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

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste
> In 'sadeva saumya idam agre AsIt' chandogya 6th chapter  the word ' sat'
> denotes kAraNam brahma not nirguNa brahma devoid of all upadhi-s (
> nitya-shuddha- buddha-mukta svarUpam brahma).
>
the bhAshya says

सदेव सदिति अस्तितामात्रं वस्तु सूक्ष्मं निर्विशेषं सर्वगतमेकं निरञ्जनं
निरवयवं विज्ञानम्,

Is it not clearly paramArthika sat mentioned before creation ?

How it is possible to admit avidyA in paramArthika sat before creation ?

नामरूपक्रियावद्विकृतमुपलभ्यते -  The creation itself is nAma rUpa vishesha
superimposed on adhiSThAna sat (result of avidyA)


> Although the word nirvisheSha and advitiya are used in samAnAdhikaraNyam
> still the bhAShya there compares it with suShupti where avidyA is not
> destroyed so we are still at the level of kAraNam brahma at this point.
> Same goes for 'tadaikShata'.
> Saying
>  यथा सुषुप्तादुत्थितः सत्त्वमात्रमवगच्छति सुषुप्ते सन्मात्रमेव केवलं
> वस्त्विति, तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यभिप्रायः
> Also the sat shabda in sadeva saumya is further clarified by giving the
> clay lump example which functions as the cause for all clay names and forms.
>
> We can have the three ideas of
> 1. Clay objects ie., nama rupa-s
> 2. Clay lump mRtpiNDam i.e., the first undifferentiated kArya from which
> all other nama rupa are formed.
> 3. Clay i.e., enjoys kAraNam status w.r.t. the karya. But later to be
> understood as devoid of even kAraNopAdhi.
>
> This understanding of the same word 'sat' is to be arrived at later on and
> not when jagat sRShTi is going to be explained. In the verses subsequent to
> sadevasaumya idam agre AsIt  the topic deals with sRShTi prakriya, so the
> word 'tad' and 'sat' both are kAraNopAdhisahitam brahma.
>
> तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां
> प्रजायेयेति तदपोऽसृजत
>
> This difference between kAraNam brahma and kAryam brahma can
> from a different perspective be understood to be the same as what Sri
> Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamiji mentions in Dialogues.
>
> There we have Ishvara or kAraNam brahma who by merely his sAkShitvam
> triggers creation. But for this that same sAkShi Ishvara reflected in
> triguNAtmikA mAyA becomes kArya brahman or mAyopahitam brahma, a term used
> synonymously with hiraNyagarbha the vedapuruSha who deals with the nitty
> gritty of sRShTi sthiti and laya.
>
> It may be difficult to give an exact analogy. But we can use the following.
>
> The Original Sun which illuminates a bowl of water compared to kAraNam
> brahma or Ishvara.
> The reflected Sun which is visible in the water is kArya brahma or
> hiraNyagarbha whose 'presence' in the water energizes it and causes
> convection evaporation etc. In each kalpa this reflection can be said to
> change and a new mahApuruSha is given the status of hiraNyagarbha.
>
> The water itself is avidyA/mAyA which is the viShaya of the viShayin.
>
> Incidentally it is said sri hanuman is going to be the firstborn
> hiraNyagarbha in the next kalpa or cycle of creation. I do not know the
> original reference for this.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > > This 'object' vishaya, for Brahman, the kartA, prior to creation,
> is:
> > > > > avidyA/mAyA/mUlAvidyA.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) If this is admitted prior to creation, how it is reconciled with -
> > > >
> > > > nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta Brahma svarUpa,
> > >
> > > As mithyA.
> > >
> >
> > so, we are accepting mUlAvidyA presence(bhAva rupa)  in Pure Existence
> > ( nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta
> > Brahma svarUpa), though as mithyA ? ( just like jagat experience as
> mithyA
> > after jnAna prApti)
> >
> > In that case, Pure Existence was never without mUlAvidyA (though mithyA)
> ?
> >
> > > as in
> > > >
> > > > Sruti vAkya - sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam - In
> the
> > > > beginning, .. there was **existence alone** ?
> > > >
> > > There is an anvaya needed before translation here, else it would mean
> > > there *was* existence and is not there now
> > >
> > Existence alone IS :)
> >
> > Isn't the context , in the beginning ( before creation, before jagat,
> > before world).. Pure Existence alone IS ( without any mithyA) ?  :)
> >
> > > going against the very definition of sat! he saumya, idaM jagat agre
> > > sadeva AsIt, ekamevAdvitIyam. This world was existence alone earlier.
>