Guest guest Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 praNAms Hare Krishna At the outset, I'd like to clarify that I am no way qualified to debate the understanding of Sri Sastri prabhuji with regard to mAyA and avidyA. But at the same time, I cannot restrict myself from sharing my understanding with the forum. Hence, I am writing my view points under a separate thread. Prabhuji-s, kindly bear with my parallel view points on the same issue. (a) " mama svarupabhUtA madeeya mAyA " says geetaachArya, I was wondering, if the avidyA is as same as mAya, then here geetAchArya implying that his svarUpa is 'avidyA' !!?? Kindly dont think this is sarcasm...infact this is what the first thought appeared in my mind!! (b) Normally, we say, jeeva is suffering from avidyA, mAyA is Ishwara shakti. If we say both avidyA & mAya are one and the same, jeeva becomes Ishwara & Ishwara becomes jeeva and there is no 'jeeveshwara bheda' and there is no value for spiritual path (sAdhana mArga) as described in the shruti.. © As per normal understanding of ours, a self realized one, would not have any avidyA & his avidyA beeja is completely burnt (jnAnAgni dagdha) and this jnAni will not have any 'punarjanma'. (muktAnAM punaranutpattihi vidyayA tasyA beejashakterdAhAt). Therefore, an already realized soul would burnt away the mAyA beeja OR avidyA beeja permanently, so, strictly speaking there should not be any 'jagat' to cognize to anyone if both avidyA & prakruti are one and the same...But despite having somany jnAni-s in the bygone history, we are 'still' seeing prakruti i.e. jagat!! (d) shankara says in geeta commentary, 'prakruti dvayavatvameva hi Ishwarasya IshwaratvaM'...if a jnAni burnt away his avidyA or prakruti then there is no Ishwara!! But, we still have Ishwara!! (e) mAya is the shakti of Ishwara but avidyA is the weakness of jeeva. (f) We dont say, jeeva has the 'mAya' and brahman has avidyA, but we do say jeeva has the 'avidyA' and brahman with the mAyA shakti appears as Ishwara. (g) shankara in geeta bhAshya (4.5) clearly says Ishwara has the mAyA shankti & jeeva has the avidya, through mAya shakti lord knows everything and jeeva (arjuna) does not know about it due to his avidyA. (h) through avyakta beeja shakti (i.e. mAya) we say creation, destruction will take place...the same status cannot be attributed to avidyA, atleast from the vyAvahArik stand point. (i) shankara in geeta bhAshya at somany places contextully clearly clarifies : mAya is Ishwara shakti but nowhere he, even remotely implies, avidyA is Ishwara shakti. (j) Last one, jokingly, one can name his/her daughter as mAya, like mAyAdevi, mAyAvati etc. (as devata vidyAvidya svarUpiNi)...But no one want name his daughter as avidyAvati, avidyadevi etc. :-)) I once again, would like to clarify that my above observations are not an attempt to refute Sri Sastri prabhuji's understanding i.e. mAya & avidyA are synonyms. Hari Hari Hari Bol!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > But at the same time, I cannot restrict myself from sharing my > understanding with the forum. Hence, I am writing my view points under a > separate thread. Prabhuji-s, kindly bear with my parallel view points on > the same issue. SNS-- Dear Bhaskar-ji, What I have given are all quotes from the bhAshya and not my own views. A reading of these quotes clearly shows that the lakShaNa (characteristics) of mAyA and avidyA are the same.This cannot be extended to mean that they serve the same purpose as you seem to have done. If there are any passages in the bhAShya which give different lakShaNa for mAyA and avidyA, please quote them. I shall be happy to get enlightened. To take an example, if I say that a bar of gold and a 5 gram bit of gold have the same chemical properties, it should not be taken to mean that the bar of gold can also be used in its entirety to make a ring. For making a ring for a human finger one has to take only the 5 gm bit. > (a) " mama svarupabhUtA madeeya mAyA " says geetaachArya, I was wondering, > if the avidyA is as same as mAya, then here geetAchArya implying that his > svarUpa is 'avidyA' !!?? Kindly dont think this is sarcasm...infact this > is what the first thought appeared in my mind!! > SNS-- I cannot understand the meaning of this unless I have the whole sentence or the reference. Are you saying that the svarUpa of the Lord is mAyA? Is it correct to say so? > (b) Normally, we say, jeeva is suffering from avidyA, mAyA is Ishwara > shakti. If we say both avidyA & mAya are one and the same, jeeva becomes > Ishwara & Ishwara becomes jeeva and there is no 'jeeveshwara bheda' and > there is no value for spiritual path (sAdhana mArga) as described in the > shruti.. > SNS- I have not said that the upAdhi of the jIva is mAyA. What I have understood is that the upAdhi of jIva is avidyA and that of Ishvara is mAyA. I have not suggested any amendment to this. The difference between Ishvara and jIva is that Ishvara controls mAyA while jIva is under the influence of mAyA. But this does not alter the fact that the bhAShya quotations show that the lakShaNa of mAyA and avidyA is the same. (I am now studying advaitasiddhi. Your objections remind me of the objections of VyAstIrtha in nyAyAmRita. This is a complement). > © As per normal understanding of ours, a self realized one, would not > have any avidyA & his avidyA beeja is completely burnt (jnAnAgni dagdha) > and this jnAni will not have any 'punarjanma'. (muktAnAM punaranutpattihi > vidyayA tasyA beejashakterdAhAt). Therefore, an already realized soul > would burnt away the mAyA beeja OR avidyA beeja permanently, so, strictly > speaking there should not be any 'jagat' to cognize to anyone if both > avidyA & prakruti are one and the same...But despite having somany jnAni-s > in the bygone history, we are 'still' seeing prakruti i.e. jagat!! > SNS--This is a strange objection, coming, as it does, from a knowledgeable person like you. When a person gets reaization only his avidyA is destroyed. Krishna uses the word mAya even in this context. In gItA 7.14 he says " Only those who take refuge in Me cross over this mAyA " . In the bhAShya shankara says, " mAyA which deludes all beings. That is to say, they become free from bondage " . Here Krishna speaks of mAyA as the cause of the bondage of the jIva If you go on extending statements beyond what they are intended to convey, any statement can be proved to be absurd. > (d) shankara says in geeta commentary, 'prakruti dvayavatvameva hi > Ishwarasya IshwaratvaM'...if a jnAni burnt away his avidyA or prakruti > then there is no Ishwara!! But, we still have Ishwara!! > SNS-- In the bhAshya on br. sU. 1.4.3 which you yourself have quoted in your previous post, shankara says that the shakti of Ishvara is burnt away on realization. You can raise the same objection against that statement also. I have already replied to this in the prev para. > (e) mAya is the shakti of Ishwara but avidyA is the weakness of jeeva. SNS--mAyA is the power of Ishvara. The jIva is under its control. But both mAyA and avidyA have the same lakShaNa as already shown. > > (f) We dont say, jeeva