up and this is what reflects in what we think, do and say. Ultimately the mantra is: chittashuddhi has to be acquired. This is what we lack in. Chitta, antahkaran, to be a-shuddhi, tainted, has to be the locus of avidya. Avidya is often called 'mala' dirt. We are aked to clean the mind of the dirt. Where else can we 'sit' and do this if it is not the antahkaran? This is the only lab where we sit and work to clean and finally see the Brahman/Atman in its pristine Purity available there. Thanks for that excellent post of yours; it was a joy working on it. I love and appreciate your genuine quest and the analytical ability your question displays. The way you posed the question is so beautiful that it simply elicited an answer easily. Warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 > > A) Avidya is in antahakaran > > B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya > > C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is > dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed > on the clay. > > D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman > > E) Avidya is lighted by atman > > F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence > Regading these 'Definitions for beginners', although we would not want to disourage discussion obviously, could members please try to keep follow-on posts simple and not use words that have not yet been defined - antaHkaraNa, avidyA, Atman, mithyA... Otherwise, it somewhat defeats the object! Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" > <mahadevadvaita@> wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the > false > > notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am > > wrong. > > > > Consider statements below > > > > A) Avidya is in antahakaran > > > > B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya > > > > C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is > > dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name > imposed > > on the clay. > > > > D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman > > > > E) Avidya is lighted by atman > > > > F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence > > > > Is there any contradiction in the above statements ? Pujya Swami > > Dayananda actually negates A and says it is B. In another place in > > his Gita commentary he says that Sankara has a very drastic answer > > to the issue of where is avidya located. If you know that you are > > sat-chit-ananda brahman, then there is no avidya. If you do not > know > > this, then you have avidya and if you have avidya is it known to > you > > or unknown ? If it is known to you then it falls in the kshetra. > The > > kshetrajna is free from it. So it is not clear if antahakaran is a > > product of avidya or avidya is a product of the antahakaran ? > > > > > > Similary if we consider > > yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... > > shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... > > > > Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? > > > > thanks, > > Om Namah Sivaya Dear Sir, In my personal opinion Swami Dayananda Saraswati's definition seems to be more apt. Because without the avidya or ignorance anthakaranam cannot exist. We can take avidya as the cause and the anthakaranam as the effect. Brahman or Atman or Pure Consciousness---->Limited by avidya----- >Projects and anthakaranam from which all our dualistic and erroneous activities sprang out. Now the question where is this Avidya located naturally it should be brahman or the pure consciousness becasue advaita says that there is only one absolute from which this multitude of phenomenon has spang out. To be more precise in questioning 'Is avidya or ignorance is latent in brahman? If it is not latent how can it have existence? Logically brahman is the substratum even to avidya and whithout it it cannot exist or we have to assume independent existence avidya and atman which looks absurd. Sri Ramakrishna says that lord and his power are one and the same. He gives the example of poison in the snake. If the sanke bites its prey it is fatal for it. But the very same pray is swallowed happily and digested and infact snake is nourished by it. Sri Ramakrishna says that Maya is latent in lord but cannot affect him. But to be frank only brahman knows what is his 'real' nature. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 > Regading these 'Definitions for beginners', although we would not want > to disourage discussion obviously, could members please try to keep > follow-on posts simple and not use words that have not yet been > defined - antaHkaraNa, avidyA, Atman, mithyA... Otherwise, it somewhat > defeats the object! > My apologies to mahadevadvaita-ji! It seems that this post was not actually a part of the 'weekly definition' thread. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 > Dear Sir, > > In my personal opinion Swami Dayananda Saraswati's definition seems > to be more apt. Because without the avidya or ignorance anthakaranam > cannot exist. We can take avidya as the cause and the anthakaranam > as the effect. > Vinayaka ji, After reading Subbu ji's post I realized where I went wrong. To summarize what Subbuji said - Prakriti is beginningless - 5 elements, mind, intellect and ego constitute Prakriti So avidya or wrong notion about doership and enjoyership is beginningless. regards, Om Namah Sivaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 > From the foregoing we can safely and perfectly conclude: Prakriti, > Maya is the cause of antahkaran. And antahkaran is where prakriti is > available as avidya. This could be readily appreciated if we > recognize that in Vedanta Maya, Prakriti is made up of Sattva, rajas > and tamas. The sukha, dukha and moha that we experience in the > antahkaran, due to avidya, are the corresponding effects of sattva, > rajas and tamas. The Shankara Bhashya for Gita 13th ch. verse 19 > clearly says that the buddhi (antahkaran) is a product of Prakriti. Dear Subbuji, Namaste, Let us assume that a beam of light is there and equate that with the atman or pure consciousness. When we put a red coloured glass (avidya) before it there seems simultaneous and instant appearance of red beam. But subtly if we understand, the glass was put 'just' before the production of red ray. We can take in the secondary sense that in the red ray red glass will be always there. So can we conclude that when brahman first conditioned by avidya gets anthakaranam? If avidya is destoryed jiva gets out of the clutches of anthakaran automatically right? Just as in our example once we lift the red glass the beam of red light gets disappeared instantaneously. Is not maya and avidya are synonyms or is there subtle difference? Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: > Dear Subbuji, Namaste, Let us assume that a beam of light is there and equate that with the atman or pure consciousness. When we put a red coloured glass (avidya) before it there seems simultaneous and instant appearance of red beam. But subtly if we understand, the glass was put 'just' before the production of red ray. We can take in the secondary sense that in the red ray red glass will be always there. So can we conclude that when brahman first conditioned by avidya gets anthakaranam? If avidya is destoryed jiva gets out of the clutches of anthakaran automatically right? Just as in our example once we lift the red glass the beam of red light gets disappeared instantaneously. Is not maya and avidya are synonyms or is there subtle difference? Dear Vinayaka, I understand what you say like this . The red glass is nothing but the I thought, which has the notion of it being an entity enclosed in an apparatus like an owner-occupant. With the I thought arising, swiftly arise all the other things like the anthakaranas, the world manifested through them, the thoughts of past, future etc, all bizarre things assuming reality. The avidya or the I thought has no separate existence apart from the self. The distinction between Maya and avidya is only for intellectual purposes, giving an explanation for the cause of the creation, and the instruments made available for the individual like the body and the mind. Subjectively, it is only the I thought or avidya that makes all this mischief. with regards Sankarraman DD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Namaste Vnayaka-ji: mAyA refers to the transitory, illusory appearance of the physical world that obscures the spiritual reality from which it originates. mAyA is also the nonperceivable divine power responsible for the viyavaharika Satyam (relative reality of the world around us). One of the implications of the above definition is that the presence of avidya is also due to the presence of mAyA. On subtle terms, the destruction of avidya can only be possible by the same divine power - mAyA! When there is no avidya, mAyA disappears and this is the Paramarthika Satyam (absolute reality). With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote: > > Is not maya and avidya are synonyms or is there subtle difference? > > Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, > > Br. Vinayaka > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Namaste: Let me add the following addition to my earlier posted referred below: Swami Vivekananda once said, "The world is the mirror through which we see the Brahman." We can also look at in another angle - Brahman is the cause and world is the effect. In other words, the world and Brahman are inseparable and according to Sankara, the separation of them as two is due to avidya, In subtle terms, the divine power of mAyA is responsible for the appearance of avidya! For those who want to understand the positions taken by Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on mAyA and avidya, the book below will provide very thorough scholarly analysis The Philosophy of the Vedantasutra: S. M. Srinivasachari; Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 54, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055. Rs. 300. This book discusses all aspects of Brahmasutra from the point of view of Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita. The discussions are scholarly and the book is well written for easy reading. Please note that Dr. Chari is a Vishistadvaitan and consequently his anlalysis more or less supports Ramanuja's contention. He is more sympathetic to the