Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devanathanji:

 

First I want to express my sincere appreciation to your constructive

discourse on this important topic with persuasive and compelling

logic and passion. In your reply to Sastriji, you have stated - " it

is our prime duty to ratify issues based on constructive discourse. "

 

Most of us here also love to ratify issues on the basis of

constructive discourses conducted by eminent scholars with logical

reasoning. Unfortunately, none of us possess any authority or

credibility to ratify issues purely based on the merits of scholastic

discourses. It is also true that if after ratification there is no

guarantee for any ratification to sustain for ever! If we look back

to history, Sankara's postulation and articulation of the advaitic

Vedantic philosophy was ratified by scholars of his time but later

challenged by other scholars and philosophers. All that I can say

once again is that what you have presented is quite compelling but so

is also true if we look at the presentations by others with

alternative conclusions. I may have to go along with Sastriji's

conclusion that we do not have conclusive evidence to ratify one way

or other. Since we already agreed to ratify that " Brahman only knows

the Brahman, " we have relinquished our right to ratify and that is

the reality of life.

 

Now coming back to your contention, I do see some validity by using

the framework of ranking the order of reality as – (1) the Brahman,

(2) the Isvara and (3) the Jiva

(1) Niguna Brahman – the ultimate reality without maya and avidya.

(2) Isvara (Saguna Brahman) – reality with maya or macrocosm

(3) Jiva (human being) – the relative reality with the influence of

maya and avidya

 

This framework, I believe implicitly assumes that the cause of avidya

is maya and the ultimate of cause of everything is the Nirguna

Brahman or the consciousness. Most of what you claim will likely hold

good, when this framework get ratified.

 

We the discussants try to tell a story but any story that we tell

will likely be believable to only some but not all! It is very easy

for advaitins to ratify that " maya and avidya " are both caused by the

Brahman.

 

Thanks again for your insightful discourses,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

> .........

> So in my

> humble opinion we must not stand on justification on issues sitting

> on the shoulders of eminent scholars rather it is our prime duty to

> ratify issues based on constructive discourse.

>

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dr. N. Veezhinathan, an eminent professor of Vedanta says on page

67 of his

> book `Samkshepasariraka' :-- " This maya is identical with avidya or

> ajnaana " .

>

> ……… there are two views about maya and

> avidya. One is that they are the same and the other is that they

are

> different (pages 60 to 64).

> 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.

> (I will not have internet access from Dec 12 to Jan 5, 2009. I will

> be able to see the further postings on this thread only after that.)

