[Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T

[Venkatraghavan S]

Agree on all points!

On 23 Sep 2016 5:03 p.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavanji,
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> You may be slightly frustrated at the answers in line below, so apologies
>> in advance!
>>
> Far from it. :) No apologies needed. Thanks.
>
>
>> "However, all that is perceived has to be explained. So jnAnI having
>> sharIra as prArabdha, he is seen to take care of it as sharIradharma."
>>
>> Explained to whom?
>>
> To one who perceives.
>
>> Only to the ajnAni. As you correctly say, he is "seen to take care of
>> it". In actuality there is no seeing or taking care.
>>
> True.
>
>> >>
>> >> This distinction of
>> >> jIvanmukti and videhamukti are all from vyAvahArika standpoint only.
>> >
>> >
>> > His upAdhi would limit the jnAnaphala based on his level of niShThA,
>> hence the categories even for jnAnIs and videhamukti as a stage where
>> upAdhi no longer limits in any way.
>>
>> Again these are only vyAvahArika constructs.
>>
> When jivanmukti itself is a vyAvahArika construct, all this upAdhi talk
> and videhamukti and nityamukti too is.
>
>> I am not wedded to them, but if you see any merit in preserving them, I
>> see no harm in it.
>>
> I am just explaining where the sampradAya is coming from and I see merit
> in sampradAya saying it.
>
>> > Once again, the very idea of jnAni "considering" something indicates
>> jIvabhAva, individualization, which means avidyAlesha.
>>
>> The use of "considering" was only a figure of speech. I don't have any
>> qualms accepting avidyAlesha, but again that is only a vyAvahArika
>> construct.
>>
> So is every other construct vyAvahArika including nityamukti. The very
> word mukti even in nityamukti indicates that baddha was prApta in
> vyAvahArika and is negated in vyAvahArika.
>
>
>> I do not believe avidyA to be abhAvarUpa. So I am fully in agreement with
>> your arguments for yatkinchit bhavarupa.
>>
>> My point is we are anyway going to do apavAda of it, so why split hairs.
>>
> True, but technically, splitting hairs is needed else baudha shunyavAda
> will also stand to be right.
>
> praNAm,
> --praveen
>