views expressed my Sankara. At the same time, he categorically rejects the position of Madhava. I also recommend the following article in the advaitin archives: advaitin/message/3742 and this article provides a detailed review of the above book. with my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran wrote: > > Namaste Vnayaka-ji: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Pranams I shall try to provide you my perspective based on a simple example. Take the case of a small old pot - lets call it Mr.Pott. Mr.Pott is in reality clay, the same clay that all other claypots are. He takes himself to be only the pot. As long as he entertains a notion that he is a pot he is small, he has aged 20 years since he was born, lives in a poor home, has lost some of the colour on his head, etc.. Now avidya is Mr.Potts ignorance about himself not being just a pot, but in reality being clay. And as clay he is neither born nor will he die - na jaayate mryate va kadacit.. Now if you ask who does this ignorance belong to? The answer is - it belongs to Mr.Pott. Well isnt Mr.Pott clay? Yes. Then does the ignorance belong to clay. No. The clay never has anything really to do with the "pot notion", although without the clay, the pot cannot have any subtantive existence. Well then isnt Mr.Pott also a pot. Yes Then does the ignorance belong to the pot. No again. The pot by itself is nothing but clay. Then who is Mr.Pott. He is the I-sense that feels itself to be "a" pot separate from clay, and doesnt recognize itself to be clay even though all along it is clay, and nothing but clay. When did it get ignorant? This is a wrong question because it assumes an absence of ignorance prior to the onset of ignorance which is impossible. Who needs the right knowledge to get liberated? The clay? No The pot? No Mr.Pott - Yes! When you say avidya is lighted by atman you are linking two things which share no relation really. It is like saying the clay lights up Mr.Potts ignorance. Assigning a locus for avidya is possible only when there are two distinct realities - not when both pot and clay are in essence one. For example, there are two sides to a coin, and yes - you can assign a locus to the head - one side vs the other. In the case of avidya, this cannot be done - because what is real, what IS is always the clay alone. The pot is nondifferent from clay. If you mark a large "X" on the pot are you marking it on clay or the pot? If you say the pot, then one can say, OK remove the clay and lets see the X mark on the pot now - see the difficulty in doing this? The X marks are none other than mind, intellect, etc etc. Yes they all belong to the pot- but there really is no pot - only clay! What Mr.Pott needs to realize is that he is not the pot, that these marks he thinks are his are also in reality nothing but clay which he himself his. There is no question of the clay needing to make the pot-ignorance of Mr.Pott its object. How can you objectify ignorance? It is truly absurd to postulate. And for the sake of argument even if one were to do this, then that means you had ignorance about ignorance itself - because now that ignorance has been resolved, and this can only result in infinite regress.. Who will see this ignorance for what it is? Certainly not the clay for which there never is ignorance. Certainly not the pot which is not even existent Certainly not Mr.Pott because he himself already IS what he is ignorant about. To use a different analogy, it is like saying the tenth man must first see his ignorance about being the tenth man as an object before he can be satisfied that he indeed is the tenth man. Avidya is never "real". It is not "unreal" either because after all poor Mr.Pott thinks he is small and old, and in so doing reveals the workings of avidya. But this is a mere notion on his part. With the dawn of knowledge from an appropriate means of knowledge (i.e.Ma Shruti), this ignorance is once and forever dispelled. He realizes he is clay, not then, in the future, but in and through all times forever in the past and forever in the future. And again, ignorance did not "create" the pot. The clay is the ONLY material cause for the pot. Mr.Pott's ignorance about him being a limited pot is beginingless and hence there is no creation of someone creating it as we have already seen. The adhyasa is this only - that Mr.Pott mistakes the pot for a pot without realizing it is clay. As clay not only is he immortal, but he is nonseparate from the whole clay-universe, and, to go one step further, the entire clay-universe is arising from him alone and will dissolve unto him alone. "Mayyeva sakalam jaatam.. mayyeva sakalam jaatam mayi sarvam pratishtitam, mayi sarvam layam yaati.." I am not sure exactly what Prof-ji meant by three levels, but in response to Veena-ji posers I would say the recognitions - I am clay and hence not limited by my notion of being a pot. - The entire world is nothing but clay and hence nonseparate from me, and rather than I being a product of the world as i had originally thought, i am actually the very substratum on which this whole universe of pots is seemingly created and destroyed. - I the clay alone am are all in essence one and the same recognition. One cannot realize one of these three realities without being "Realized" about the other two. In that sense there is no differentiating on the basis of a scorecard, any of the Great Masters, Seers, and Prophets who have come to this realization. Hope this has confused less and clarified more. Suffice to say, the simplest and really the only answer to any question on avidya's locus will be "i" or me. "i" who is ignorant am the locus of avidya because "i" know not that really speaking "i" am "I" Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > Namaste, > > A short and simple description of avidya is that avidya is the false > notion that I am the doer and enjoyer. Please correct me if I am > wrong. > > Consider statements below > > A) Avidya is in antahakaran > > B) Antahakaran is a product of avidya > > C) Dependent realities are termed mithya. For e.g. a clay pot is > dependent on clay but really it is just clay. Pot is a name imposed > on the clay. > > D) Antahakaran is lighted by atman > > E) Avidya is lighted by atman > > F) Avidya depends on Atman for its mithya existence > > Is there any contradiction in the above statements ? Pujya Swami > Dayananda actually negates A and says it is B. In another place in > his Gita commentary he says that Sankara has a very drastic answer > to the issue of where is avidya located. If you know that you are > sat-chit-ananda brahman, then there is no avidya. If you do not know > this, then you have avidya and if you have avidya is it known to you > or unknown ? If it is known to you then it falls in the kshetra. The > kshetrajna is free from it. So it is not clear if antahakaran is a > product of avidya or avidya is a product of the antahakaran ? > > > Similary if we consider > yo yat shraddha sa eva saha ... > shraddhavan labhate jnanam ... > > Where is this shraddha ? antahakaran ? > > thanks, > Om Namah Sivaya > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 In subtle terms, the divine power of mAyA is responsible for the appearance of avidya! praNAms Hare Krishna According to shankara's commentary the term mAya depicted as *false appearance* that means which appears as if it is really there due to ignorance of the truth. In the rope-snake analogy, when one does not know the real nature of the rope, due to this *ignorance* he misconceives the rope as a snake. It is quite obvious that coz. of this misconception of rope he sees that there is really a snake. This *false appearance* (mAya) of snake is due to misconception (avidyA) with regard to rope. In short, ignorance (avidyA) gives the existence for the false appearance (mAya). Hence, shankara has described mAya as conjured up or concocted by avidyA (avidyAkalpita) or brought forth or projected by avidyA (avidyApratyupasthApita) etc. etc. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 So can we conclude that when brahman first conditioned by avidya gets anthakaranam? praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji Hare Krishna First of all shruti straightaway rejects the above statement by saying *in brahman there is absolutely no duality whatsoever (nEhanAnasti kiNchana)..so it is quite evident that there are no dealings (vyavahAra) such as vidyA and avidyA in brahman. In the taitirIya upanishat shankara explicitly deals with this problem & clarifies his position through the question & answer as below : Are knowledge and ignorance the qualities of the self?? NOT so, for they are perceived. Discrimination (vivEka / jnAna) and non-discrimination (ajnAna/avivEka) are directly perceived like colours etc. as attributes of the mind. Not that colour perceived which is perceived as an object (vishaya) can be an attribute of the perceiver. Similarly the differnce of knowledge (from the self) is perceived as an object. Accordingly, both knowledge (vidyA) and ignorance (avidyA) are mere objects (vishaya-s) with name and form which cannot be attributed to brahman to say *he is first conditioned by avidya & then gets antaHkaraNa etc... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 the world and Brahman are inseparable and according to Sankara, the separation of them as two is due to avidya, In subtle terms, the divine power of mAyA is responsible for the appearance of avidya! praNAms Hare Krishna I am unable to understand the above standpoint...how world and brahman are inseparable?? it is as good as saying snake & rope are inseparable forever is itnot?? when we analyse our three states, it is clear world has the limited time & space existence & brahman as our svarUpa is undisturbed & intact in its entireity irrespective of avasthA-s. Moreover, we can attribute ishwarahood or lordhood to formless (nirAkAra), attributeless (nirguNa) parabrahman only in the realm of duality, where we accept the universe & its seed form (avyAkruta rUpa) which is in turn conjured up by avidyA. Since there is no other source apart from brahman to this universe, we consider brhaman as the substratum (adhishTAnaM) of this false appearance. From this standpoint vEdAnta attributes the ishwarahood on brahman & call him as *mAyAvi* (magician) and prakruti as mAya. (mayAntu prakrutim vidyAm mAyinantu maheshwaram says shvetAshvEtara upanishat). Hence shankara gives the definition for mAya as something that is non existing ( in mAndUkya?? not sure!!).. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Namaste Bhaskerji: The point of reference for this statement is 'vyavaharika satyam - relative reality.' You are right, at paramarthika level, this statement will be absurd. Anything more I say will likely be more confusing and let me stop here. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > the world and Brahman are inseparable and according to Sankara, the > separation of them as two is due to avidya, In subtle terms, the divine > power of mAyA is responsible for the appearance of avidya! > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > I am unable to understand the above standpoint...how world and brahman are > inseparable?? it is as good as saying snake & rope are inseparable forever > is itnot?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > So can we conclude that when brahman first conditioned by avidya gets > anthakaranam? > > praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > First of all shruti straightaway rejects the above statement by saying *in > brahman there is absolutely no duality whatsoever (nEhanAnasti > kiNchana)..so it is quite evident that there are no dealings (vyavahAra) > such as vidyA and avidyA in brahman. Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, Hare Krishna, Vyavaharika Krishna, Unreal Krishna? :-) There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for slvation, and none liberated. This is the "highest" truth........ But come down to my lelvel prabhuji a baddha's level a ajnani's level.......... Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 The point of reference for this statement is 'vyavaharika satyam - relative reality.' praNAms Sri Ramachandran prabhuji Hare Krishna When we drag the term brahman in a discussion, the discussion should be focused to determine the final standpoint i.e paramArtika satya (absolute reality) lest we'll lost our focus & think that what we talk in the relative level may hold good in absolute level as well...is it not?? However, the relative existence of the world with a stipulated space & time is well within the lOkAnubhana (day to day experience). So, IMHO we cannot propagate the view which affirms *both brahman & world are inseparable* even in relative (vyAvahArik) level. In vyavahAra, dont we say, jIva, jagat & Ishwara have their own separate existence, Ishwara is the bestower of fruits of karma (karmaphaladAta) & jIva is the receiver on the platform of jagat prabhuji??? Under these circumstances, how can we establish *inseparability* of brahman & world in the realm of vyavahAra...kindly clarify. Corrections/additons to the above thoughts are welcome. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji Hare Krishna V prabhuji: Hare Krishna, Vyavaharika Krishna, Unreal Krishna? :-) bhaskar : whether krishna is vyavahArika or unreal.... I dont know..nevertheless *Hare Krishna* :-)) V prabhuji: There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for slvation, and none liberated. This is the "highest" truth........ bhaskar : so you got it from kArika...thats good !! when you are so sure about paramArtha satya why you scratch your head whether parabrahman *conditioned* by avidyA or not?? From which standpoint you are asking this question?? from the below, it seems you are asking this question from the vyavahArik i.e. ajnAni's level right?? In that level how can you say brahman is *conditioned* by avidyA & gets antaHkaraNa etc. do you mean to say in vyavahAra it is acceptable to assert that brahman is conditioned by avidya?? what pramANa do you have for this statement kindly clarify. On the otherhand, shankara himself clarified this puzzle in gIta bhAshya by citing the cataract example & says that the defect pertains to the instrument & NOT to the instrument user...I dont know from which standpoint shankara says avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha..you decide yourself prabhuji. V prabhuji: But come down to my lelvel prabhuji a baddha's level a ajnani's level.......... bhaskar : dont you think our beloved jagadguru bhagavadpAda has come down to our level to clarify these issues??? Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Om Om everyone, Here I have a very simple & short meaning for mAyA, avidyA - Is that power of Brahman by which the world is menifested. On 1/4/07, Dennis Waite <dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote: > > There have, as yet, not been very many offers for weekly definitions. > There is cuurently much discussion on topics that utilize key words > that will require definitions eventually viz. avidyA, mAyA, > hiraNyagarbha etc. Can I suggest that the main participants formulate > definitions for these while they are fresh in the mind and let me know > that they have done so and I will schedule them in for the near future. > > A reminder that these should be relatively short - 3 or 4 paragraphs > and only use words that have previously been defined > > Best wishes > > Dennis > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote: from the below, it seems you are asking this question from the > vyavahArik i.e. ajnAni's level right?? In that level how can you say > brahman is *conditioned* by avidyA & gets antaHkaraNa etc. do you mean to > say in vyavahAra it is acceptable to assert that brahman is conditioned by > avidya?? what pramANa do you have for this statement kindly clarify. Prabhuji, You are such an advanced student of advaita and you are asking this question. In these discussions on the vyavaharika level brahmnan is said to be asscociated 'as it were' with gross, subtle, and the causal bodies right? Dont we say consciousness associated with subtle body is taijasa and with the causal is prajna etc. etc... In your spirit i too can ask... What do you mean by 'association' 'expansion' or 'contraction' of consciousness and giving it different name like jiva when brahman is 'asociated' with subtle body and calling same brahman Ishwara lord of all when it is said to be 'associated' with the causal state. Is it not absurd to the core to say that pure consciousness gets limited, associated and further limited with its alledged association with upadhis....Doesnt adviata's framework doesnt allow it? We should never forget from what perspective we are speking.... From Vyavaharika or Paramarthika level..... Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji Hare Krishna V prabhuji: Prabhuji, You are such an advanced student of advaita and you are asking this question. bhaskar : Sorry, I am still a tyro in the path of jnAna...My knowledge in advaita is still in raw state..Hence, all these argumentative discussions :-)) V prabhuji: In these discussions on the vyavaharika level brahmnan is said to be asscociated 'as it were' with gross, subtle, and the causal bodies right? bhaskar : We never say, please note, even in vyavahAra that *brahman* is conditioned by avidyA...we tie bandha & mOksha knots only to jIva...when you drag parabrahman to the discussion, even though you are doing vyavahAric discussions, the ultimate reality about brahman should be kept in mind...otherwise we shall lose our track, we will be strayed forever in brahmajignAsa & we may end up in making statements such as *brahman is conditioned by avidyA* etc. V prabhuji : Dont we say consciousness associated with subtle body is taijasa and with the causal is prajna etc. etc... In your spirit i too can ask... bhaskar : dont you see the same mAndukya subsequently say Atman is not of inward consciousness, not of outward consciousness and not a mass of consciousness etc. (na antaH prajna, na bahirprajNa na pragjnAna ghana) etc. without noticing the truth that this association is just to drive home the point that the Adidaivik aspects of Atman in order to negate his limited nature/existence in a particular state, if you stop as you did above, dont you think we are doing injustice to shruti mAta-s declarations?? V prabhuji: What do you mean by 'association' 'expansion' or 'contraction' of consciousness and giving it different name like jiva when brahman is 'asociated' with subtle body and calling same brahman Ishwara lord of all when it is said to be 'associated' with the causal state. Is it not absurd to the core to say that pure consciousness gets limited, associated and further limited with its alledged association with upadhis....Doesnt adviata's framework doesnt allow it? bhaskar : as said above, if you stop half way, everything looks like absurd, illogical only in advaita...But shruti (sacred scriptures) and our advaita paramAchArya who has commented on it do not stop in half way & say you can take this for granted in vyavahAra no?? If the shruti had stopped only with the association part of Atman with taijasa, prajna & vishwa, as you did above, then it would be appropriate to say that "this is what shruti has offered us, let us accept it" But shruti does not stop there, subsequently it confirms that there is no association/contact of states of consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features. V prabhuji: We should never forget from what perspective we are speking.... From Vyavaharika or Paramarthika level..... bhaskar : And in continuation, we cannot take everything for granted just citing *vyavahAra* when paramArthika truth staring at us through shruti & shankara bhAshya. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji > Hare Krishna CAUTION!!: Always add Vyavaharika Krishna nay Unreal Krishna or we might get stranded! But shruti does not stop there, > subsequently it confirms that there is no association/contact of states of > consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features. Bhaskar Prabhuji, Thanks for your genuine concern. Nobody want to stop midway here... and if i get stranded your hand will be there always to hold to.... :-)) Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 praNAms Sri Vinayaka prabhuji Hare Krishna V prabhuji: CAUTION!!: Always add Vyavaharika Krishna nay Unreal Krishna or we might get stranded! bhaskar : I thought you are a serious student of advaita & your queries are in that genuine spirit...I did not know that you want to enjoy frivolous jokes out of these discussions...Sorry to bother you sofar... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.