has the 'mAya' and brahman has avidyA, but we do > say jeeva has the 'avidyA' and brahman with the mAyA shakti appears as > Ishwara. > SNS-- I have already said what the upAdhi of each is. > (g) shankara in geeta bhAshya (4.5) clearly says Ishwara has the mAyA > shankti & jeeva has the avidya, through mAya shakti lord knows everything > and jeeva (arjuna) does not know about it due to his avidyA. > SNS-- This is already covered. > (h) through avyakta beeja shakti (i.e. mAya) we say creation, destruction > will take place...the same status cannot be attributed to avidyA, atleast > from the vyAvahArik stand point. SNS--This does not make any difference to my statement about the two. > > (i) shankara in geeta bhAshya at somany places contextully clearly > clarifies : mAya is Ishwara shakti but nowhere he, even remotely implies, > avidyA is Ishwara shakti. > SNS-- I have nowhere said that avidyA is Ishvarashakti. This is the fault of extending statements beyond what they mean. > (j) Last one, jokingly, one can name his/her daughter as mAya, like > mAyAdevi, mAyAvati etc. (as devata vidyAvidya svarUpiNi)...But no one want > name his daughter as avidyAvati, avidyadevi etc. :-)) > SNS-- Those who have daughters yet to be born may consider this. Dear Bhaskar-ji, If you are not satisfied with my answers please reject them. Do not raise any further points I have no energy to answer such long posts. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly pardon me if I have troubled you with my mail. Actually, I didnot want to debate this issue with your goodself. That is the reason why I shared my understanding of these two concepts under a separate thread without directly replying to your mail. Since you have asked avidyA lakshana & mAya lakshaNa as per shankara bhAshya. I would like to quote the following : avidyA : tAmasO hi pratyayaH, AvaraNAtmakatvAt avidyA vipareeta grAhakaH, saMshayOpasthApakO vA agrahaNAtmakOvA...(geeta 13-2) yadi jnAnAbhAvO, yadi saMshayajnAnam, yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate ajnAnaM. (bruhadAraNyaka) and this avidyA is shankara clarifies in adhyAsa bhAshya that : evamayamanAdiranantaH naisargikOdhyAsaH mithyApratyaya rUpaH katrutva bhOktrutva pravartakaH, sarvalOka pratyakshaH..In short, it is jeeva's ignorance about his or her true nature. This is what is called avidyA in shankara bhAshya. mAya : 'mAyA nAma bahiranyathA AtmAnaM prakAshya anyathaiva karyaM karOti sA mAyA' is the shankara's explanation on the concept of mAya in prashna 1-16. And without this mAya there is no creation power to parameshwara, insists shankara in sUtra bhAshya (1-4-3) na hi tayA vinA parameshvarasya srashtrutvaM siddhyati...mAyAvyapAshrayaM cha pravartakatvaM (sUtra bhAshya 2-2-7) without shakti or mAya how can he engage himself in srushti?? : shakti rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH...And this mAya is called sometime as prakruti, mUla prakruti (mAyAM tu prakrutiM vidyAt) vaishNavi mAyA (daivi hyesha guNamayi mama mAyA duratyayA says lord krishna in geeta, vaishNaveeM svAm mAyAM mUlaprakrutiM vasheekrutya..says shankara in geeta introduction), avyakta (mahataH paraM avyaktaM in katha) and aksharaM (etasmin khalvakshare gArgyAkAsha Otashcha protascha says bruhadAraNyaka)..And this mAya has two forms clarifies geetAchArya i.e. parA & aparA prakruti (geeta 7-4). And, now, what exactly is this mAya according to shankara?? is this word mAya can be substituted to the word avidyA?? Ofcourse, Shankara does say that this causal potentiality or mAyA is nothing but avidyAtmaka (of the nature of avidyA). But here avidyAtmaka does not mean mAyA is identical with avidyA and both words can be used as 'paryAya " . shankara's following bhAshya vAkya-s in ArambhAdhikaraNa, clears this question beyond any doubt. sarvajnasya Ishvarasya Atmabhute iva " avidyA kalpite " nAma rUpe tatva anyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeye saMsAra prapanchabeejabhute sarvajnasya Ishwarasya mAya, shaktihi, prakruti iti cha shrutismruttOrabhilapyete.. It is quite evident from the above bhAshya vAkya that shankara calls this mAya, shankti, prakruti etc. as 'avidyA kalpita' and this mAya (illusory appearance) cannot be defined to be identical with Ishvara or quite distinct from Ishwara. So, according to shankara, mAya is anirvachaneeya and it is shakti, prakruti,avyakta, akshara etc. when we have taken into consideration the creation. Can we explain avidyA also in the same lines?? can we say avidyA lakshaNa also same as mAya?? can we say avidyA also causal potentiality of Ishwara like mAyA despite shankara himself says mAya is avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta, avidyAkArya, avidyAlakshana etc.?? Moreover, for avidyA, vidyA is the pratiyOgi, what is the pratiyOgi for the mAya?? mAya lakshaNa is anirvachaneeya and avidya is nirvachaneeya. So, noway, we can use both these terms alternatively. Respected Sri Sastri prabhuji, kindly dont think I am unnecessarily trying to argue with you. I am just sharing my thoughts with the forum. I donot want to disturb your goodself with these debates. Hence, kindly dont take trouble to reply this mail. I onceagain, beg your pardon for stretching this discussion beyond the limit. This is my last mail in this thread prabhuji. Thanks for your time & patience. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Namaste Sri bhAskar prabhuji, Thank you very much for the clear explanation. May I ask you a humble question please. If mAyA is accepted as Ishwara's shakti don't you think it leads to V.Advaita? ( mAyA vishista Ishwara)? I humbly look forward to your reply. Namaste Suresh S advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > Kindly pardon me if I have troubled you with my mail. Actually, I didnot > want to debate this issue with your goodself. That is the reason why I > shared my understanding of these two concepts under a separate thread > without directly replying to your mail. Since you have asked avidyA > lakshana & mAya lakshaNa as per shankara bhAshya. I would like to quote > the following : > > avidyA : > > tAmasO hi pratyayaH, AvaraNAtmakatvAt avidyA vipareeta grAhakaH, > saMshayOpasthApakO vA agrahaNAtmakOvA...(geeta 13-2) > yadi jnAnAbhAvO, yadi saMshayajnAnam, yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate > ajnAnaM. (bruhadAraNyaka) and this avidyA is shankara clarifies in > adhyAsa bhAshya that : evamayamanAdiranantaH naisargikOdhyAsaH > mithyApratyaya rUpaH katrutva bhOktrutva pravartakaH, sarvalOka > pratyakshaH..In short, it is jeeva's ignorance about his or her true > nature. This is what is called avidyA in shankara bhAshya. > > mAya : > > 'mAyA nAma bahiranyathA AtmAnaM prakAshya anyathaiva karyaM karOti sA > mAyA' is the shankara's explanation on the concept of mAya in prashna > 1-16. And without this mAya there is no creation power to parameshwara, > insists shankara in sUtra bhAshya (1-4-3) na hi tayA vinA parameshvarasya > srashtrutvaM siddhyati...mAyAvyapAshrayaM cha pravartakatvaM (sUtra > bhAshya 2-2-7) without shakti or mAya how can he engage himself in > srushti?? : shakti rahitasya tasya pravruttyanupapatteH...And this mAya is > called sometime as prakruti, mUla prakruti (mAyAM tu prakrutiM vidyAt) > vaishNavi mAyA (daivi hyesha guNamayi mama mAyA duratyayA says lord > krishna in geeta, vaishNaveeM svAm mAyAM mUlaprakrutiM vasheekrutya..says > shankara in geeta introduction), avyakta (mahataH paraM avyaktaM in > katha) and aksharaM (etasmin khalvakshare gArgyAkAsha Otashcha protascha > says bruhadAraNyaka)..And this mAya has two forms clarifies geetAchArya > i.e. parA & aparA prakruti (geeta 7-4). > > And, now, what exactly is this mAya according to shankara?? is this word > mAya can be substituted to the word avidyA?? Ofcourse, Shankara does say > that this causal potentiality or mAyA is nothing but avidyAtmaka (of the > nature of avidyA). But here avidyAtmaka does not mean mAyA is identical > with avidyA and both words can be used as 'paryAya " . shankara's > following bhAshya vAkya-s in ArambhAdhikaraNa, clears this question beyond > any doubt. > > sarvajnasya Ishvarasya Atmabhute iva " avidyA kalpite " nAma rUpe tatva > anyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeye saMsAra prapanchabeejabhute sarvajnasya > Ishwarasya mAya, shaktihi, prakruti iti cha shrutismruttOrabhilapyete.. > > It is quite evident from the above bhAshya vAkya that shankara calls this > mAya, shankti, prakruti etc. as 'avidyA kalpita' and this mAya (illusory > appearance) cannot be defined to be identical with Ishvara or quite > distinct from Ishwara. > > So, according to shankara, mAya is anirvachaneeya and it is shakti, > prakruti,avyakta, akshara etc. when we have taken into consideration the > creation. Can we explain avidyA also in the same lines?? can we say > avidyA lakshaNa also same as mAya?? can we say avidyA also causal > potentiality of Ishwara like mAyA despite shankara himself says mAya is > avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAkruta, avidyAkArya, > avidyAlakshana etc.?? > > Moreover, for avidyA, vidyA is the pratiyOgi, what is the pratiyOgi for > the mAya?? mAya lakshaNa is anirvachaneeya and avidya is nirvachaneeya. > So, noway, we can use both these terms alternatively. > > Respected Sri Sastri prabhuji, kindly dont think I am unnecessarily trying > to argue with you. I am just sharing my thoughts with the forum. I donot > want to disturb your goodself with these debates. Hence, kindly dont take > trouble to reply this mail. I onceagain, beg your pardon for stretching > this discussion beyond the limit. > > This is my last mail in this thread prabhuji. Thanks for your time & > patience. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hari OM~Pranam-s, Sri Bhaskar Mahodayah, Maya -Avidya distinction is very subtle and understanding it needs a very close survey of Advaita Polemics. I greatly appreciate your views on this issue. Sarvajnatman, in his SamksepasAriraka states ‘KaropAdhirayam jivaH; kAraNopAdhirayaM IsvaraH’. Here upAdhi dvaya receives categorical distinction in its causal relation as Karya-kArana sambandha. Karana Upadhi is essentially Maya and the Karya UpAdhi is the Avidya. In this context, Appayya Diksita in Siddhantalesa samgraha quotes Sruti ‘Maya ca Avidya ca svameva bhavati’ and polemically discusses the issue of Maya-Avidya distinction in its Karya-Karana sambhanda. DiksitAcarya opines that Isvara is Maya-sabalitam Cid – the CidAbhasam and Jiva is AvidyAtmaka-avabhasam. Maya according to Diksita’s definition ‘anAdi visva prakrtiH Maya’, which is CinmAtra Samsraya’ – ‘the beginningless whole, the primordial nature, which is dependent of the Cit’ and he says, ‘avidyA tu viksepa-AvaranAnvita’ – ‘nescience is one which is designated with powers of projection and concealment’. Maya and Avidya are one since both are indescribable (neither savayava nor niravayava) in their nature but there are essentially huge differences in their functional / operational features. ‘Maya ca Avidya ca svayameva bhavati’ as Sruti declares delineates this point clearly. Isvara described as ‘Mayin’ speaks for Maya’s aisvaryatva. Maya, in Sankara’s opinion, is Para. It is Dosha-varjita VisNu Sakti. Isvara (vastutah CinmAtram) is abhinna-nimittopAdhana karana’ and Maya is the SahakAri. Avidya is the PariNami-Karana, which Diksitacarya calls ‘upacArAdupAdAnaM’ while Amalanda calls ‘Natavat’. I remember he says ‘AjnAta-natavat Brahma KaranaM Sankaro’ bravIt | jIva-ajnAnam jagatbhIjaM jagau vAcaspatistatha ||’. JagatbhIjaM according to Sankara is jIva-Nista Avidya. Sarva Tantra Svatantra Acarya Vacaspati Misra strictly s to the Gita bhasyAbhipraya is contending that Avidya is ‘apara’ while Maya is ‘Para’. Acyutakrsnananda gives a fascinating elaborate gloss on Diksita’s view on Maya-Avidya distinction and makes a compelling theory to reconcile Sruti to the issue here. He states that ‘when Maya is Brahma-abhinna and Avidya is its Vyatirikta, Bhinna-abhinna vyatiriktam is evident enough to prove Maya distinct from Avidya. Though Pancapadika and Vivarana are silent about the issue, most of the later Vivarana Vadins endorse Maya-Avidya distinction. In Tattva Viveka, NrsimhAsramin, supposedly a Vivarana-vadin (from what Diksita quotes) s to Bhamati in this issue. Vidyaranya in his Pancadasi strongly favours this distinction of Maya-Avidya which is reflected in Siddhanta Lesa Samgraha. VidyaraNya, however, designed a different reason to this distinction saying ‘rajastamo’nabhibhUta-Suddha sattva-pradhana Maya; tadabhibhUta-malina sattvA Avidya iti’. In Advaita Vedanta we have detailed dialectics constructed around this issue; the fulcrum of which is to endorse Maya-Avidya distinction. More to say, less the time. You are clearly a Sastra-vit. With Narayana Smrtih, - Devanathan.JCentre for the Study of Religion,Jackman Humanities Building,170 St. George Street, floor 3,Toronto, Ontario M5R 2M8.Residence: 607-3400 Keele St.Toronto, ONM3J 1L7Phone - 416-543-4585 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 May I ask you a humble question please. If mAyA is accepted as Ishwara's shakti don't you think it leads to V.Advaita? ( mAyA vishista Ishwara)? praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji Hare Krishna prabhuji, in advaita vedAnta, contextually we have to understand the concept of mAya as Ishwara's shakti. 'mama mAyA' says krishna in geeta & he also cautions us it is very difficult to cross this mAyA & only through the grace of the lord we could able to overcome or understand the true nature of mAya. So, advaita too, going by lord's word says mAyA is Ishwara shakti. For example shankara in geeta bhAshya (13th chapter 5th & 19th verse) says mAyA is potence of the Lord. But, yes, as you said above, if we say Ishwara has the shakti in the form of mAya, then it makes him saguNa vishesha whereas according to advaita brahman is ultimately nirguNa, nirvishesha. So, as per advaita, there cannot be any Ishvaratva (lordhood) in absolute non-dual brahman, coz. to say brahman is Ishwara, we have to have the distinction among the creation, creator and the act of creation. Yes, we accept brahman as Ishwara when we accept the universe and its beeja rUpa (seed form). Here brahman is considered as the substratum of this universe since there is no other source apart from brahman to this universe. Hence he is called both nimitta & upAdAna kAraNa. From this view point, the advaita attributes the Ishitavya to brahman. brahman appears as universe without going any change or modification (vikAra) in his absolute non-dual nature. Hence, in shruti brahman is called 'mAyAvi'. Shankara uses the word shakti in place of prakruti, the avyAkruta beeja rUpa (causal potentiality) of the world. In summarise, according to advaita, through the method of adhyArOpa, when the mAya is seen (seen in the form of world nAma rUpa) due to avidyA (kindly note shankara says mAyA is kevala avidyA kalpita or avidyA kArya) in absolute non-dual brahman, the same brahman would be personified as Ishwara or mAyAvi and his creative power called as mAya. So, non-dual brahman is called Ishwara from the standpoint of mAya which is in turn conjured up by avidyA (avidyAkalpita) and advaita/vedanta has attributed the creator (srushtikarta), sustainer (sthitikarta) and destroyer (layakarta) etc. on brahman through the method of adhyArOpa apavAda. But, in advaita, we say, when the self knowledge is dawn & avidyA is eradicated completely, the adhyArOpita attributes are automatically falsified. This is clarified by shankara himself in sUtra bhAshya (2-1-22) : When the idea of non-difference is generated by such declaration of identity as 'tattvamasi', the transmigratory nature of the jeeva (individual soul) is removed and also the creatorship of the brahman..since all dualistic dealings brought forth by ignorance will get sublated by the Atma jnAna. Prabhuji, this is what I understand from advaita perspective. I know, vishishtAdvaita has plenty of question on this stand point of advaita. But let us not discuss all those issues in this exclusive advaita forum. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Dear Sri BhAskar, Thanks again for the explanation. Please do not get me wrong. I only asked the question with a humble intention to understand Advaita in the light of acArya Sri Shankara bhAshya. Thanks Suresh S PS: Is there any website where I can read Sri Shankara bhAshya online? --------- > But, in advaita, we say, when the self knowledge is dawn & avidyA is > eradicated completely, the adhyArOpita attributes are automatically > falsified. This is clarified by shankara himself in sUtra bhAshya > (2-1-22) : When the idea of non-difference is generated by such > declaration of identity as 'tattvamasi', the transmigratory nature of the > jeeva (individual soul) is removed and also the creatorship of the > brahman..since all dualistic dealings brought forth by ignorance will get > sublated by the Atma jnAna. > Prabhuji, this is what I understand from advaita perspective. I know, > vishishtAdvaita has plenty of question on this stand point of advaita. But > let us not discuss all those issues in this exclusive advaita forum. > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 PS: Is there any website where I can read Sri Shankara bhAshya online? praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji Hare Krishna Sorry, I dont know whether sUtra & shruti bhAshya available on internet...But I've seen links which says shankara's commentary on geeta available on line. One of the sources is *GEETA WEBSITE*...am I right Sri Sunder prabhuji?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hari Om,The website is http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/. Also, there are some Shankara Bhashya English translations on http://www.sankaracharya.org. praNAm,--Praveen R. BhatG. K. Chesterton - " Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Pranams Sureshji, While i can appreciate your thirst to know B.S.Bhashya but knowing it " online " should not be the mode of learning. Prasthana traya should be learnt from a competent guru who is well-versed in Sastra, Sanatana Dharma and Sampradaya. If you are in Chennai, take the help of Shri Goda Sastrigal, Mani Dravida Sastrigal or Krishnamurthy Sastrigal. This is my sincere advice. Bhashya Santi patha thru " online forums " is not adviced by Sampradaya (at least by me). regs, sriram Shri guru paduka me gatih... advaitin , " sureshsmr " <sureshsmr wrote: > > > > Dear Sri BhAskar, > > Thanks again for the explanation. Please do not get me wrong. I only > asked the question with a humble intention to understand Advaita in > the light of acArya Sri Shankara bhAshya. > > Thanks > Suresh S > > PS: Is there any website where I can read Sri Shankara bhAshya online? > > --------- > > > > But, in advaita, we say, when the self knowledge is dawn & avidyA is > > eradicated completely, the adhyArOpita attributes are automatically > > falsified. This is clarified by shankara himself in sUtra bhAshya > > (2-1-22) : When the idea of non-difference is generated by such > > declaration of identity as 'tattvamasi', the transmigratory nature of the > > jeeva (individual soul) is removed and also the creatorship of the > > brahman..since all dualistic dealings brought forth by ignorance will get > > sublated by the Atma jnAna. > > Prabhuji, this is what I understand from advaita perspective. I know, > > vishishtAdvaita has plenty of question on this stand point of advaita. But > > let us not discuss all those issues in this exclusive advaita forum. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > PS: Is there any website where I can read Sri Shankara bhAshya online? > Namaste, The site is: www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/ Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 shrIgurubhyo namaH Here are two quotes from Shankara on AvidyA lakshana: tAmasO hi pratyayaH, AvaraNAtmakatvAt AVIDYA vipareeta grAhakaH, saMshayOpasthApakO vA agrahaNAtmakOvA...(geeta 13-2) yadi jnAnAbhAvO, yadi saMshayajnAnam, yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate ajnAnaM. (bruhadAraNyaka) Here is another quote from Shankara on Maya lakshana: For the KaarikA 1.16: anAdimAyayA suptaH yadA jivaH prabudhyate ajamanidramasvapnam advaitam budhyate tadaa Bhashyam: yoyam samsArI jIvaH sa ubhayalakshaNena tattva-apratibodha rUpENa bIjAtmanA anyathAgrahaNa lakshaNena cha anAdikAlapravRttena MAYALAKSHANENA svapnena …. All the properties of Avidya namely, vipareeta grAhakaH, saMshayOpasthApakO vA agrahaNAtmakaH are simply replicated by Shankara in giving the definition of MAyA: anyathAgrahaNa, tattva-apratibodha.. While samshaya, a product of avidya/mAya is not specifically listed in the Karika bhashya quote, the other two, namely tattva agrahaNa and anyathaa grahana, are present in both maya lakshana and avidya lakshana as given out by Shankara. (On an aside note, Shankara substitutes the term ‘jnAnaabhaava’ with ‘(tattva)agrahaNa’ in the Gita/kArika bhashya; the two terms meaning a condition prior to adhyAsa or anyathAgrahaNa or atasmin tad buddhiH. This tattva agrahaNa is what is termed ‘mUlAvidyA’ by Advaita Acharyas following Shankara and ‘jnAnAbhAva’ by those who are not happy with the term mUlAvidyA; the two terms mean the same.) We see here that Gaudapada and Shankara associate Maya with jiva and not with Ishwara. Of course, the other two quotes are specifically about avidya being associated with jiva. In the karika: 4.58, there occurs a portion: sA cha mAyA na vidyate: This maya does not exist. For this Shankara comments: mAyA nama vastu tarhi? Naivam. Saa ca mAyA na vidyate, maayetyavidyamAnasya aakhyaa ityabhipraayaH. [is there an entity called Maya? Not so. That maya does not exist. The idea being that the term maya relates to something non-existing.] Here also Maya is associated with jiva. While a corresponding Shankara vaakya for avidya is not immediately available, this vArtika of Sureshwara is a relevant point: tattvamasyAdi vAkyottha samyag dhIjanmamAtrataH avidya saha kAryENa nAsIdasti bhavishyati [When owing to the sentences such as ‘tat tvam asi’ the right knowledge of the Self arises, even at that very moment it would be realized that avidya, ignorance, along with its effects, was not, is not and will not be.] [There is a Sutrabhashya vaakyam: pUrvasiddha kartrutva bhoktruva viparItam hi trishvapi kAleShu akartRtva abhoktRtva svarUpam brahma aham asmi…. In this vAkyam the Acharya states the nature of the Realization had by the Jnanin: // Quite contrary to what was held before (attaining jnanam), I am of the nature of Brahman who is no karta and no bhokta, during all three periods of time. I was not karta-bhokta before, not now, nor will be in future. Such is the way a Brahmavid knows the Truth. // The above two quotes make it clear that Maya and avidya are of the same lakshana: traikAlika atyanta abhAva rUpa: they do not exist in all three periods of time. In fact, in His MAyApanchakam the Acharya does not make any distinction between maya and avidya; He states that jiva and Ishwara are only products of Maya: http://stotrarathna.blogspot.com/2009/07/adhi-shankaras-maya-panchakam.html In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad occurs a mantra: Indro mAyAbhiH puru rUpa Iyate : [The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold…] Shankara comments: indraH parameshvaraH maayaabhiH prajnaabhiH nAmarUpabhUtakRta mithyAbhimaanaiH va, na tu paramaarthataH … yEkarUpa yEva prajnAnaghanaH san AVIDYAprajnAbhiH. [The Lord on account of Maya or diverse knowledge, or (to give an alternative meaning) the false identifications created by name, form and the elements, not in truth, is perceived as manifold, because of these notions superimposed by ignorance, although He is ever the same Pure Intelligence.] In this quote, we see that Shankara explains the Upanishadic word Maya in terms of avidya. In the Bhagavadgita 7.14 the Lord says: Mama mAyA duratyayA….mAyAmetAm taranti te.. Shankara writes: mama ishvarasya svabhUtaa hi mAyA duratyaya… mAmeva svAtmabhUtam prapadyante…mayametaam taranti atikrAmanti, samsaara bandhaat muchyante ityarthaH. [My, Ishwara’s own maya, extremely difficult to cross over… whoever surrenders to Me, verily the Self, crosses over this mAyA..becomes freed from the bondage of samsara. This is the idea.] In the very next verse 7.15 also occurs this expression: mAyayA apahRta jnAnaH…[ those whose knowledge is looted away by maya..] for which Shankara writes: mAyayaa …sammuShita jnAnAH [who have been deprived of wisdom] Surely, in these two occasions The Lord and Shankara are associating Maya with jiva only. The clinching argument that sets at rest the notion of distinction between maya and avidya is this: As we saw in the Gita 7.14 quote above, mAya is something that has to be crossed over. In the prashnopanishat 6.8 we have this sentence: tvam hi naH pita yo asmAkam avidyAyAH param pAram taarayasi. [Thou indeed art our father, who does take us across to the shore beyond ignorance] Shankara comments; tvam hi naH asmAkam pitaa brahmasharIrasya vidyayaa janayitRtvaat ..avidyaayaaH viparItajnaanaat …avidyaamahodadheH vidyaa plavena….mokshAkhyam… paaram taarayasi [it is you with the help of the raft of knowledge have ferried us across ignorance or false knowledge as though across an ocean itself…] In the above two quotes we have 1. Maya is to be crossed over 2. Avidya is to be crossed over. Now, a question arises: Are there two different means, upAya-s, to cross over the above two? The obvious answer is NO. It is the gaining of Atman/Brahman Knowledge that is the remedy for the problem of Maya and Avidya. That settles the question, beyond any disputation, that maya and avidya are synonymous. He who is a jnani is at once mayaateeta and avidyaateeta. A JnAni has nothing to do to cross over mAyaa after he has crossed over avidya. Crossing over one automatically means crossing over the other. MAyA-taraNam and avidyaa-taraNam are one and the same. An aspirant sincerely endeavouring for either mAyAtaraNam or avidyAtaraNam is bound to reach the goal of Moksha. The Shruti or Smriti do not specify separate means to eradicate avidya and maya. It is only because of avidya, ajnanam, he had once imagined a samsara, maya as Ishwara’s shakti, avidya as his own weakness, etc. All this is no doubt acceptable in different prakriya-s, but ultimately maya is no different from avidya as the various quotes supplied as a sample above reveal. Even Sri Vidyaranya who has made a very clear distinction, for understanding purposes, between Maya and avidya in the Panchadashi, has this revealing verse: mAyAkhyAyaH kAmadhenOH vatsau jIveshwaraavubhau | yathEccham pibatAm dvaitam tattvam tu advaitameva hi || (VI.236) [Jiva and Iswara, the two calves of the celestial cow called Maya, may enjoy the duality as they like. But the non-dual alone is the Reality.] This verse makes it very clear that even the so-called distinction between maya and avidya is only within the realm of Maya. In other words, within the superset of Maya we can have the subsets, distinction, between maya and avidya as pertaining to Ishwara and jiva respectively. But when it comes to eradicating, dispelling, destroying, maya and avidya, there is only one means: the gaining of atma vidya. It is never the case that he who has atma vidya is only avidyaateeta and not maayaateeta. For him the concept of Ishwara gets destroyed along with the destruction of the notion of his jivatva. It is only in the realm of classification of various categories of jagat, jiva and Ishwara that a forced distinction is sought to be made by the Acharyas between maya and avidya/ajnana. The Svarajyasiddhi 2.11 ends with the words: naiva mAyI na vishvam: // For the one who looks upon the two states of a lump and a pot (of clay), there might arise the notion of the cause and effect. But in the case of one who clearly sees the clay only there is neither the cause nor the effect. Similarly for one who thinks of the wielder of Maya (Ishwara) and the world, Brahman is the cause of the world. But for one who clearly cognizes the One Universal Existence, Sat, without any tinge whatsoever of duality, there is neither the wielder of Maya nor the world. // advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > (a) " mama svarupabhUtA madeeya mAyA " says geetaachArya, I was wondering, > if the avidyA is as same as mAya, then here geetAchArya implying that his > svarUpa is 'avidyA' !!?? Kindly dont think this is sarcasm...infact this > is what the first thought appeared in my mind!! Reply: The above sentence appears to be differently printed in my edition: mama svAtmabhUtaa madeeyaa maayaa. There is a world of difference between the two versions: While the first one, quoted by Bhaskar ji, means that Bhagavan is saying that His very Swarupa is Maya or that maya is indistinguishable from Bhagavan, the second one quoted from the bhashya for 7.14 (mama mayaa duratyayaa) means: My Own MAyA. The difference is, in a lighter vein, like this: A. I am a dog. B. ‘I own a dog’ or ‘this is my dog.’ In the light of this distinction, the question of Bhagavan implying that His SvarUpa is avidya does not arise. Bhaskar ji says: > (b) Normally, we say, jeeva is suffering from avidyA, mAyA is Ishwara > shakti. If we say both avidyA & mAya are one and the same, jeeva becomes > Ishwara & Ishwara becomes jeeva and there is no 'jeeveshwara bheda' and > there is no value for spiritual path (sAdhana mArga) as described in the > shruti.. Reply: Even this is not a problem, when prakriyAbhEda is considered. For example, in Eka jiva vAda, there is no distinction between maya, avidya, manas, etc. All these mean one and the same. It is: brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa samsarati iva, sva vidyayaa muchyate iva. Brahman alone, owing to self-ignorance is as though in bondage, and with self-knowledge, as though gets liberated. The Shurti and the sadhana marga are quite relevant to this prakriyaa too. Bhaskar ji says: > © As per normal understanding of ours, a self realized one, would not > have any avidyA & his avidyA beeja is completely burnt (jnAnAgni dagdha) > and this jnAni will not have any 'punarjanma'. (muktAnAM punaranutpattihi > vidyayA tasyA beejashakterdAhAt). Therefore, an already realized soul > would burnt away the mAyA beeja OR avidyA beeja permanently, so, strictly > speaking there should not be any 'jagat' to cognize to anyone if both > avidyA & prakruti are one and the same...But despite having somany jnAni-s > in the bygone history, we are 'still' seeing prakruti i.e. jagat!! Reply: The problem of samsara is subjective. Gaudapada and Shankara make this very clear in karika/bhashya: 4.37: // … since dream has that waking state as its cause, that waking state is true for THAT DREAMER ALONE but not so for the others, just like the dream itself. This is the implication. …In reality, however, just like dream objects, the things of the waking state too are not objects of common experience to all, (nor have they existence). In the bhashya for the Gita 13.34 the Acharya says: bhUtaprakRtimoksham cha bhUtAnAm prakRtHi avidyAlakShaNaa avyaktAkhyA tasyAH bhUtaprakRteH mokShaNam abhAvagamanam cha ye viduH.. [who also perceive the non-existence of Prakriti, Avidya, avyaktaa, the material cause of beings, they reach Brahman, the Real..and assume no more bodies..] Here Shankara is equating avidya, prakriti and avyaktaa. He is virtually obliterating any distinction that could be made between Ishwara (Maya) and jiva (avidya). While avidya is the jiva’s capital for creating samsara, prakriti, avyaktaa is Ishwara’s raw material to create the world. Shankara says that by gaining the Atma vidya from the Shruti and Acharya, one realizes that avidya, prakriti, does not exist at all. That does not, however, amount to saying that all others who are in the throes of avidya will cease to perceive the world. They will have to gain the Atma vidya to come to the state of perceiving Brahman as the Reality in the world-appearance. Bhaskar ji says: > (d) shankara says in geeta commentary, 'prakruti dvayavatvameva hi > Ishwarasya IshwaratvaM'...if a jnAni burnt away his avidyA or prakruti > then there is no Ishwara!! But, we still have Ishwara!! Reply: What was said in © above holds good here too. For those under the sway of avidya, Ishwara is still there, His grace has to be earned for mokshaprApti. The objections in c and d are raised by those who have not understood the Advaita system as taught by Shankara and the other Acharyas. Bhaskar ji says: > (e) mAya is the shakti of Ishwara but avidyA is the weakness of jeeva. Reply: This is true from a particular standpoint, as stated earlier, but the distinction does not stay absolutely. It is just to answer a person who asks the question: How does Ishwara differ from jiva in Advaita? The following article, also available in the Advaitin archives may be read for an elaborate account of the subject: http://atma.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/an-advaitin-s-assessment-of-some-dvait\ a-remarks.htm Bhaskar ji says: > (f) We dont say, jeeva has the 'mAya' and brahman has avidyA, but we do > say jeeva has the 'avidyA' and brahman with the mAyA shakti appears as > Ishwara. Reply: This is also acceptable, in a restricted sense only and not in an absolute sense. > (g) shankara in geeta bhAshya (4.5) clearly says Ishwara has the mAyA > shankti & jeeva has the avidya, through mAya shakti lord knows everything > and jeeva (arjuna) does not know about it due to his avidyA. Reply: This is no problem, being in the assumed distinction between Ishwara and jiva, for the purposes of samsara vyavasthaa. > (h) through avyakta beeja shakti (i.e. mAya) we say creation, destruction > will take place...the same status cannot be attributed to avidyA, atleast > from the vyAvahArik stand point. Reply: The Gita bhashya 13.34 quoted already replies this point. (i) shankara in geeta bhAshya at so many places contextually clearly > clarifies : mAya is Ishwara shakti but nowhere he, even remotely implies, > avidyA is Ishwara shakti. Reply: What weighs heavier is those places where Shankara obliterates the distinction between avidya and maya shakti. For Shankara, reiterating bhEda between these two terms is not the tAtparya but in upholding abhEda. If this maxim is kept in mind, the quotes originally presented by Shastri could be appreciated without contradicting them. Has not Shankara said: Apart from Brahman there is nothing called a jiva or the jagat? All distinctions are made only to lead to transcending them and not to retaining them, in the manner of adhyAropa and apavAda. The Shruti and shAstra posit distinctions while delineating the various padArthas, tattvas and finally show how these very distinctions converge in the One Brahma Tattvam. Bhaskar ji says: > (j) Last one, jokingly, one can name his/her daughter as mAya, like > mAyAdevi, mAyAvati etc. (as devata vidyAvidya svarUpiNi)...But no one want > name his daughter as avidyAvati, avidyadevi etc. :-)) Reply: Maybe dvaitins will do this. Sri Madhwacharya is reliably learnt to have given the meaning ‘vishNu’ for the syllable ‘a’ in his commentary for the word ‘akratuH’ occurring in I.ii.20 of the Kathopanishat. Thus ‘a’ = ‘vishNu’ according to him. Then, avidyAvati will mean: vishNuvidyavati which means: she who is endowed with Brahmavidya. Avidyaadevi will mean: vishnuvidyaadevi or simply put: Lakshmi who definitely has Brahmatattvajnana. Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 praNAms respected Sri Subbu prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly pardon me, I dont know whether you have written this elaborated mail on avidyA & mAyA with an intention to continue this discussion or to just pass on your verdict on mAya & avidyA with a comment as below : //quote// The objections in c and d are raised by those who have not understood the Advaita system as taught by Shankara and the other Acharyas. //unquote// Prabhuji, if you have already decided that those who have seen the difference between usage of avidyA & mAya are ignorants about advaita system of teaching, then it is not worth spending time in discussion. Because you have already passed your judgements on those who are opposing your views. Anyway, I am requesting you to clarify whether you have any inclination to continue this discussion on this subject. Why I am asking this question is, I've seen your reluctance to discuss advaita prakriya with me. After getting your clarification, I shall try to share my understanding on your bhAshya quotes & how it should be understood contextually without damaging the main siddhAnta of shankara. Sri Devanathan also may come forward with his view points...but its all depend upon your clarification on your stand. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > praNAms respected Sri Subbu prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > Kindly pardon me, I dont know whether you have written this elaborated > mail on avidyA & mAyA with an intention to continue this discussion or to > just pass on your verdict on mAya & avidyA with a comment as below : > > //quote// > The objections in c and d are raised by those who have not understood the > Advaita system as taught by Shankara and the other Acharyas. > //unquote// > Prabhuji, if you have already decided that those who have seen the > difference between usage of avidyA & mAya are ignorants about advaita > system of teaching, then it is not worth spending time in discussion. Dear Bhaskar ji, I have not said that one should not make a difference between the usage of the terms avidya and maya. I have made it clear that they are valid, in particular contexts and not absolute. Someone who has recognized this will not hold that these differences are absolute. I can show several verses from the Panchadashi asserting the difference between avidya and maya. > Because you have already passed your judgements on those who are opposing > your views. Anyway, I am requesting you to clarify whether you have any > inclination to continue this discussion on this subject. Why I am asking > this question is, I've seen your reluctance to discuss advaita prakriya > with me. Reply: My intention of posting my views was to give expression to them and definitely not to start a discussion with you or anyone else. You are entitled to your views as anyone else is. There are so many views within Advaita as you would have seen in the SiddhAntakalpavalli but all those who hold those varied views swear by Advaita and the bhashya of the Acharya, the Upanishads, the Gita, the Brahmasutra and Sureshwara !! This is my clarification. After getting your clarification, I shall try to share my > understanding on your bhAshya quotes & how it should be understood > contextually without damaging the main siddhAnta of shankara. Reply: I have seen your Bhashyam quotes in this thread and hold a similar opinion about them: they should be understood contextually without damaging the main siddhAta of Shankara. > Sri Devanathan also may come forward with his view points...but its all > depend upon your clarification on your stand. > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Om Tat Sat P.S. In my earlier post I noticed two mistakes, inadvertently made by me for which I beg the pardon of the readers: 1. I referred to Shri Shastri ji in an unbecoming manner. 2. While quoting the bhashyam for 7.14 for the second time while replying Bhaskar ji's specific question, I mentioned a word 'svAtmabhUtA'. This should be read as: svabhUtA. I regret the error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hi Praveen:I had Font issues with the Gita super site but these issues were resolved on the 'Gita Supersite 2.0 (Beta)' [link at bottom left of Gita super site home page]. JFYI as well as others who face similar problems, Mahesh--- On Mon, 7/12/09, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen wrote:Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveenRe: Re: mAyA and avidyA cannot be synonymsadvaitin Date: Monday, 7 December, 2009, 4:25 PM Hari Om,The website is http://www.gitasupe rsite.iitk. ac.in/. Also, there are some Shankara Bhashya English translations on http://www.sankarac harya.org. praNAm,--Praveen R. BhatG. K. Chesterton - "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 --- On Tue, 12/8/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote: This verse makes it very clear that even the so-called distinction between maya and avidya is only within the realm of Maya. In other words, within the superset of Maya we can have the subsets, distinction, between maya and avidya as pertaining to Ishwara and jiva respectively. But when it comes to eradicating, dispelling, destroying, maya and avidya, there is only one means: the gaining of atma vidya. It is never the case that he who has atma vidya is only avidyaateeta and not maayaateeta. For him the concept of Ishwara gets destroyed along with the destruction of the notion of his jivatva. It is only in the realm of classification of various categories of jagat, jiva and Ishwara that a forced distinction is sought to be made by the Acharyas between maya and avidya/ajnana. The Svarajyasiddhi 2.11 ends with the words: naiva mAyI na vishvam: -------------------------- Subbuji - PraNAms The above paragraph is the essence of the sadhana either from the point of maayaa or avidya. The self knowledge solves all the problems. The self knowledge removes self-ignorance - but in the process of removing the self ignorance, there is realization of aham brahmaasmi - where jiiva-jagat AND ISWARA are sublimated into one homogeneous infinite mass of consciousness with no internal divisions. That makes one to cross over mayaa too. Surrendering - crossing over maaya etc are all accomplished by the removal of self ignorance. We use different words maaya and avidya only in explaining tat padaartham vs tvam padaartham and in the understanding of tat tvam asi - the so called ignorance centered in jiiva and so called Iswara locussed with Iswara as parameshwara shakti - both being descriptions of avyaktam gets dissolved in the awakening of knowledge that I am beyond both ignorance and maaya. There are extensive discussions and criticism of advaita by Ramanuja in terms of locus of avidya. The discussions themselves are centered on trying to separate jiiva with avidya and Iswara with maaya. Here is the crux of the problem. Jiiva notion itself brings in - jagat separate from jiiva and therefore an Iswara author of jagat since jiiva does not feel he is the creator due to the same ignorance. The Iswara that I have brought in must have power to create the world that I did not create – Hence he is endowed with all the powers needed thus I give Him mayaa shakti so that I cannot easily cross over. Hence frankly the ignorance of oneself also forms the basis for the projection of the world and therefore an associated Iswara to author the projected world. One can see this in the dream analogy. I, the waker with the karma vaasana support, project a dream world - Hence I am Iswara with the projecting power of the dream world - it is my maaya only. Maaya is the shakti or force using which my mind becomes many. Now forgetting that I am the one who projected this world, I myself identify myself with one local jiiva as I am a jiiva in the dream and with my own individual BMI and looking at the world of plurality in front of me - with many BMI's and the inert vast world of plurality. I, the dreamer jiiva, is now has ignorance - while I the waking mind which projected the world of plurality is maayaavi. Is ignorance different from maaya? yes or no depending on the perspective but I am the only one there to have dual play - Iswara for the world and jiiva as the local entity. When I realize that I am the substantive of jiiva-jagat and Iswara - that is the knowledge that is involved in the tat tvam asi - my ignorance is gone at the jiiva level and the same knowledge also establishes that I am (not the Iswara) but the substantive of all the three - jiiva-jagat and Iswara. Hence avidya from the point of jiiva and maaya from the point of Iswara which is essentially the same but described two apparently different references get transcended in the awakening of the knowledge. Any further hair-splitting is only loosing sight of the essence of advaita where so called duality of avidya and maaya sublimates in knowledge of aham brahmaasmi. Subbuji essentially brought out the essence. I am just repeated what he said in more words, and this you can call it as ignorance or maaya. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hari OM~ Shri Subrahmanian ji and Shri Bhaskar ji ,Pranam-s The issue of Maya-Avidya identity is complex and it has been diversely dealt with in the Advaita tradition. Critical appraisal of this particular issue leads to compelling dialiectics to wide range of crucial issues in Advaita including the eka-jiva anaka-jiva vada; issue of plurality of Maya and Avidya, MulAvidya-tulAvidya concepts, locus and content of Avidya and so on. NarayanAsramin [1525 ?] preceptor of NrsimhAsramin in his Advaita Siddhanta sara samgraha categorically mentions that there is no distinction between Maya and Avidya (see maya-avidya bheda nirAsa prakarana). However, he recognizes the prakriya of identity between the two in the system. It is clear that from the time of Srimad Vacaspati Misra, the distinction of Maya-Avidya has been polemically constructed to logically postulate metaphysical suppositions especially to address opponent’s claims in late medieval times. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, Bhamati school is consistent in maintaining this distinction. The prakriya bheda pertains only to intra-vivarana sections as it is evident that Narayanasramin, a Vivarana vadin rejects the distinction of Maya and Avidya while his own disciple differs from him to assert the distinction. Madhusudhana Saraswati in his Gudartha Dipika categorically endorses Maya – Avidya distinction. His view that two fold aspect of Maya in its Para and Apara modes where Para is Isvara Sakti and Apara is Samsara bhija Avidya (in the 7th chapter) is in coherence with Sankara’s introduction to the 13th Chapter where he gives a clear picture of Para and Apara Maya. Madusudhana Sarasvati’s views on this distinction are also reflected in his Advaita Siddhi and Isvara Pratipatti prakasa and Atma bodha prakarana. In fact, Brahmanandin’s gloss informs us that Madhusudhana inclines to Maya – Avidya disctinction for it is regarded to be more logical. Further an overall conceptual assessment reveals the fact that majority of our Acharyas have advocated causal relation between Maya and Avidya; for Maya is regarded as Karana rupa and Avidya the Karya rupa. Karana Rupa Maya is Isvara’s sahakaari in Jagat Srsti, which is Parinamyupadana Karana. Avidya on the other hand is Maya karya in its tamo-rupa, as Vidyaranya asserts in one of his Dipikas, following his preceptor Sankarananda. Maya is Isvara’s Svatantra Icca-jnana spanda Sakti while Avidya is asvatantra – sApeksa Paratantra karya rupa of Maya. Maya being the Karana upadhi in its multitude forms (mAyAbhih) generates multitude aspects of Nescience (tulAvidya) corresponding to multitude Jiva-s. The oft quoted Sruti ‘Maya ca Avidya ca Svayameva Bhavati’ is as usual partially read by those who stand desperate to assert the identity. The Mantra actually starts with the phrase ‘sa esa vata bhija sAmAnyavat aneka vata Saktir ekaiva’ iti. This goes hand in hand with the plurality of Maya (svAbhavika aneka Sakti) and Avidya. Further the commentators are of the opinion that Maya in its Karana rupa is bhija Sakti while in its karya rupa gets guna abhivyakti. Aikya of Maya and Avidya is only in its aneka and anantAnirvacaniyatva characteristics while the difference persists in all levels of its functional operations. Maya as Sruti describes ‘BrahmAbhinna’ – the abhinnatva is implicit when the aspirant accomplishes Aikya buddhi with its AkhandAkAra vrtti, during which the nAnA-karya-rupa-Avidya is annihilated whereby Maya’s KaraNatva alone gets annihilated while Maya by itself resolves unto Brahman – the pravilaya occurs. Not that Maya and Avidya are both ‘eradicated’ or ‘destroyed’. Avidya alone is subjected to annihilation while Maya which is Isvara’s vicitra Sakti renders pravilaya in Brahman. The Isvara spoken of as the calf of Maya must be treated keeping the ‘Dva-SuparNa’ mantra of Mundaka in mind. Sankara bhasya makes a pellucid mention that Jiva – bird is endowed with kartrtva and bhoktrtva through nescience while Isvara, as Sankara mentions Nitya-Suddha-Buddha-Mukta Svabhava is Saksi is essentially Nirvisesa. Isvara with his Maya assumes the Saksitva while Saksya is Avidya kalpita Nama rupAtmaka – here again Maya Avidya distinction may clearly be articulated. Also that the Karika verses must be read with Sub-commentaries. In karika bhasya v-7 Sankara terms Srsti-cintakas, the Jiva-s as svapnamAyA-sarUpa. Anandagiri in his Dipika glosses the term as Maya-Karya rupa , which is Avidya. This applies to verse 16 too and hence Maya is taken to be in its kArya rupa ie., Avidya with the apparent distinction being implied. Mere alternate usage of terms does not mean the terms are identical. Contextual alteration must me made for discerning the implied meaning with close assessment of the sub-commentaries. With Narayana Smrti, -- Devanathan.JGraduate Student,Centre for the Study of Religion,Jackman Humanities Building,170 St. George Street, floor 3,Toronto, Ontario M5R 2M8. Residence:607-3400 Keele St.Toronto, ONM3J 1L7Phone - 416-543-4585 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.