Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

|Devanathanji wrote:

Advaita Vedanta s to what is calledthe `Sat-Karana-Vada' according to which there is no difference what-

so-ever between the cause and the effect. In the real sense cause is non-different from its effect.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Devanathanji,

Which is it, "no difference whatever" or " non-different"? This is the sort of sweeping statement that thoroughly bewilders the novice which I assume Chabard is.

You also write:

Maya is illusion and Avidya is indescribable. That which is illusory is inexplicable.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Inexplicable in what sense. I know that you mean from an ultimate ontological viewpoint but even that requires justification. Just stating it won’t do. We need to enter into the mind of the person we are trying to communicate with. If as the Advaitin holds ‘unity is the answer’ then the intelligibility of that must be revealed by careful exposition gauged at the level of the inquirer.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Shri Michael ji,

 

We have had enough debates on the usual analogies of pot-space; gold-

ring; rope-snake and shell-silver. Advaita version of causality may

be explained with these analogies but we have to understand that it

does stop there. An inquirer, in my view, needs to encapstulate the

essential postulations in reasoning out the causal relations in the

metaphysical sense. When I say something like 'no difference

whatever' or 'non-different' I intend to hint at an implied sense of

identity, which actually helps to stimulates the factor

called 'Akanksa' or expectation, a key factor to arrive at any

verbal cognition. Ofcourse your suggestions are well taken and

thanks for your concern.

 

It remains vital now to resolve the issue on 'Sat-karana vada'. I am

waiting for your response on this.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

I still stand on the term 'Sat-Karana vada' as the theory of causality

to which Advaitins . 'Sat-Karana vada' is commonly equated

with the vivarta vada according to which the effect exists in cause

while the former is non-different from latter and that the latter is a

mere appearance of the former ie, the latter's appearance is only an

projection of the former and hence unreal while the former alone is

real. This is precisely what 'Sat-Karana vada' means to an Advaitin.

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Though what you stated about sat-kAraNa vAda is from vedAntic perspective...I am first time hearing this terminology *sat kAraNa vAda*...All these days I am hearing only about *sat kArya vAda* (as you mentioned, which is entirely different from sAnkhyA-s *pradhAna* sat kArya vAda) which has the prefix in advaitic parlance *mAya* and popularly called as mAya satkArya vAda. However, it is to be noted that this introduction of mAya satkArya vAda in advaita is just to refute the theory of sAnkhya-s *satkArya vAda* (based on mahat & pradhAna) or vaisheshika-s *asatkArya vAda*...The ultimate stand of advaita is brahman is the ONLY reality that itself *appears* as kArya due to avidyA...mUlakAraNameva A anthyAt kAryAt tena tena kAryAkAreNa natavat sarvavyavahArAspadatvaM pratipadyate...is the declaration of bhagavadpAda in sUtra bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM~

> Shri Michael ji,

>

> It remains vital now to resolve the issue on 'Sat-karana vada'. I am

> waiting for your response on this.

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

> Devanathan.J

 

Dear Devanathan-ji,

I am familiar with the term 'sat-karya vada'. But I am puzzled by the

term 'sat karana vada'. Could you please give reference to any

particular work in which this term appears?

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

 

" Maya is the cause and Avidya is its effect. " (Post 42399)

 

Dear Sri Devanathan,

 

Whereever Sri Shankara has described mAya, he uses the following

terms to mAya :

 

avidyAkalpitA, avidyApratyupasthApitA, avidyAkRutA,

 

avidyAkAryA, avidyAtmakA , avidyAlakShaNA etc.

 

 

You say " Maya is the cause and Avidya is its effect. "

But the terms used by Sri Shankara give a different meaning than what

has been stated by you.I feel it is opposite to what you have stated.

This is terribly confusing. I humbly request you for clarification.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams, Shri Sastri ji, & Shri Bhaskar ji,

 

In the Asvameda Brahmana of Brhadaranya Upanisad Vartika [i.2 – 32]

Suresvara makes a clear mention on the theory of `Sat-Karana'. The

verse is this: `vivAdagocarApannam *Sat-Karanam* idam bhavet |

KaryAtmakam mano-vAdi kAryatvAt gatakumbhavat || - `This world has

for its cause the existent, what has become the subject of

discussion here; and the mind etc of the nature of cause have been

an effect comparable to objects like mat or a pot'. Here Surevara

intends to prove the existential character of both cause which

exists before the creation of the effect eith reference to its

inherent natute being independent of the effect.

