Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Namaste All followers of this thread,

The question that arises is: how can maya which is unreal be the cause of anything? If the expression cause is being used in this connection it can only mean the circumstances out of which something else arises, a favourable environment or something of the sort.

The next consideration would be: if they are identical then why have two terms arisen? A possible answer to this is that Maya refers to the cosmic whilst ajnana/avidya is generally taken to refer to the personal. It is reported that Shankara, according to Karl Potter, does not use the term ‘maya’ much.

Sri S.S.S. does not hold by the assimilation of Maya and Avidya

"9. Avidya and Maya are not synonymous terms in Shankara-Vedanta. It is some post-Shankara's Vedantins who have treated Avidya and Maya to be identical (see para 21). Nor has Maya been even treated as a statement of contradictions involved in our experience of the world and in our knowledge of it, as some are tempted to explain it. The word 'anirvachaniya' may have been perhaps responsible for the formulation of such a theory (see para 21 sequel). l}. vidya is subjective and has been explained by Shankara as the natural tendency of the mind to superimpose the Self and the not-self on each other, while Maya is the name given to Prakriti or name and form in seed form, which gives rise to all the different phenomena." (from Misconceptions about Shankara)

Anirvachaniya is that universal pickle that some are fond of. Sri SSS’s works are reasoned and stay close to the text in a rational and unsurprising manner. He appears not to interested in carving out attention space by virtue of some novelty.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

 

> 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.

>

 

Shyam-Ji, my respects

 

First of all, awesome presentation, thank you.

 

Now, could you expand on the above quoted paragraph?. My idea was that

Ishwara also doesn't have any control on His " dream " , because that is

taken care by Karma and vasanas at the samashti and viashti levels,

but what He " does " is kicking the " Wheel " to turn again after

Everything resolved for a while in pralaya in unmanifested form, and

this will be His control over Maya. In this sense the analogy will

still hold for Ishwara.

Is my thinking wrong?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Dear Readers,

 

The causality of Nescience is not subjected to much investigation

for the reason it becomes meaningless to answer it within the

nominal relative-empirical grounds. But metaphysically speaking the

fact remains that ignorance is known to be the cause for worldly

transactions operating on the individual soul as its seat. Post–

Sankara Advaitins felt the necessity to pay close attention to

investigate into the ontological roots of this ignorance when

apparently found the Primal Nescience – Mula-avidya to be

responsible for the formers functionality.

 

Vacaspati Misra in his very first introductory verse introduces the

idea of ignorance being two-fold (he says: Anirvacya-avidya

dvitaya), viz, Karana-avidya, Karya Avidya `ca' (Kalpataru). Karana

Avidya in Bhamati Paribhasa is Mula-avidya and the latter is Tula-

avidya. Tula-avidya exists in multitude and is the off-shoot of Mula-

avidya. Mula-avidya is infinite, intert and exists in (macro) cosmic

form. Tula Avidya as the effect also exists in plurality and its

ontological state of being an effect is indeterminable. Tula-avidya

constitutes a series of latent impressions which is continuous and

linear. Tula-avidya is dependent on Mula-avidya and operates on the

phenomenal range to conceal the objective apparent realities of the

ephemeral world. Tula-avidya as the derivative ignorance is subleted

by the Antah-karana Vrtti (mental modification) whose role is to

pose a) annihilating the derivative ignorance concealing the object

of perception (Avarana Bhanga) a) subject-object union in the

process of perception (Abheda Abhivyakti). Mula-avidya on the

otherhand is sublated by the knowledge of supreme reality (Aparoksa

anubhuti) which is sought by the Akhanda-kara vrtti.

 

In Bhamati, we find frequent usage of expressions like `Karya Karana

Avidya', `anirvacya avidya-dvaya rupa' and so on. All these

expressions intend to postulate the pseudo-systematic operations of

Primal and Modal Ignorances both of which are essentially

indescribable or inexplicable in their ontological state of being

the cause and the effect respectively.

 

If one is familiar with the stylometry of Sankara's approach and

method, shall know that his concern towards conceiving an idea is

mainly to systemize a right approach from diverse ideas, which he

attempts to synthesize and philosophize mainly to concede the

concept of Absolute sub-ordinating relativistic epistemology.

Sankara issues relativistic epistemology a second place to

metaphysical ontology with the prime objective to give scope for

assimilating intense polemics on the issue, which he assigns to his

followers. Sankara, in my opinion atleast, will always be open to

consolidate the views of his followers, with whom he shares the

responsibility to ratify complex but yet rudimentary notions

Upanisadic thought.

 

Carving out reasons in crafting the `method of Vedanta' adopted by

the post-Sankara Advaitins should never be under-estimated at any

rate. Preceptors like Sri SSS who claim originality in evaluating

the post-Sankara genesis of Advaita are themselves subjected to self-

valuation and reevaluation hermenuetically; for they too fall on a

much later period after Sankara.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan. J

[Guest guest]

Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

I must say I am enjoying this discussion of yours and Michael's. I am familiar

with Goudapaada's and Shankara's criticism of sat kaarya vaada of nayaayikaas

and the use of kaarya kaarNa samaanaadhikaraNa to establish effects are not

different from cause itself in different form; just as ornaments from gold.

 

Cause-effect relations being mithyaa, which itself is neither sat nor asat- one

has to be careful in the interpretation sat kaarya-kAraNa sambandha.

I was intrigued by your last statement - I presume it applies to our

interpretation of the interpretations as well.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Tue, 12/9/08, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

................

 

Carving out reasons in crafting the `method of Vedanta' adopted by

the post-Sankara Advaitins should never be under-estimated at any

rate. Preceptors like Sri SSS who claim originality in evaluating

the post-Sankara genesis of Advaita are themselves subjected to self-

valuation and reevaluation hermenuetically; for they too fall on a

much later period after Sankara.