Maya and Avidya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> 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. ...

>

 

Namaste,

 

Some other observations that struck me were:

 

1. the word avidyA is not used in the Gita at all;

 

2. where the word aj~nAna is used, Shankara has consistently defined

it as aviveka; (12 times)

 

3. the word mAya is used 5 times - in 4:6 , it is defined as

'mama vaiShNavIM mAyAM truguNAtmikAm'; in 7:14 as 'viShNoH

svabhAvabhUtA hi yasmAt eShA yathoktA guNamayI mama mAyA'.

 

4. In Vivekachudamani, this verse occurs:

 

avyaktanAmnI parameshashaktiH

anAdyavidyA triguNAtmikaa parA |

kAryAnumeyA sudhiyaiva mAyA

yayA jagatsarvamidaM prasUyate ||

 

" Maya is called avyakta. It is the power of Parameshvara.It is

beginningless avidya. It is compacted of three gunas. It is superior

to its effects and is to be inferred from them by the wise whose

intellect functions in accord with shruti. She gives birth to this

entire world. "

[ 'It has no reality in the absolute sense - vastutaH na vidyate - so

it is called avidyA' - excerpt from commentary by Sw. Chandrasekhra

Bharati.]

 

5. the quotation of " mAyA cha avidyA cha svayameva bhavati " is in

Nrisimha-uttaratapani Upanishad (#9).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste all followers of this thread,The thing is that we have an innate knowledge built in that sets

us on our way. We have an awareness of the world which we ought

not to have. How does the inert become conscious in the mind of

the perceiver? This is an insoluble problem if we take the

apparent subject/object divide as a basic ground. What Shankara

is saying in the preamble is that this ground is not enough to

explain what it is we do. In other words, it cannot account for

awareness. I as sole subject won't do. The seeming otherness of

things which are as different from the subject as 'night from day'

yet they transfer into the consciousness of the subject. This

problem cannot be resolved on the basis of a single subjective

consciousness as a fundamental given. Shankara's emphasis is on

the problem of things coming into consciousness. Certainly things

are in consciousness but they came in there. How?

 

The idea of things outside the consciousness of a sole subject is

an insoluble problem for that way of looking at the world.

 

Best Wishes,Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> 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.

> >

> >

 

Hari Om! Pranaams!!

 

I would like to submit the following on the points discussed:

 

We are trying to understand the sentence " I see/know a (another)

conscious object. "

 

If someone expresses his experience as-- " I saw a spacious object

(spacious car/bungalow...) " or " I saw an object (aircraft, star...)

in space " what we reply to him? Though every object is made of space,

exist in space, since space could not be perceived because of its

subtlety, you saw only an object and not spacious or in space. If

the experiencer clarifies that what he meant by space is roomy, airy,

big etc. we say they are not space as space has specific definition -

that accommodates everything. (Avakaashayati iti aakaashah)

 

Similarly when someone expresses his experience as -- " I saw a

conscious object (entity) " we can reply to him -- though all objects

exist in conscience and exist because of conscience, since

consciousness cannot be perceived because of its subtlety, you saw

only object and not conscious object. If the experiencer clarifies

that by consciousness he meant moving, changing, growing, thinking...

we say they are not consciousness as it has specific definition -

which knows everything as knower but never become known.

 

This way, none of experiencer, experienced, experience is denied but

only the knowledge derived from the experience is made true.

 

The above can be proved methodically by shruti, yukti, anubhava also

if necessitated

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear Mounaji,

 

I can go with that - no problem as long as we understand the general

implication.

 

I would like to illustrate the issue with an example of my own.

 

A camera is focused on an object. A sharp shot of that object is then

possible. Increase the focal length slowly. The object recedes to

vanish slowly and the general background where it appeared shines

forth. This technique, I believe, is used in films to make things

disappear.

 

This is sort of similar to what happens in samAdhi or heightened state

of meditation. The nAma-rUpa world of objectifications, external as

well as internal, vanishes and dissolves in the background - the

substratum which sustains, nourishes and shines it, as the cellular

limitations of the samAdhist or meditator dissolve. The background

sheen is then understood by him as nothing other than himself - the so-

called effulgence of the Self.

 

So awareness is awareness whether personal or impersonal, i.e. whether

there is objetification or otherwise, if we understand it in the right

perspective.

