Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Devanthanji - PraNAms

 

First, thanks for correcting me. I was not sure who proposed sat kaarya vaada -

Nayyayikaas or Saankhyaas.

 

But I do remember studying that both sat kaarya vaada of Sankyaa and asat kaarya

vaada of Nayyaayikas were dismissed by Shankara and Goudapaadaa.

 

If I remember correctly Sat kaarya vaada is accepted by vishiShTaadvaitins and

dvaitin too - which relates to reality of the Brahman as well reality of the

world. Both are sat - the clay and the pot.

 

But pot is clay itself with just the name and form comes from adviata -

describing pot as mithyaa while clay as satya - in accounting the scriptual

statement - vaacaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - mRittikityeva satyam - eva

implying the cause ALONE is satyam - if there are two (clay and pot) if it say

clay alone is satyam - implies that the other is not satyam atleast. It is not

asat either since it is experienced and mithyaatva for effect follows. That the

effect is also sat is dismissed on that account as a part of sat vilakshaNam.

Vidyaranaya also dismisses the sat kaarya vaada for the effect in Anubhuuti

prakaasha - ch. 3.

 

In describing maaya -Shankara says

 

sannapyasanna ubhayaatmikaano

bhinnaapyabhinnaa ubhayaatmikaano

saagaapyasanghaa ubhayaatmikaano

mahatbhuutaa anirvacaniiya ruupa - says in VivekachuuDaamani

 

neither sat nor asat - neither different nor different (from Brahman), neither

has parts not does not have parts - it is indescribable - is maaya.

 

anaadyaviyaa anirvaachaaya

 

avidyaa is also anaadi or beginningless and is also indescribable.

 

Both maaya and avidya being beginningless - I feel any discussion of what is the

cause and what is the effect is meaningless since the very cause-effect

relationship is within the realm of time as cause precedes the effect.

 

That is one of the reason I did not participate in the discussion of maaya as

the cause and avidyaa as the effect - although logically that sounds correct

within the realm of maaya but assigning the cause-effect relationship between

maaya and avidya is intellectualizing that which is beyond the logic.

 

The samaanaadhikaraNa is utilized between cause-effect on equal footing since

here both maaya and avidya are anaadi - the effect is nothing but cause itself

in different form - although the very word cause and effect has precedence of

the former to the later. Maaya is from the point of Iswara and avidya from the

point of Jiiva although ontologically both Iswara and jiiva are anaadi and have

equal degree of reality. One is the cause and the other is the effect are

notions in the mind only for jiiva - as a saadhana and is OK as long as it is

understood as such but ultimately has to be dropped for or in the realization of

oneness of both. There was an extensive discussion of locus of avidya in the

third ch. of NaiShkarmya Siddhi - becuase of the problem of jiiva is the effect

of avidya or locus of avidya - which Ramanuja raises as an issue in his

Shreebhaasya.

 

Hence I submit any discussion of cause-effect relations for maaya and avidya has

to be taken with a grain of salt- (I was asked to minimize the salt due to

blood-pressure problem)

 

I appreciate your concerns and would welcome a position paper on the issue

outlining point-counter points leaving aside any personality issues.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 12/10/08, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

Again Nyaya's

theory of causality is not 'sat-karya' as you had mentioned. It is

Asat-karya vada. In the production of the effect, Nyaya-Vaisesika do

not admit that effect potentially pre-exist in the cause.

.......

My point is exactly this. We cannot totally deny the concept of cause-

effect relationship that exist between Maya & Avidya with which the

entire string of worldly pathologies gets connected to a matrix.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devanathan-ji,

If Shankara himself has stated in the preamble to the B.S.B. that ‘avidya is the mixing up of Real and the unreal’ shouldn’t we be trying to unmix them rather that adding a further layer of mixup such as the supposed relation between maya and avidya. What is the benefit of such elaboration, what does it add?

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Gaudapada initially allows the sAMkhya and nyAya-vaisheShika philosophers

to refute each other. But he then goes on to point out the fallacies in the

satkArya vAda position. He says that their reasoning

can be summarized by the following statements:

1. The effect is the same as the cause.

2. The cause (prakRRiti or pradhAna) is eternal.

3. The effect (universe) is non-eternal.

From the first two statements, the effect equals the cause and

therefore must also be eternal. But this contradicts the third statement.

Alternatively, from the first and third statements, the cause equals the effect

and must therefore be non-eternal. But this contradicts the second statement.

(IV.11-12) Logically, if prakRRiti and the universe are the same (different

forms of the same substance), either both must be eternal or both must be

non-eternal.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi

sadananda

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:50 PM

advaitin

Re: Maya and Avidya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 12/10/08, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

 

The only part of Sankhya philosophy that Shankara definitively rejects, as far

as I remember, is the notion of insentient Pradhana as the cause of the

universe, cf. B.S.B. I.i.4 ff. Satkaryavada he finds useful c.f.B.S.B. II.i.18.

Gaudapada in his karika GK 3.27 seems to be denying the asatkaryavada theory.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your comments. I think Shankara, Goudapaada kaarika (last chapter -

do not have ready reference) and vidyaaranya in his anubhuuti prakaashika all

dismiss both sat kaarya vaada and asat kaarya vaada.

[Guest guest]

2008/12/11 snsastri <sn.sastri:

> Neither of these two scholars says that maya is the cause of avidya.

> In contrast to both the above views, Devanathan-ji says that maya is

> the cause of avidya.

> Another member of this group had expressed the view that avidya is

> the cause of maya.

> With so many different views, I do not know what to say.

 

When the focus on soteriology is lost, and attention is diverted to

system building, then all these " different views " are natural

outcomes.

 

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha