Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " chebard " <chris.hebard wrote:

>

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

avidya, and maya.

>

Hari Om! Pranaams!!

 

I would like to submit the following on various points discussed in

this message:

 

a. Maya and Avidya

Maya and Avidya are one and the same. Vivekachudamani verse 108

Avyaktanamni .. Maya, avidya, karya-anumeya shows that maya is

avidya and is the cause and can only be referred from effects.

b. Isvara and Jiva

The terms Isvara used in two senses got mixed-up.

Vyasti (individual) and Samasti (total) aspects of sarira(body) when

described; sthula is panchikrita; sukshma is apancikrita; karana is

the one which is the cause for the other two bodies (tattva bodha)

The vyasti abhimani of sthula, sukshma and karana is known as visva,

taijasa and prajna and

The samasthi abhimani is known as virat; hiranyagarbha and isvara.

The vyasti who feels because of his abhimana in successive avasthas

as visva, taijasa and prajna is known as jiva and samasthi is known

as Isvara.

When Isvara terms used for vyasti abhimani of karana sarira and

vyasti of all jivas, there an impression arises as if isvara is the

karana for jiva. While from the very definitions it is not so.

Isvara as karana sarira abhimani is not the cause of prajna the

vyasti karana sarira abhimani but is only a samasti aspect. (all

jivas viewed together is isvara)

c. Asraya of Maya

Brahman is the asraya of Maya. Brahmasraya sattvarajastamogunaatmika

maaya asti (Tattva Bodha)

 

d. Sat karya vada

The vada determines what could be the cause(karana) so though

popularly called as karya vada it can also be termed as karana vada

if one prefers but the quotation cited are not belonging to any

karana vada but refutation of other karya vadas.

Samghatavada; asatkarya vada; satkaryavada and vivartavada are four

popular theories put forward and considered in the sutras. Advaita

advocates only vivartavada. But while refuting asatkarya vada

(otherwise arambha vada) which says that the effects were not in the

beginning and created afresh; we ask how sat(existant) thing come

from asat(non existence). This does not mean we propound sat karana

vada. While refuting satkarya vada otherwise known as parinama vada

which says all are modifications and the effect existed in the cause;

for refuting which we ask if effect existed already; why to produce ;

what prevented it from existing always?

 

e. Blind belief

Nowhere sofar we wanted anyone to believe what we say. Everyone

should accept an existing thing and we call it as Brahman/Atman and

wont have any objection if called by anyother name. Maya we say is

existing and can be known from its effects i.e. thro inference-

anumana which is an accepted pramana by almost everyone except

carvarkas. As regards creation it can be only a theory for anyone

because effect is trying to account for its separation from the

cause. In vivvarta vada we do not even have problems with yugabat;

krama; loka; cara and acara sristi. Because all are illusion.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Marc-ji, Madathil-ji, Lord-ji,

Marc, are you pointing out the essential instability of the idea that our immediate data is our own consciousness and that we build everything up on the basis of this? The question I am ask is whether it is possible to develop the knowledge that we have on this basis. I don’t think so. There are many philosophical arguments about this and really it depends on your appetite for them how deeply you want to go into it.

Madathil : You probably look on all this as impossibly abstruse and are impatient with the time it takes away from sadhana. It’s perhaps a pragmatic thing. If it works then it’s true enough for the average pilgrim. That’s ok but is it advaita? The persuasiveness of advaita is based on its coherence and lack of inner contradiction. Seeing the line of the argument and clarifying the primal position is the advaitic sadhana as encapsulated in the summary - sravana, manana, smarana.

Reflect that Shankara presents avidya as universal in the preamble and not something that I discover in myself and then infer to be present in others. Consider his reflections on generic concepts and their impersonal nature in B.S.B. I.iii.28 and his rejection of the Vijnanavada in II.ii.28.

Lord (of the Mystic): Is the advaitin list a figment or a fraction of your consciousness?

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

> Namaste Marc-ji, Madathil-ji, Lord-ji,

>

> Marc, are you pointing out the essential instability of the idea

that our immediate data is our own consciousness and that we build

everything up on the basis of this? The question I am ask is whether

it is possible to develop the knowledge that we have on this basis. I

don't think so. There are many philosophical arguments about this and

really it depends on your appetite for them how deeply you want to go

into it.

>

> Madathil : You probably look on all this as impossibly abstruse and

are impatient with the time it takes away from sadhana. It's perhaps

a pragmatic thing. If it works then it's true enough for the average

pilgrim. That's ok but is it advaita? The persuasiveness of advaita

is based on its coherence and lack of inner contradiction. Seeing the

line of the argument and clarifying the primal position is the

advaitic sadhana as encapsulated in the summary - sravana, manana,

smarana.

>

> Reflect that Shankara presents avidya as universal in the preamble

and not something that I discover in myself and then infer to be

present in others. Consider his reflections on generic concepts and

their impersonal nature in B.S.B. I.iii.28 and his rejection of the

Vijnanavada in II.ii.28.

>

> Lord (of the Mystic): Is the advaitin list a figment or a fraction

of your consciousness?

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Michael.

>

 

 

 

Michael,

 

 

I agreed with Madathil's statement " I am the only subject " and the

whole message about he wrote.

 

Personally, i'm not realy a fan of the " subject-object " teaching

method.

It's possible that people get intellectually confused with such idea

and fact.

 

Brahman, as formless, changless and infinite existence could also be

seen as the only subject.

 

To take the imaginary self as only subject, and then going on

writing/reading/teaching.....to imaginary others.....is little bit

contradictory and has dual appearence....

 

....except maybe if it come completely out of heart....out of

heart....to nobody realy.....as an expression of emptyness,

nothingness, detachment, liberation...

 

People in here have good hearts....and take much effort, to be clear

with themSelf....relfected in/within others.

 

.....

 

to your question:

 

" Marc, are you pointing out the essential instability of the idea

that our immediate data is our own consciousness and that we build

everything up on the basis of this? The question I am ask is whether

it is possible to develop the knowledge that we have on this basis "

 

Yes, i think that our immediate data is our own consciousness.

Wouldn't talk about " building up " something....our imaginary self is

already " build up " first. (the only subject...)

 

To this imaginary self....a whole appearent world is related.

Endless knowledge related to this appearent world can be " catched and

developed " .

So this basis is not of little seperated basis in front of a whole

appearent world.

Such basis is represented by the imaginary self and the whole related

world.

 

Such knowledge include also informations and " data " about non-duality

as for example.

 

After a while....when mind and intellect come at rest....because the

mysteries of the appearent world....get more and more appearent

only......meditation take place.

 

Meditation open a whole " world " of other kind of knowledge....could

be called " Awareness " .

 

I think that only after a whole process of inner

transformations...it's possible to realy " understand " the statement

of " I Am the only subject " .

 

Regards

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

I didn't completely follow what you are trying to say. Perhaps,

because I am an average pilgrim. LOL.

 

I have'nt discarded sravaNa, manana, smaraNa. In my first reply

itself, I have included the whole body of advaita vedanta as the

means(pramANa)for achieving the goal.

 

Neither have I underrated sAdhana as you seem to suggest by pointing

at my non-existent alleged impatience. Having obtained an advaitic

vision, I am in no tearing hurry to reach the goal. I have faith in

the truth of what I know and am firmly convinced that the 'goal'

will materialise spontaneously if I doggedly trek the road of

sAdhana aided by sravaNa, manana etc.

 

Shankara has stated that avidya is universal and natural.

Shankara, his statement, BSB, his various refutations, and your

pointing out them now to me in order to counter me, these are where?

In my awareness, no? That is a basic fact. That I track back and

base everything on awareness doesn't mean that valid observations by

others are incorrect. It is that I *know* what he has stated and

that I know his statements are rightly applicable to the sentience

that I am aware of around me.

 

Who said awareness is personal? Awareness doesn't belong to

Madathil. Madathil, the will-o-the-wisp entity, who thinks in

personal terms as I, me and mine, is in awareness as you Michaelji

and all the sentience that we see around us are. Awareness is

something that unravels itself on its own and not anybody's personal

volition. We think that it is personal because we relate it to a

mass of grey cells called the brain and a bunch of senses which are

all objects in awareness.

 

I have nothing more to say.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

 

> Madathil : You probably look on all this as impossibly abstruse

and are impatient with the time it takes away from sadhana. It's

perhaps a pragmatic thing. If it works then it's true enough for the

average pilgrim. That's ok but is it advaita? The persuasiveness of

advaita is based on its coherence and lack of inner contradiction.

Seeing the line of the argument and clarifying the primal position

is the advaitic sadhana as encapsulated in the summary - sravana,

manana, smarana.

>

> Reflect that Shankara presents avidya as universal in the preamble

and not something that I discover in myself and then infer to be

present in others. Consider his reflections on generic concepts and

their impersonal nature in B.S.B. I.iii.28 and his rejection of the

Vijnanavada in II.ii.28.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>

> Who said awareness is personal? Awareness doesn't belong to

> Madathil. Madathil, the will-o-the-wisp entity, who thinks in

> personal terms as I, me and mine, is in awareness as you Michaelji

> and all the sentience that we see around us are. Awareness is

> something that unravels itself on its own and not anybody's personal

> volition. We think that it is personal because we relate it to a

> mass of grey cells called the brain and a bunch of senses which are

> all objects in awareness.

>

> I have nothing more to say.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

There is another way to look at awareness as it relates

to the word 'personal.'

 

Interestingly enough, awareness *is* intensely personal.

It is because awareness is so personal that it is often

overlooked or missed as brahman. Sometimes the mind,

while searching for what brahman is, misses brahman entirely

because the mind thinks, " Brahman can't possibly be this

personal 'me.' Brahman cannot be the 'me' I always have been,

and indeed known myself as. That's way too simple. "

 

I would even go so far as to say that 'personal'

serves as a most direct lakshana for awareness.

 

Once we knock off all of the changing phenomena, which

the mind has taken that awareness to be one with, we are

left with the personal 'I.' That 'I' is brahman. That

'I' is awareness.

 

As we later discover, this personal 'I' which my mind

has always known myself as, is the same personal

'I' of every other jiva, from deva to insect. What

a wonder! The mind thought I/awareness belonged only to this

one jiva, but in fact, it belongs to every jiva, and

to the entire jagat, even to Ishwara. Amazing!

 

Also, I am a bit perplexed by your statement above that

" Awareness is something that unravels itself on its own... "

 

Awareness, which is another name for sat/chit/ananda brahman,

does not unravel, or move. Awareness always *is,* self-shining,

unchanging, self-evident, lighting up every changing

'thing,' including the mind's ignorance, which takes that

unchanging intensely 'personal' awareness to be one with

and a product of the changing body/mind.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji.

 

Your message 42589.

 

That is a new angle and I can go with you as long as everything

boils down to awareness. In that case, the adjective 'personal'

doesn't bother me as it does Michaelji.

 

Thanks and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________________

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

> There is another way to look at awareness as it relates

> to the word 'personal.'

>

> Interestingly enough, awareness *is* intensely personal.

> It is because awareness is so personal that it is often

> overlooked or missed as brahman. Sometimes the mind,

> while searching for what brahman is, misses brahman entirely

> because the mind thinks, " Brahman can't possibly be this

> personal 'me.' Brahman cannot be the 'me' I always have been,

> and indeed known myself as. That's way too simple. "

>

> I would even go so far as to say that 'personal'

> serves as a most direct lakshana for awareness.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durgaji.

 

I left out a point in my previous message.

 

You said:

 

QUOTE

 

> Also, I am a bit perplexed by your statement above that

> " Awareness is something that unravels itself on its own... "

>

> Awareness, which is another name for sat/chit/ananda brahman,

> does not unravel, or move. Awareness always *is,* self-shining,

> unchanging, self-evident, lighting up every changing

> 'thing,' including the mind's ignorance, which takes that

> unchanging intensely 'personal' awareness to be one with

> and a product of the changing body/mind.

 

UNQUOTE

 

The word " unravels " in my statement means exactly what you imply

by " light up every changing 'thing' etc. " .

 

You understood it differently because I was treating awareness as

impersonal in order to explain my position to Michaelji.

 

My understanding of awareness is exactly in line with Shankara's

simile in the Dakshinamurthy Stotra of a many-holed pot in which a

light shines lighting up objects outside the pot

(nAnAschidraghatodarastitha mahAdIpaprabhAbhAswaraM... etc.).

However, unlike in the example, the light of awareness that lights up

is not in any way other than the things lighted up. Hence, I thought

it was better to use the word unravel in an intransitive sense.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

" Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote:

>

> My understanding of awareness is...

 

 

Dear Nairji and Durgaji,

 

Awareness/Consciousness = Impersonal

Awareness/Consciousness " of " = Personal

 

What do you think?

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna