Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

Madathil-ji wrote:

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

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

Namaste Madathil-ji,

Interesting list.

Some Questions:

re 1: Is this a statement of solipsism, that my consciousness is the only one that I am acquainted with. Shankara rejects this idea and it is no part of advaita that I can see.

2: The contradiction in terms of being enlightened and an individual is not sustainable. We experience the jnani as an individual. He navigates the world quite successfully as an individual. He sees from a point of view when not employing siddhis. His realisation is another thing.

3: If solipsism were true we could not know this. In fact no definitive statements of truth could be uttered.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

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?

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

As far as my limited knowledge goes, nowhere shankara says mAya is the cause of avidyA...On the other hand shankara expressly states that mAya is avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta, avidyAtmaka etc. etc. Shankara in ArambhaNAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya clarifies that avidyA kalpita nAma & rUpa are being called by mAyA, shakti, prakruti etc. ...sarvajnasya, Ishwarasya Atmabhute iva avidyAkalpite nAmarupe tatva anyatvAbhyAm anirvachaniye saMsAra prapancha bijabhute sarvajnasya, Ishwarasya mAyA, shaktihi, prakrutihi iti cha shrutismrutyorabhilipyate.... Only our ignorance (jnAnAbhAva) gives us the impression that there exists nAma rUpAtmaka saMsAra...it is not otherway round.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thanks a lot Sadaji. I can happily accommodate that addition you

have proposed.

 

For the sake of clarity of the issue under discussion, I am taking

the liberty of quoting the previous posts in full.

 

I have Michaelji's objections now to answer.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> 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]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

1. Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as " a theory holding that the

self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is

the only existent thing ; also : extreme egocentrism " . I am sorry

you tend to read this meaning into my statement # 1.

 

2. I haven't said " my consciousness is the only one that I am

acquainted with " . I have said that I am the only subject. The rest

are objects. That naturally includes all the sentient beings I am

dealing with. Their sentience too is an object of my perception.

This is a simple fact as evident as daylight. Do we need Shankara to

approve or reject it? In fact, this is the way I was taught by my

teacher to begin advaitic enquiry which ultimately ends by merging

all creation in the Wholeness that I am. Solipsism is ego-centrism

and has nothing to do with the Fullness of Advaita.

 

3. We only experience *individuals whom we call jnAnis*. In

advaita, jnAna (Knowledge of the Self) is not an object of

experience. jnAni is non-different from jnAna - He is jnAnaswarUpa.

In the absolute sense, he can't therefore be an object of our

experience. That is all what I meant. I have no objection to any

number of jnAnis populating this globe of ours. The more, the better.

 

4. There is one definitive statement of truth that we can boldly

utter and that relates to my self-evidence as the only subject (My

statement # 1, which is not solipsism). It is from that we begin

our " Who am I? " quest for which advaita vedanta then provides the

means and holds our hand to the portals of the correct answer. The

persons whom we call jnAnis help in the process. The whole process

actually implies the Self revealing Itself to Itself, because, in the

absolute sense, there are no means, no preceptors and no enquirer at

all. All are part of avidya only - mAyA and Ishwara (as creator of a

world that has not beeen created at all) included. Thus, Shankara's

definitions of mAyA as avidyAkalpita etc. (Ref: Bhaskarji's post)

make real sense.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

 

> Interesting list.

>

> Some Questions:

>

> re 1: Is this a statement of solipsism, that my consciousness is

the only one that I am acquainted with. Shankara rejects this idea

and it is no part of advaita that I can see.

>

> 2: The contradiction in terms of being enlightened and an

individual is not sustainable. We experience the jnani as an

individual. He navigates the world quite successfully as an

individual. He sees from a point of view when not employing siddhis.

His realisation is another thing.

>

> 3: If solipsism were true we could not know this. In fact no

definitive statements of truth could be uttered.

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Michael.

_______________

 

> Madathil-ji 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.

[Guest guest]

Being conscious is an acknowledgement of your own mental processes. An

affirmation of Self. If you believe there are others, you're lost in

thought and unconscious. There is no duality. " The All is Mind; the

Universe is Mental. "

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Madathil-ji,

>

> There is a bit of ambiguitity. Would you accept that being conscious

of others means being conscious of them as subjects in their own right

and that this is something that is fundamental and not just an

inference? Or would you hold that it is an inference from our own case

i.e. they are doing what we would be doing and we are conscious

subjects etc.

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Sri Sastri ji, Sri Bhaskar ji,

 

First I wish to Congratulate you for adorning the post of Cheif Moderator for the coming year. I pay my obeisance unto you.

 

As I had mentioned in my other posts, Vacaspati Misra recognizes Ajnana as two-fold; both being anirvacya. To be precise, Amalananda mentions Mula-Avidya as Maya - the Karana rupa and Tula-Avidya as Karya rupa. And by Sat-Karana vada we say both cause and effect are non-different while cause alone remains to be true and not the effect. This is found even in the introductory lines of Bhamati. Further the same point is elaborated in detailed Siddhanta lesa Samgraha where the prakriya that considers Maya as cause and Avidya as the effect is taken up for discussion. Even Prakatartha-Vivarana kara treats the above view. Vidyaranya categorically asserts Maya as the cause and Avidya as the effect both in Pancadasi and Vivarana premeya samgraha. Vidyaranya uses lucid expression to say 'Prakrtir dvividhasca'; sattvasuddhyavisuddhibhyam - Maya Avidya ca'; I consider the above references to provide enough authority to my view. Sastri ji, I never intended any advice to you. Those were some random thoughts I wanted to share with you. If that gives such an impression, I appeal to the moderators to remove that post from record.

 

Bhaskar ji, an Advaitin can have only one weapon which is 'ekam Brahma-astram'. ) so no plurality here too. Any number of other weapons u hunt for and jump here to counter my view will not help you in any way. Please understand a simple thing here - we do not deny the fact that Maya is Avidya kalpita or Avidyatmika etc. These expressions, you must realize are well accomodated with the causal realms and it proves no point for you to deny the causality of Maya. Vidyaranya when he says 'Karane sattvamAnamayo' - he refers to the Maya vrtti which he calls the Ananda-maya kosa where the causality of Maya is insisted upon. Once this causality is made clear, it 'apparently' explains the 'apparent transactions' of empirical world with Avidya as its effect. Even in the functional aspect, Maya is said to operate only with Viksepa Sakti and Tula-Avidya operates along with Avarana. This is what Vidyaranya had to say about the difference in functionality within the causal realms 'Maya-Avidye vihAyaimupAdhI para-jivayoH'. Dont you know the Para-Upadhi is cause and the Jivatva as Upadhi becomes the natural effect ? For your kind information, Sankara in his upodgatha to Ch XIII of Gita Bhasya says 'Dve Prakrti ... Apara SamsArahetutvAt ... Para ..IsvarAtmika - jagat-utpatti-sthiti-laya hetutvat'. Anandagiri gives a beautiful note on Sankara's words. 'Kimartam Isvarasya PrakrtiH?' and he answers 'KaranatvArtham ithyAhaH' iti. From this we clearly come to know that Maya is Para-Prakrti which is Srsti Karana upadhi while Apara is Samsara hetuH which is the apparent effect of Jagat Srsti.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I am the only subject.

 

The rest are objects of my perception. The objects include my body,

thoughts, memory, inferences etc. - everything that is subject to

objectification by me - whatever that me is.

 

Thus, the other fellow's sentience is something that I am aware of.

As such, it is an object of my awareness. I should be there first to

validate his sentience as an object of my awareness.

 

To make it short, when we say " X exists " what we really mean is " I

know that " X " exists " (not " " X " knows that he exists " ). While " I

know that I exist " is self-evidence, " I know that " X " exists "

presupposes my existence. From " X " 's point of view, his existence is

self-evidence to himself. But, to me, it is only his point of view,

which is an object in my awareness (i.e. " I know that " X " knows that

he exists " ).

 

Shankara himself had used this logic in his teachings (like

ghatadrishta ghatAt bhinna - the seer of the pot is not the pot) in

order to zero in on what is self-evident.

 

The whole purpose is to first establish one's self-evidence or make

oneself aware of the self-evidence one is, then understand that same

self-evidence as the consciousness in which the objects appear and

then logically dissolve the triad of seer, seeing and seen in the

fullness that is sat-chit-Ananda.

 

That means, at the end of the day, the one who set out on enquiry

dissolves like the salt doll that visited the sea together with all

that is there in the objectified phenomanal. It is a realization

that the other fellows and creatures were never other than himself.

If that is the knowlege that swallows one up at the end, then it is

better that one sees the other fellow as oneself and equally sentient

as oneself right from now. That understanding is fundamental inspite

of the seeming subject-object divide.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

> There is a bit of ambiguitity. Would you accept that being

conscious of others means being conscious of them as subjects in

their own right and that this is something that is fundamental and

not just an inference? Or would you hold that it is an inference from

our own case i.e. they are doing what we would be doing and we are

conscious subjects etc.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Michaelji.

>

> I am the only subject.

>

> The rest are objects of my perception. The objects include my

body,

> thoughts, memory, inferences etc. - everything that is subject to

> objectification by me - whatever that me is.

>

> Thus, the other fellow's sentience is something that I am aware

of.

> As such, it is an object of my awareness. I should be there first

to

> validate his sentience as an object of my awareness.

>

> To make it short, when we say " X exists " what we really mean is " I

> know that " X " exists " (not " " X " knows that he exists " ). While " I

> know that I exist " is self-evidence, " I know that " X " exists "

> presupposes my existence. From " X " 's point of view, his existence

is

> self-evidence to himself. But, to me, it is only his point of

view,

> which is an object in my awareness (i.e. " I know that " X " knows

that

> he exists " ).

>

> Shankara himself had used this logic in his teachings (like

> ghatadrishta ghatAt bhinna - the seer of the pot is not the pot) in

> order to zero in on what is self-evident.

>

> The whole purpose is to first establish one's self-evidence or make

> oneself aware of the self-evidence one is, then understand that

same

> self-evidence as the consciousness in which the objects appear and

> then logically dissolve the triad of seer, seeing and seen in the

> fullness that is sat-chit-Ananda.

>

> That means, at the end of the day, the one who set out on enquiry

> dissolves like the salt doll that visited the sea together with all

> that is there in the objectified phenomanal. It is a realization

> that the other fellows and creatures were never other than

himself.

> If that is the knowlege that swallows one up at the end, then it is

> better that one sees the other fellow as oneself and equally

sentient

> as oneself right from now. That understanding is fundamental

inspite

> of the seeming subject-object divide.

>

> Hope I am clear.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

>

 

Namaste,

 

thanks for your words

 

what if one could say :

 

" I am the only subject I ever can know "

 

 

Regards,

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

> Namaste,

> thanks for your words

> what if one could say :

> " I am the only subject I ever can know "

>

> Regards,

>

> Marc

 

" I " just " AM " , just " AM " . What is there to know? Knowing is make

believe.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " One Iam " <lordofthemystic

wrote:

>

> > Namaste,

> > thanks for your words

> > what if one could say :

> > " I am the only subject I ever can know "

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Marc

>

> " I " just " AM " , just " AM " . What is there to know? Knowing is make

> believe.

 

 

Maybe it's possible that you can know very well this fiction of

illusory self that you imagine to be....no?...

 

Means, indeed....behind such fiction....there is nothing to know.

Means, to discover what is behind such fiction mostly is " understood "

by the heart...not by a busy and restless mind (intellect & knowledge).

 

 

Marc