Sat-Karana vada is advocated by Suresvara, say for eg in the

verse 89 of the same Brahmana he says thus `MrdAtmanopasamslistam

kAryam kAranatAmidam | kAranatvAdi tattastam tadarte kAraNam katham

|| - `Indeed the effect which is covered by clay was at the time in

the state of cause. Because clay is its cause, the pot is abididng

in it viz, clay. How indeed could clay be the cause without the

effect that was non-existence? [shoun Hino: 1990].

In the above lines Suresvara categorically presents the sat-

karana vada while he heavily comes down on the Samkhyan theory of

Sat-karya. Suresvara devotes many verses to negate the samkhyan

conception of causality which ascribes reality to the effect

produced from the cause. In the Samksepa Sariraka, Sarvajnatman

takes the lead to refute the sat-karya vadins where he elucidated

the flaws involved in their theory. He says `Sat-karya does not hold

good to be logical for its theory considers origin of already

existing entity which they call effect without realizing the

position that it makes the function of causality to the cause is

made futile. If the effect is already in the cause as exists in

reality how can there be any production at all for its independent

existence? asks Sarvajnatman. Further Sarvajnatman adds to say `If

it is said that the cause becomes fruitful by giving rise to some

qualities in the object then it is said that even those qualities as

a result or a product must already exist in the cause. [Prof.

Veezhinathan; 1972]

Thus even at the cursory glance, Advaita preceptors consider

sat-karya theory to be fatal. Sarvajnatman quotes Atreya's statement

in favour of his view against sat-karya theory. Sarvajnatman also

quoted Brahmanandin's view, the vakya-kara, descendent of Atreya who

says `sarvam vikaram athah samvyavahara matram ; advaitameva

pariraksati'. Madhusudana sarasvati while commenting to this portion

again refutes sat-karya and makes it untenable. Even in the academic

circles, Prof. T.M.P Mahadevan, Karl potter, John Grimes and others

categorically remark Advaita theory of causality as `Sat-karana

vada' by name.

Brahma Siddhi-kara in the Niyoga khanda advocates Sat-Karana

Vada while he discusses the nature of Liberation as he

says `Attaining Brahman is not like an effect reaching the state of

being the cause; for that cannot happen since the effect as an

effect does not exist in reality as the cause'. [iV. 48-49]. (cf.

Abhprayaprakasika for polemical discussions).

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Shri Srinivasa Muthy ji,

 

The very definition of Maya and Avidya with respect to Isvara and

Jiva explain the fact that Maya is the cause and Avidya the effect.

Advaita Vedanta defines Maya and Avidya thus `Karya – Karana Upadhi

bhedAt JivaH IsvaraH api Drsyate' in other terms `Karya-Upadhi

JivaH – Karana-Upadhi IsvaraH'. Both Maya and Avidya are considered

to be synonymous for they serve the same functional role as Upadhi.

But Maya is the cause which Isvara speculates as his own power while

the effect becomes ignorance. [Hiriyanna; 1980]

 

Vidyaranya both in his Pancadasi and Vivarana prameya samgraha makes

a clear margin between Maya and Avidya where he says `Visuddha

sattva pradana Maya' – Maya is the conglomerate of three gunas

amongst which Pure tranquil Sattva predominates'. Avidya according

to Vidyaranya is `Malina Sattva pradana' – it is a mixture of guna-s

in different proportions. In the course of Srsti, Isvara uses his

own Maya and creates this world and hence we say Maya is

ParinAmyupadana and Isvara the nimitta – efficient cause. Jagat and

Jivatva are the products of ignorance – Avidya and this derives a

premise with which we may postulate that Avidya is the product of

Maya. [Joshi; 2004]

 

Anubhuti svarupacarya in his Ista-siddhi vivarana endorses the view

that `there is some difference that essentially persist between Maya

and Avidya' [Krishnamurthy Sastrigal; 2006]. The author of the text

quotes a passage from Siddhanta lesa samgraha where Appayya Diksita

opines difference between the two at causal and functional levels.

Diksita states `Projecting power is dominant in Maya (with kriya

sakti) while the veiling power is dominant in Avidya due to its

predominant content of Tamas. [cf. SLS 1. 5/ Bhao Sastri; 2006]

 

Vimuktatman, however, presents a slightly difference version of

difference between Maya and Avidya. He says that Maya and Avidya are

related by the Avayava-Avayavi relation – whole-part. Maya is one

single unit in whole while Avidya exists in parts. Former is the

cause while latter is the effect. Caitanya reflected in the

impartite Maya as Isvara is the cause while the nana-Jiva reflected

by the plurality of Avidya is the effect. More discussions are taken

up in these lines by Achyutakrsnananda in his Krsna-alankara.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

One example that I feel may perhaps be of help in

understanding this in a more simplistic sense is the dream analogy.

 

You are endowed with a limited maya-shakti which

enables you to " conjure " or " create " a dream.

With regards to the dream world I am the vivarta

upadana karanam - I am the material as well as

efficient cause and yet myself undergo no change

whatsoever. I am asangaha - whatever happens in the

dreamworld - even the worst earthquake - does not

shake my peaceful slumber one bit..

 

Each and every object - animate and inanimate - in

this dreamworld is nothing but me. Every person in

this dreamworld is in a true sense me alone. What

sustains this dream is me and this dream will

ultimately dissolve into me alone.

 

What is the power or shakti that enables me the

uninvolved sleeper to conjure up this fantastic world

which may involve a long span of time - it is a power

itrinsic to me called Maya. This Maya has two

qualities - vikshepa and avarana - the capacity to

project and the capacity to conceal.

 

Each individual in that dream is unaware that his

reality is me the dreamer - why? - becuase of the

power of maya - in his case it is the avarana aspect

of maya which we can term avidya or ignorance which

leads him to not cognize his true nature.

 

My power on the other hand as the conjurer is not

avidya but is maya.

 

Now if you ask me, after the dream is long gone -

" Sir, please show me the maya you used to create that

world " - then i have nothing to show. Whose Maya was

it? Mine. Can i demonstrate it independent of the

dream? No. Is the Maya something other than me? No Can

i conjure another dream without Maya? No. Thus Maya is

neither sat nor asat.

 

As far as the dream is concerned Maya is relevant to

me, the conjurer of the dream, as well as to each and

every principle in the dream, as avidya.

 

With regards to the dream I am the Lord of the

dreamworld, the Jagannatha, the Vishnu, the

Karmaphaladaata, etc

 

But I have a higher nature that is not limited to and

is unrelated to the dream.

With the disappearance of the dream I do not cease to

be - in fact I alone am,was and will be. Every dream

will need me to exist. " Mayyeva sakalam jaatam "

 

Now the limitation of this analogy is obvious, I do

not wield any control over my dream. But Ishwara has

complete control over Maya. And yet is not related to

Maya in anyway.

 

Thus Lord Krishna in Ch 9 says

This whole world is prevaded by Me in My unmanifest

form. All beings exist in Me, but I am not contained

in them!

Nor do the beings dwell in Me. Behod My divine Yoga! I

am the sustainer and originator of beings, but My Self

is not contained in the beings.

 

 

Prostrations again and once again to the Divine Mother MAyA-dEvi,

who makes the impossible possible.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

advaitin , " chebard " <chris.hebard wrote:

>

> Please help me sort out the difference, if any, between ignorance,

avidya, and maya.

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM~

> Pranams Shri Srinivasa Muthy ji,

Dear Sri Devanathan,

 

Thank you for your detailed replies to both postings of mine.

 

I base my understanding /realization on Mantras 7-25-1 and

7-25-2 of Chandogya Upanishad, Mantras 2-1-3 and 2-1-4 of

Kathakopanishad , Mantra 2-4 of Kena upanishad and the following

statements of Sri Shankara :

(1) AtmA hi nAma svarUpaM || Brahmasutra 1-1-6

 

(2) nAsya AtmanO^ntarbahirvA caitanyAdanyadrUpamasti,

caitanyamEva tu nirantaramasya svarUpaM || Ibid. 3-2-16

 

(3) paramAtmA hi sarvEShAm AtmA ||Bruhadaranyaka: 2-4-6

 

The above are sufficient for my spiritual journey from here and

now to HERE and NOW.

Once again I thank you for the details you have furnished.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.