 

Hope this makes sense. I admit that my analogy has its own

limitations like any other analogy.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

 

-- In advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

 

> Awareness/Consciousness = Impersonal

> Awareness/Consciousness " of " = Personal

>

> What do you think?

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Appeal: Please do not include the entire message of the

previous poster's messages while sending your reply. Keep the minimum as it is

shown here!

================================

 

advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> advaitin , " One Iam " <lordofthemystic@>

> wrote:

> >

 

" The All is Mind. " How can the heart understand what the Mind does

not? Where is the difference between Mind and Heart except in

thought in the Mind. AM just IS. " Understanding " is made in " AM " but

it can't " understand " it's maker. I AM.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna

 

its sounds authentic for me a least

 

(sorry you did not ask me...)

 

take care please in the difficult times ahead

 

yours in Bhagavan

 

michael

 

-

Mouna

advaitin

Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:13 PM

Re: Maya and Avidya

 

 

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote:>> My understanding of awareness is...Dear Nairji and Durgaji,Awareness/Consciousness = ImpersonalAwareness/Consciousness "of" = PersonalWhat do you think?Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

 

 

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1855 - Release 18/12/2008 10.16

[Guest guest]

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote:> I admit that my analogy has its own > limitations like any other analogy.Dear NairJi, pranamas,I must say the analogy you suggested is a great one!The "depth of field" as it is called in photography determines where is the focus on. Awareness.If the focus is on the object , then the background is blurred. Mind outwards, Objectivisation.

If the focus is on the background, object blurrs or dissapears. Mind inwards, Witness.If the depth of field is swtched to "Infinity" (older cameras jargon) then object AND background are in focus, on the same plane, there are not two fields. Moksha.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

>

> Namaste all followers of this thread,

> The thing is that we have an innate knowledge built in that sets

> us on our way. We have an awareness of the world which we ought

> not to have. How does the inert become conscious in the mind of

> the perceiver? This is an insoluble problem if we take the

> apparent subject/object divide as a basic ground. What Shankara

> is saying in the preamble is that this ground is not enough to

> explain what it is we do. In other words, it cannot account for

> awareness. I as sole subject won't do. The seeming otherness of

> things which are as different from the subject as 'night from day'

> yet they transfer into the consciousness of the subject. This

> problem cannot be resolved on the basis of a single subjective

> consciousness as a fundamental given. Shankara's emphasis is on

> the problem of things coming into consciousness. Certainly things

> are in consciousness but they came in there. How?

>

> The idea of things outside the consciousness of a sole subject is

> an insoluble problem for that way of looking at the world.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

 

 

Michael,

 

 

the level of asking on how " things came in consciousness " ....

is like asking....

how did things come into my dream during sleep last night....

 

......

 

Why consciousness couldn't be seen as Being such things.

Means, as being equal to things and appearent others.

Means, all this appearent things, other people and world are related

to an individual consciousness.

 

Why an individual consciousness?....

 

Because consciousness can only be related to an imaginary entity

(ego).

 

Every ego has different consciousness.

 

Possible that such ego know his/her Oneness with all the appearent

world.

 

Possible also that such ego don't know his/her Oneness with all the

appearent world.

 

In the first case, one could talk about free choice and a certain

liberation.

 

In the second case, there is no free choice, due to ignorance.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Marc

 

 

Ps: the attitude of some ego-minds to have/get influence on appearent

others......is like trying to have some influence on the content of

the dream next night.

[Guest guest]

Dear Br. Pranipata Chaitanya,

 

Thanks for your message 42596.

 

You have provided a very good and profound explanation. However, I

would like to mention the following which I am sure a person of your

level surely knows:

 

Space can be understood only as that something which objects occupy

or the separation between them like time is the duration of and gap

between events. Objects and events cannot be independent of space-

time matrix. Space-time has no meaning without objects and events.

All of them i.e. objects, events, space and time, are mithyA.

 

That is not the case with Consciousness. Consciousness is

Consciousness with or without objects. Consciousness is not mithya

as it is the one and only ultimate Substratum that pervades through

all things mithyA and make mithyA possible.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:>

> I would like to submit the following on the points discussed:

>

> We are trying to understand the sentence " I see/know a (another)

> conscious object. "

>

> If someone expresses his experience as-- " I saw a spacious object

> (spacious car/bungalow...) " or " I saw an object (aircraft,

star...)

> in space " what we reply to him? Though every object is made of

space,

> exist in space, since space could not be perceived because of its

> subtlety, you saw only an object and not spacious or in

space. .....

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " One Iam " <lordofthemystic

wrote:

>

> List Moderators' Appeal: Please do not include the entire message

of the previous poster's messages while sending your reply. Keep the

minimum as it is shown here!

> ================================

>

> advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , " One Iam " <lordofthemystic@>

> > wrote:

> > >

>

> " The All is Mind. " How can the heart understand what the Mind does

> not? Where is the difference between Mind and Heart except in

> thought in the Mind. AM just IS. " Understanding " is made in " AM "

but

> it can't " understand " it's maker. I AM.

 

 

" the all is mind " ...?

 

The heart is necessary to enter into meditation.

Means, without love, one can't enter into meditation.

 

A restless mind can't enter into meditation.

And meditation don't leave a restless mind.

 

If one experience meditation, one get some knowledge/understanding

about who you are....mainly about who you are net, and never have

been.

 

Ego get less after some time.

Means, the attachment to the illusion to be a

seperated " this & that " ...doing " this & that " .

 

.....

 

When there is less ego....there is less of " somebody " left who

could/should understand much about the reason of ignorance, means

worldly issues.

 

When there is less ego....there is more of Acceptance concerning the

individual path (ego-path) appearent others are on.

 

Acceptance is maybe not of (part of) consciousness for some members

in here.....who feel to much superior even to answer some messages.

 

Thanks

 

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

PranAms Devanathan-ji

That was indeed beautiful.

 

Just to add in Ch 7 itself we have Shankara giving us a poser?

7.12 Tacha kinniimittam jagatah ajnanamityuchyate?

 

What is the nimitta of ignorance in the world?

 

That is bestated in 7:13 and esp so in 7.14 is clearly established

the Lord's control over His own Maya...and note even here how

Shankara is very deliberate in adding that the Master of Maya is the

jivA's own Self, so there is no ambiguity in what is implied.

 

" Daivivedasya mama ishwarasya ..... samsarabandhanaat muchyante

ityarthah "

 

Hi, since; esa, this, aforesaid; daivi, divine; Maya mama, of Mine,

of God, of Visnu, which (Maya) is My own; and which is guna-mayi,

constituted by the gunas; is duratyaya, difficult to cross over;

therefore, this being so, ye, those who; wholeheartedly prapadyante,

take refuge; mam eva, in Me alone, in Me who am the Master of Maya

and who am their own Self, by giving up all forms of rites and

duties; te, they; taranti, cross over; etam, this; mayam, Maya, which

deludes all beings.

 

Maya is His shakti, Avidya is the lot of the phantom Ego. For a jnAni

whose Ego has been consumed in the fire of JnAna, the pluraility

conjured by mAyA is clearly cognized to be His Vibhuti alone.

 

For a beautiful exposition of MAyA by the Sage of Kanchi please read

 

http://kamakoti.org/acall/ac-concept.html

 

Humble pranAms

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM~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]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Br. Pranipata Chaitanya,

>

> Thanks for your message 42596.

>

> You have provided a very good and profound explanation. However, I

> would like to mention the following which I am sure a person of

your

> level surely knows:

>

> Space can be understood only as that something which objects occupy

> or the separation between them like time is the duration of and gap

> between events. Objects and events cannot be independent of space-

> time matrix. Space-time has no meaning without objects and events.

> All of them i.e. objects, events, space and time, are mithyA.

>

> That is not the case with Consciousness. Consciousness is

> Consciousness with or without objects. Consciousness is not mithya

> as it is the one and only ultimate Substratum that pervades through

> all things mithyA and make mithyA possible.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________

> advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

> <pranipatachaitanya@> wrote:>

> > I would like to submit the following on the points discussed:

> >

> > We are trying to understand the sentence " I see/know a (another)

> > conscious object. "

> >

> > If someone expresses his experience as-- " I saw a spacious object

> > (spacious car/bungalow...) " or " I saw an object (aircraft,

> star...)

> > in space " what we reply to him? Though every object is made of

> space,

> > exist in space, since space could not be perceived because of its

> > subtlety, you saw only an object and not spacious or in

> space. .....

>

Hari Om Shri Madathil Nairji, Pranaams!!

 

In verse 13.32 of Gita Lord Shri Krishna asserts that space and Self

though present everywhere do not come into contact with any object.

Which donot get any contact with any object cannot be seen as if

associated. A danda and a purusa when get connected we call

dandipurusa. Similarly one cannot associate either space or Self

with any object and put in apposition in a sentence.

 

When analysing what can be an object of vritti(thought) arising out

of pratyaksha pramana all you have mentioned time, weight, motion,

sequence nothing can be perceived but that is not taken up in my

earlier message.

 

" I see/know the object(world) " is the very essential starting point

of vedanta vicara where one should conclusively agree seen is inert

and seer is conscious. Then we put the total possibilities of

experience as " I know this is " and " I know not this is " .

 

Analise the word 'is' associated with 'this'(idam) -- the is-ness

(satta) of inert object should be from conscious Brahman. Analise the

word 'not' with I, one can arrive that one cannot be unknowing about

oneself because I exist; shine and do not require any other proof so

the Atman become sacchidananda. Then lakshana aikyaat vastu aikyam -

Atman and Brahman become one because of similar saccidananda nature.

 

This is expressed in verse 13.34 as kshetra-kshetrajnayoh-antaram

(distinction).

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 12/20/08, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

 

In verse 13.32 of Gita Lord Shri Krishna asserts that space and Self

 

though present everywhere do not come into contact with any object.

 

Which donot get any contact with any object cannot be seen as if

 

associated.

 

 

Br. Pranipata Chaitanyaji - PraNAms

 

You have raised an interesting point. Space and time which are interrelated

themselves not perceived but deduced mentally only - Space requires simultaneous

perception of two objects or two points to define and time requires two

sequential perceptions of the same object. But without mind present neither one

can be defined.

 

Similarly from the self point - you need a perception of object (mind included

as object) for it express itself - It is like light - to see the light one needs

an object which reflects it for us to recognize the object as well as the light

that is getting reflected. Similarly the mind as object is required to see the

reflection of the chit for 'seeing' chit - Hence AmRitabindu's sloka - manayeva

manuhshyaanaam..

 

Just as without the objects or events the concept of space or time become

indefinable - without the mind present the self-realization is also indefinable.

 

I am just stating this since there is some confusion among some members that

jnaani does not have mind. He has the mind as instrument but does not identify

the mind that I am the mind. While ajnaani thinks he is the mind - or BMI - and

that makes the difference between the two.

 

 

Just could not resist.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Sat, 12/20/08, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya

wrote:

>

>

> In verse 13.32 of Gita Lord Shri Krishna asserts that space and

Self

>

> though present everywhere do not come into contact with any object.

>

> Which donot get any contact with any object cannot be seen as if

>

> associated.

>

>

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanyaji - PraNAms

>

> You have raised an interesting point. Space and time which are

interrelated themselves not perceived but deduced mentally only -

Space requires simultaneous perception of two objects or two points

to define and time requires two sequential perceptions of the same

object. But without mind present neither one can be defined.

>

> Similarly from the self point - you need a perception of object

(mind included as object) for it express itself - It is like light -

to see the light one needs an object which reflects it for us to

recognize the object as well as the light that is getting reflected.

Similarly the mind as object is required to see the reflection of the

chit for 'seeing' chit - Hence AmRitabindu's sloka - manayeva

manuhshyaanaam..

>

> Just as without the objects or events the concept of space or time

become indefinable - without the mind present the self-realization is

also indefinable.

>

> I am just stating this since there is some confusion among some

members that jnaani does not have mind. He has the mind as instrument

but does not identify the mind that I am the mind. While ajnaani

thinks he is the mind - or BMI - and that makes the difference

between the two.

>

>

> Just could not resist.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Namaste Sadananda,

 

 

Yes, if there were no mind, we couldn't exchange anything in here

which concern the world and related ego(s)...

 

There are people who " believe " they have no ego...that there is no

ego....

But often, exactly this people are in need to exchange many ideas

about the world and exactly this their related ego...

 

There is nothing bad about ego and mind....

 

It's only necessary to don't take the ego for the Self.

This wouldn't make much sense.

 

Self, mind and ego are all existing, all the time present...as long

we are breathing....

 

 

Few words only

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

From :H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all

 

advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote: " Self, mind and ego are all existing, all

the time present...as long we are breathing.... "

 

Dear Sri Marc,,

 

YES, but with a small ammendment to your statement.

It is not " Self, mind and ego are all existing " .

But it should be " Self as mind, Self as ego,Self as Maya, Self as

Avidya, Self as all the time, Self as we and the act of breathing

etc., etc. APPEARS " . THIS IS THE TRUTH.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

Kindly see within .

 

Sadaji wrote:

> Just as without the objects or events the concept of space or time

become indefinable - without the mind present the self-realization is

also indefinable.

 

[MN: This is stretching BG 13:33 too far. In that verse, Lord

Krishna used space just as an analogy. Space cannot be equated to

Brahman. We don't equate the rope with Brahman. Do we?]

 

[MN: Yes. I need objects/events to make space/time definable. Without

objects/events, space/time is meaningless. However, unlike Brahman,

all of them are in the realm of mithyA.]

 

[MN: Supposing that space and time exists in pure form independent of

objects/events, the question then to be asked is not if I would need

objects/events to make them definiable but if space and time would

need objects/events to define themselves. They wouldn't, because to

them they are a self-evidence intimately known to themselves to prove

which the help of no external help is called for.]

 

[MN: If the above understanding is extended to Self-Realization, the

question is who wants to define It. The ajnAni does. The ajnAni

needs the help of a mind. Not a jnAni, who is already Self-

Realization - His Self-Evidence shines in all its glory without

external props. He is Sahaja!]

__________

 

Sadaji continued:

> I am just stating this since there is some confusion among some

members that jnaani does not have mind. He has the mind as instrument

but does not identify the mind that I am the mind. While ajnaani

thinks he is the mind - or BMI - and that makes the difference

between the two.

 

[That statement is untrue. No one said the jnAni doesn't have a

mind. His mind is " ALL-MIND " . It has gone Universal. It is pure

Awareness. That was what was said.]

 

[You yourself are saying a jnAni doesn't identify with his mind.

Why " his mind " ? I mean the possessive case. Isn't any other mind as

good as " his mind " ?]

 

[shankara says Self-Realization is sarvAtmatwaM. A Self-Realized One

is, therefore, a presence that shines in all minds, all bodies, all

objects animate and inanimate, the ant, the roach, extra-terrestials,

if they are out there, cosmic dust, naked singularities and what

not. Why does he need a dilapidation called " his mind " as an

instrument to act through. Isn't that stark ajnAna? Admitted that

we see wise men acting like all of us with BMI. We see so simply

because we are ajnAnis hopelessly meandering in the thraldom of

avidyA.]

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

MN: This is stretching BG 13:33 too far. In that verse, Lord

Krishna used space just as an analogy. Space cannot be equated to

Brahman. We don't equate the rope with Brahman. Do we?]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

yes, shankara says akAsha is also a 'kArya' (effect)...Hence *anAtma*....Is there anything that can be called *anAtma* when there is shruti *sarvaM khalvidaM brahma*?? This question irrelevant here in this context of discussion.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> From :H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all

>

> advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote: " Self, mind and ego are all existing, all

> the time present...as long we are breathing.... "

>

> Dear Sri Marc,,

>

> YES, but with a small ammendment to your statement.

> It is not " Self, mind and ego are all existing " .

> But it should be " Self as mind, Self as ego,Self as Maya, Self as

> Avidya, Self as all the time, Self as we and the act of breathing

> etc., etc. APPEARS " . THIS IS THE TRUTH.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

 

 

Sreenivasa,

 

if you want/wish to percieve the Self in all appearences....why not

just accepting the Self in whatever statements of whoever?....

 

I don't think that this your mentionned " truth " is such easy.

 

 

Regards,

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

the word mAya is used 5 times - in 4:6 , it is defined as

'mama vaiShNavIM mAyAM truguNAtmikAm'; in 7:14 as 'viShNoH

svabhAvabhUtA hi yasmAt eShA yathoktA guNamayI mama mAyA'.

Maya is called avyakta. It is the power of Parameshvara.It is

beginningless avidya. It is compacted of three gunas. It is superior

to its effects and is to be inferred from them by the wise whose

intellect functions in accord with shruti. She gives birth to this

entire world. "

PraNAms

Hare Krishna

From the above quotes from Sri Sunder prabhuji, it is quite evident that the word *mAyA* has been used to define two aspects i.e.

(a) mAya as *Ishwara shakti* &

(b) mAya in the form of *avyAkruta / avyakta (unmanifested)...

I was just wondering if mAyA & avidyA both are synonyms in advaita, then is there any problem in replacing the word avidyA in place of mAya?? Instead of mama *mAyA*, if lord says here mama avidyA....one can easily understand the *abhAsa* there is it not :-))

Anyway, I think, the understanding of *mAya* as Ishwara shakti, does not do any harm to the siddhAnta drushti that mAya is avidyA kalpita or avidyA kruta..Because from siddhAnta drushti, there is no scope for lordhood (Ishwaratva /Ishitavya) in the absolute non-dual brahman..To say brahman is Ishwara, we require a distinction between the ruler & the things being ruled...So, Ishwara himself & his attributes such as sarvajnatva (omniscience) & sarvashaktitva (omnipotence) etc. are mere transactional reality only wherein we *maintain* & cognize this duality to give the status of Ishwara/lordhood to non-dual brahman. . So, saying brahman is Ishwara is itself an avidyA drushti and his shakti i.e. mAya also an avidyAkalpita is it not?? In short, when nAma rUpAtmaka mAya is seen in non-dual brahman due to avidyA, the non-dual brahman itself termed as Ishwara /mAyAvi (ref. vide shvetAshvetara) etc. Because we donot have any other entity apart from THAT to give this status. So the very lord hood is superimposed on the non-dual self through this mAya which is inturn fictiously imagined by avidyA. So,again, from the siddhAnta drushti, Ishwara & his shakti mAya are in the realm of avidyA only.

Next aspect of mAya is avyakta or avyAkruta or akshara or avidita....As said above, due to ignorance of true nature of brahman (jnAnAbhAva), brahman itself appears in the form of universe...i.e. nothing but brahman is mistaken for the world due to ignorance. This false appearance itself called mAya...which has dual nature i.e. vyAkruta & avyAkruta or avyakta...vyAkruta is a manifested or differentiated form of universe and avyAkruta or unmanifested/undifferentiated form i.e. seed form of jagat (jagadbIja). This world appears in the waking state & disappears in the deep sleep state and the same world and the same ego appear again as they were before. These vyAkruta & avyAkruta forms of this universe can equally be applied to janana (birth), maraNa (death) and praLaya (dissolution of entire universe) also...Shankara never ever propapagated the doctrine that goes against lOkAnubhava (day to day experience)..the human being goes to the sleep the same being or individual would come up again with his attributes...so, shankara (also vedanta) has accepted the seed form of the universe which is in potential form in deep sleep...No need to mention that this avyakta rUpa (seed form) of universe has been admitted/inferred by shankara/vedanta to teach the true nature of the self which is absolute non-dual in its svarUpa. Hence, it can be easily concluded that the manifested (vyAkruta) and the unmanifested (avyAkruta) forms of universe are there in brahman due to our absence of knowledge about the non-dual nature of brahman...Shankara discusses these issues comprehensively in the sUtra bhAshya 2-1-9 & 2-1-14.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

<dennis_travis33 wrote:

>

> advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145@>

> wrote:

Dear Sri Marc,

 

Your response to the posting of mine clearly indicates that

you have not understood the contents of my letter correctly.

I have never stated " to perceive the Self in all appearances " . Please

study my posting once again.

 

Secondly what I have stated in my posting is a statement of fact

which can be verified HERE and NOW . For one who sees in the correct

direction nothing is more easier than seeing this as a fact. If one

can cognize/see/realize one's true nature he can very easily see this

as a fact.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> advaitin , " dennis_travis33 "

> <dennis_travis33@> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145@>

> > wrote:

> Dear Sri Marc,

>

> Your response to the posting of mine clearly indicates that

> you have not understood the contents of my letter correctly.

> I have never stated " to perceive the Self in all appearances " .

Please

> study my posting once again.

>

> Secondly what I have stated in my posting is a statement of fact

> which can be verified HERE and NOW . For one who sees in the correct

> direction nothing is more easier than seeing this as a fact. If one

> can cognize/see/realize one's true nature he can very easily see

this

> as a fact.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

 

 

Sreenivasa,

 

your words:

 

" Self as mind, Self as ego,Self as Maya, Self as

> Avidya, Self as all the time, Self as we and the act of breathing

> etc., etc. APPEARS " . THIS IS THE TRUTH. "

 

 

Sorry then that i misunderstood your message.

 

Congratulations for your realisation of this your mentionned true

nature.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for the clarification of your understanding.

 

What I have pointed out is clearly my understanding of the scriptures.

 

In the last post I have pointed the nature of the physical principles involved

in the definition of time and space and even in the recognition of witnessing

consciousness that I am. B.G. statement that Br. Caitanyaji pointed out is a

pointer in that direction. I agree that the statements that I made are not

direct derivatives of that - but not in contradiction to that. Chaitanyaji has

brought out some interesting point and mine is the extension of that as clearly

noted in my post.

 

Now regarding to the specifics -

--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

 

 

Sadaji wrote:

 

> Just as without the objects or events the concept of space or time

 

become indefinable - without the mind present the self-realization is

 

also indefinable.

 

 

 

[MN: This is stretching BG 13:33 too far. In that verse, Lord

 

Krishna used space just as an analogy. Space cannot be equated to

 

Brahman. We don't equate the rope with Brahman. Do we?]

 

You are absolutely right Nairji. Space is an analogy and it is the same way I

have also used in accounting the physical principle involved. Neither space nor

time can be directly perceived by the five senses - this I have made a note in

my Knowledge series too. Just as the mind is required -and they are absent in

the deep sleep state for the same reason - so is the consciousness of.. even

though witnessing consciousness is present in the deep sleep state - as

explained in mantras 5 and 6 of MaanDukya Upa. Witnessing consciousness is only

witnessing the absence of the mind and thus absence of the objects and thus the

world of space and time - absence of any-thing is only my knowledge in that

state - only recognized as I do not know anything - and more importantly - I do

not know myself too as in the waking and dream states where I know myself as

some BMI. Even that I do not know since those objects are not reflecting the

consciousness in the deep sleep

state. The same is true even in samaadhi also as what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as

laya. Of course it is called ananada-maya not ananda swaruupa since there is

absence of duality but no knowledge of reality.

 

Important statement I made is just as space and time - one cannot see the light

also unless it gets reflected by an object. Please think it over. If there are

no objects in the world, there may be brilliant light - but one cannot see

unless that brilliant light gets reflected by an object that I can see - That is

a simple physical fact. Now the same principle applies to the light of

consciousness. Without the object reflecting the light of consciousness, I can

not be 1) the consciousness of the object and more importantly 2) I cannot be

conscious of the presence of the witnessing consciousness too - This is exactly

what happens in the deep sleep state - I am not conscious of the witnessing

consciousness. It is similar to I cannot see my face unless I have a mirror and

light to reflect to see myself! - eyes cannot see eyes even though eyes can see

everything - I need a mirror of reflection to see my eyes. Same way I need a

mirror of upaadhi to see myself

as myself. Otherwise I am just myself as myself - no seeing and no

self-realization ether. Of course I do not need one since I am all by myself

only. This in fact is the secret of liila vibhuuti also. Hence Krishna say -

pasyam me yogamaiswaram - look at my glory Arjuna.

 

Self-realization involves realization of one's own self - Pure consciousness -

the all pervading consciousness is ever consciousness of itself and it is one

without a second - no need for it realize anything.

 

The one who is ignorant of that has to realize - right? Brahman or even Iswara

has no ignorance - that is what maaya as pramaesha shakti means - He is maayaavi

with the total mind as His instrument. Jiiva does not have the luxury of the

total mind at any time! This is where the difference between maaya and avidya

comes in. One from the point of totality and one from the point of locality.

 

 

ISha jiivayoH viShadhii bhidaa, satva bhaavato vastu kevalam - says Ramana.

The costumes that Iswara and jiiva are different - costumes are BMI - the body

mind intellect of jiiva are swalpa or finite - while that of Iswara consists of

total body (viswaruupa), total mind and total Intellect. Theses veSha's or

costumes are different - but the essence if one removes the vesham completely -

the essence is the same - that is the unlimited

existence-consciousness-limitless - that is only devoid of any veSha. As long as

veSha is there the roles with those costumes are different - Like N.T. Rama Rao

playing the role of both Rama and RavaNa in the same drama - as in Telugu

movies. N.T. Rama rao is neither rama nor ravana, although he acted more like

the later in his life! He is N.T. nothing truthful, in his case. But he is the

essence of both roles.

 

Hence as long as BMI is there - the vesham or costumes of jiiva and Iswara are

different. The difference between the ajnaani and jnaani - is not in the

difference in vesha but in the knowledge - one thinks that I am the what I am

waring - while the other knows he is not the costume but the indweller of

costume - not kshetra but kshetajna - not the field but knower of the field - as

discussed in the 13th Ch. of Gita. But as long as vesha is there jiiva is jiiva

and Iswara is Iswara - Jiiva will NEVER become Iswara. Realization is the

recognition as I am - is the sarva adhiShTaanam - the substantive of all the

three - jiiva-iswara-jagat. That is I am pure consciousness devoid of any vesha

- but as long as vesha is there I play the roles. - Playing the roles is not a

problem - in fact duality is never a problem - the problem comes only when I

take the duality as reality. That is due to ajnaana or ignorance.

 

Nairji - knowledge can only remove ignorance and nothing else. If I do not know

that this is table, knowledge of the table will remove the ignorance of the

table - but does not remove the table. knowledge that table is nothing but wood

would only make me understand that table is nothing but a name and form for the

wood. Even though now I know it is wood, I can still see the table knowing very

well that it is nothing but wood in that form. The knowledge of the reality of

the table did not remove the table but I understood its essence in spite of its

vesham or costume that the wood is waring.

It is exactly the same - self realization - is clear understanding of who I am

in spite of upaadhi that I am waring. Upaadhiis do not need to get destroyed for

me know who I am. When I know who I am, I know I am not upaadhis that I thought

I was; and now know I am kshetrajna using the kshetra - knower of the field

using the field for loka kalyaaNam for the benefit of the totality.

 

That is the correct understanding of self-knowledge - that I know.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

Hari Om Sadanandaji, Pranaams!!

 

> Space and time which are interrelated themselves not perceived

 

[The same thing I told - not become object of pratyaksha pramana]

 

> but deduced

 

[Means we know by anumana pramana! Not possible. 1. Anumana

presuppose earlier direct experience(pratyaksha). 2. If space is the

sadhya(thing to be infered) which will serve as the paksha(the thing

in which it is inferred).]

 

>

> Similarly from the self point - you need a perception of object

(mind included as object) for it express itself

 

[ Atman/Brahman is sva-saakshikaH (a witness of itself) -

Vivekachoodamani V216. na hi drashtuh drishteh viparilopah vidyate,

avinashitvaat (the vision of the witness can never be lost, because

it is imperishable)(Brh). Even in the absence of objects(mind

included) it illumines their absence. Saakshaat aparokshaat Brahma.

(Brh)]

 

>-AmRitabindu's sloka - manayeva manuhshyaanaam..

[As the wind gathers the clouds together and the wind itself scatters

them, so too the mind is responsible for the bondage(thro attachment

to objects) and also for liberation(thro dispassion). Therefore mind

is the cause for both bondage and liberation - Vivekachoodamani V 172-

174]

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Sadaji.

>

> Space cannot be equated to

> Brahman. We don't equate the rope with Brahman. Do we?]

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

Hari Om Shri Madathil Nairji, Pranaams!!

 

We do equate Space with Brahman. BS I.i.22 & BS I.iii.41 confirm this

assertion by various upanishads.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Br. Pranipatachaitanya-ji.

 

I see that BS has equated Brahman to light (darshanAt) and prANa

(kampanAt) too! Don't we need some type of reconciliation there

instead of going by the very letter? BSB of Acharya is way too beyond

my meagre comprehension to correctly analyse and comment upon.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

> We do equate Space with Brahman. BS I.i.22 & BS I.iii.41 confirm

this

> assertion by various upanishads.