> S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams and thanks for your observations. Bhaskar ji's remarks on Manda-vivekins is indeed unwarranted. I must say I strongly condemn such an attitude towards post-sankara Advaita. From what Bhakar ji jas written it is desperately evident that he is agitated or infact allergic to the polemics of post-sankara Advaita. The intensity ofcourse may be too heavy for some people who eventually call others as dull heads. Infact it is the otherway round. It is high time Bhaskar ji must understand that his attempts to disregard post-sankara dialectics will only corner him to a place outside the tradition of Vedanta. I am aware that any amount of diagonosis of headache for a kabandha – headless man remains invarariably futile.praNAms Sri Devanathan-jiHare KrishnaI know you were in a hurry to tackle somany observations & comments from the list prabhuji-s & anxious to prove your point :-))...But atleast before jumping on me with all your guns, you could have looked my mail little bit in detail...For your kind information, in that mail I was not at all talking about post shankaraites nor there was an intention of any name calling...Infact, *maNda viveki* were not my choice of words, I was just referring to shankara's bhAshya vAkya on kArika, wherein shankara himself calls *some people* as maNda viveki...I was just elaborating on that point...Since I donot have enough time (year end work pressure!!) to counter your totally unwarranted personal attacks, I can shortly say you need a second look into my mail...Here below I am appending my earlier mail once again for your ready reference...if you still think that my comments are aimed towards later vyAkhyana & vyAkhyAnakAra-s..you are invited to jump back on me with all your remaining weapons :-)) Sri Devanathan prabhujiPlease do contemplate on Sankara's own words atleast when he says `AkAsadhikam kAryam; Bahu-prapancam jagat; Karanam Param Brahma'; `Karanam karya-anapeksam'; Karya karanayor ananyatvam avagamyate'; `KaranAt-paramArtataH-ananyatvam – vyatirekena abhavaH –KaryasyAvagamyate'. bhaskar :You are a *full time* pollster on vedAntic concepts & a dedicated vedanta scholar..dont you know we have to take these *kArya kAraNa saMghAta* with a pinch of salt :-))...This kArya-kAraNa methodology of teaching is kEvala upAya is it not?? AkAshAdi srushti, jIva srushti etc. etc. to be read in the adhyArOpa apavAda light is it not?? sa sarvaH srushti prakAraH jIva paramAtmyai katvabuddhyAvatArAya upAyaH asmAkaM..says shankara in kArika..avidyAkalpite kAryakAraNasanghAtOpAdhi janite visheshAtmani khilyabhAve hi yasmAt dvaitamiva paramArthataH advaite brahmaNi .........AtmanaH upalakshyate...is also the declaration of shankara in bruhadAraNyaka 2-4-14 bhAshya...So, kindly dont take *kAraNatva* as a permanent attribute of Atman & build flowery theory on that *mithyA satya* :-))Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar // quote //praNAms Hare Krishna You hit the nail on the head of satkAraNa vAda :-))...Yes, in the absolute sense, there is no meaning in saying Atman/brahman is *sat kAraNa* for the creation/jagat when there is no corresponding *kArya* / effect...But in advaita, for those who believe that there exists jagat and think that they are doing business in that...for those, who have dull intellects, (maNda vivekinAm) for them it has been said that this kAraNa is NOT achetana rUpa & there is a jagat kAraNa and that kAraNa is chaitanya rUpa..But this is not the final stand of advaita, ultimately, those who know the vedantic truth would say that Atman is neither kAraNa nor kArya...it is advitiya...asti vastu bhAvaH iti vadanasheelaanAM dhrudAgrahavatAM shraddhadhAnAnAM manda vivekinAM arthOpAyatvena sA deshitA jAtiH.....vedAnta abhyAsinAM tu svayameva ajAdvayAtma vishayO vivekO bhavishyati iti....na tu paramArthabuddhyA...are the words of shankara in kArikA bhAshya 4-42..... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar// unquote //

[Guest guest]

Prof. VK-ji quoting Iyer:

AvidyA and MAyA both

stand for delusion which has the effect of breaking up the original

unity of the Real and presenting it as subject and object, as agent

and enjoyer, doer and the result of the deed. Whether we call it MAyA

or avidyA, it connotes the principle of differentiation that is

implicit in human thinking. It is the nature of thought to break up

the original unity, analyse it into its parts and then seek to put

them together. At bottom therefore there is no difference between

avidyA and MAyA.

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

Namaste Prof.-ji,

Might I propose the idea that avidya pertains to individuals and that it is an error to allegorise it or give it a reality over and above the individuals who labour under it. Speaking loosely we might say for instance that truth exists when in fact we mean that there are true propositions or facts, people who utter the truth etc. For the enlightened individual there is no avidya though of course there is perception which is different from that of the unenlightened in that he knows that it arises out of the unity of being and consciousness.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji

 

I would like to go with your thinking but for the following problems:

 

1. I, as the only subject, can only say avidya pertains to me. If I

consider a group of individuals other than me, then my assumption

that they are labouring under avidya is part of my avidya only.

 

2. The enlightened one is an oxymoron and is no more an individual.

The concept of an enlightened *individual* can exist only in avidyA.

 

3. Hence, our conclusions about the enlightened one's perception are

also a part of avidyA. He (sorry for the pronoun, that too

chauvinistically masculine) is the unity of being and consciousness

from which nothing at all really can arise.

 

4. Although you have not talked about Ishwara and his power mAyA, I

would like to add that they too are a part of avidyA because I should

first suffer from avidyA in order to conjure up the concepts of

Ishwara and mAyA preferring to be ensconced in the tight embrace of

our nAnA-jIva vAda.

 

5. I say this knowing fully well that No. 4 above is a little hard

vis-a-vis Mandukya interpretations. Mandukya provides a model which

is subject to adhyAropa apavada.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

> Might I propose the idea that avidya pertains to individuals and

that it is an error to allegorise it or give it a reality over and

above the individuals who labour under it. Speaking loosely we might

say for instance that truth exists when in fact we mean that there

are true propositions or facts, people who utter the truth etc. For

the enlightened individual there is no avidya though of course there

is perception which is different from that of the unenlightened in

that he knows that it arises out of the unity of being and

consciousness.

>

[Guest guest]

Nairji - praNAms. Fantastic condensation of the essence of advaita. Everyone of

your list is Gem.

 

Only thing I add - or append to 2 - is even the so called oxymoron is the

essence of avidya since avidya for a conscious (knowledge) entity is itself an

oxymoron. Since the oxymoron is experientially accepted without a question, the

perceptive of a jnaani from the point of so-called ajnaani is no more oxymoron -

since that perspective is taken as real due to ajnaana - it is recognized as

oxymoron only with understanding of the truth. Hence Vedanta and study of

Vedanta and guru and Iswara and the perspective of jnaani are all correct until

one becomes jnaani - since all the teaching is only for ajnaani and not for

jnaani, the relevance of the jnaani's perspective for ajnaani is obvious.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

I would like to go with your thinking but for the following problems:

 

1. I, as the only subject, can only say avidya pertains to me. If I

consider a group of individuals other than me, then my assumption

that they are labouring under avidya is part of my avidya only.

 

2. The enlightened one is an oxymoron and is no more an individual.

The concept of an enlightened *individual* can exist only in avidyA.

 

3. Hence, our conclusions about the enlightened one's perception are

also a part of avidyA. He (sorry for the pronoun, that too

chauvinistically masculine) is the unity of being and consciousness

from which nothing at all really can arise.

 

4. Although you have not talked about Ishwara and his power mAyA, I

would like to add that they too are a part of avidyA because I should

first suffer from avidyA in order to conjure up the concepts of

Ishwara and mAyA preferring to be ensconced in the tight embrace of

our nAnA-jIva vAda.

 

5. I say this knowing fully well that No. 4 above is a little hard

vis-a-vis Mandukya interpretations. Mandukya provides a model which

is subject to adhyAropa apavada.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________ __

 

advaitin@ s.com, " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva@ ...>

wrote:

> Might I propose the idea that avidya pertains to individuals and

that it is an error to allegorise it or give it a reality over and

above the individuals who labour under it. Speaking loosely we might

say for instance that truth exists when in fact we mean that there

are true propositions or facts, people who utter the truth etc. For

the enlightened individual there is no avidya though of course there

is perception which is different from that of the unenlightened in

that he knows that it arises out of the unity of being and

consciousness.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

>

> Anubhuti svarupacarya for instance is compelled to agree with

> Bhamati on several crucial issues even though we find him abusing

> Vacaspati Misra as `Mandana Prsta sevi' quite frequently. So in my

> humble opinion we must not stand on justification on issues

sitting

> on the shoulders of eminent scholars rather it is our prime duty

to

> ratify issues based on constructive discourse.

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

> Devanathan. J

 

Dear Shri Devanathan,

My question was how you have said in one of your previous posts that

maya is the cause of avidya. Is there any authority for this view?

You have not answered this question, but have stated some other

things which are quite well known to me and you have ended your post

with some advice to me.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri