FW: Re: [Advaita-l] Locus of avidyaa

[M. S. Ravisankar]

Respected Sri Sadanandaji:

Thanks for your response. As always you explain things very nicely and
it is a great delight to read your postings.

I agree that one can refuse to answer the question invoking anirvachaniiya.
Last nite, I browsed through this definition and Sri chandrasekhara bhaarati
swamiji's commentary (vivekachuuDaamani) to refresh my understanding.
Achaarya explains this concept quite well. Probably, any attempt to answer
the locus question will place us in some sort of  mess.

But my question is, does one always have the luxury of refusing to answer?
If yes, why it was not used?


Coming to your other point:

mayA has a cosmic aspect and individual aspect to it. It is denoted as
samashhTi and vyashhTi*.  Hence, you cannot assign it "ontologically of the
same degree of jiiva", unless you invoke arguments such as eka-jiivaa-vaada.
It is generally agreed that mAyA acts at cosmic level also and becomes a
power wielded by iishvara.  Even if  you use things like eka-jiiva-vaada,
the point highlighted by Vidya may come into play.

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/public/advaita-l/2003-May/011907.h
tml


Please do correct my understanding. And TIA.

Ravi

* Some time people take former as mAyA and latter as avidyA. As in the
commentary of name kalyaaNii (lalitaa trishatii bhaashhyaa)



--- Sri Sadananda wrote:


I would rather leave it  under the category of anirvachaniiyam - like
the chicken and egg situation.  Since it is of the type of abhaava ruupa
it can be  ontologically of the same degree as the jiiva who has the
avidya.