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

[Ravi Kiran]

Ok, if tinged Brahman is accepted in the context of deep sleep/creation (
though Br.Up, Prasna.Up / bhAshya gives a different meaning ) , the seeded
Brahman in deep sleep (seed or beeja in Brahman) is admitted even after
avidyA is destroyed by jnAna ? (for the same reason, a jnAni cannot
reasonably re-emerge from deep sleep)

what is this seed that remains in Brahman, even after avidyA ( tattva
agrahana) is destroyed ?

How does this seed in tinged Brahman itself gets destroyed, after jnAna
prApti ?

Thanks

2016-09-23 23:50 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:

> Mandukya bhashya: 1.2 mantra:
>
>  ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६-८-२)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Chandogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83%E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%AC-%E0%A5%AE-%E0%A5%A8%29#Ch_C06_S08_V02> इति
> श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Chandogya&page=06#Ch_C06_S02_V01> इति
> प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः, बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः ।
> यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव
> प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं
> ब्रह्माभविष्यत्, ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-३)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Brha&page=04#BR_C04_S05_V03>‘यतो
> वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २-९-१)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Taitiriya&page=02#T_C02_S09_V01>
>  ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Kena_pada&page=01&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%A7-%E0%A5%AA%29#KP_C01_V04> इत्यवक्ष्यत्
> ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३-१२)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Gita&page=13#BG_C13_V12> इति
> स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत्, सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः
> पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
> बीजाभावाविशेषात्, ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
> तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च
> कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।
>
> The translation of the above by Swami Gambhirananda, p.189-190 of Advaita
> Ashrama edition, for the crucial portion: ///*Hence Existence is referred
> to as prANa (in the Ch.Up.), and in all the Upanishads. It is spoken of as
> the cause in all the Upanishads by *assuming* It (for the time being) to be
> the seed of others (the whole creation).* And it is because of this that
> It is referred to - *by refuting Its causal state* - in such Vedic texts
> as, 'Superior to the akshara (mAyA) (Mund. 2.1.2), 'from which speech turns
> back (Tai.2.2), etc. That Supremely Real State, *free from causality,
> relation with body, etc. and modes of waking etc.* of that very entity that
> is called prAjna, will be spoken separately in Its aspect as the Turiya. If
> Brahman in Its seedless (non-causal) state be meant there, then the
> individuals that merge in It in deep sleep and dissolution cannot
> reasonably re-emerge. If anybody can re-emerge from sleep or dissolution,
> conceived of as nothing but identity with the pure Brahman, then there will
> be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in
> either case, the absence of cause is a common factor."// By saying the
> above, Shankara has indicated that ‘in all the Shruti passages, wherever it
> is said that during deep sleep the jiva merges in Brahman’ the ‘Brahman’
> there is not the Absolute, Non-dual, Vedāntic Brahman, but the tinged,
> seeded, Brahman, that is the cause of creation.
>
>
> According to Shankara in all places where Brahman is referred to in the
> context of deep sleep/creation it is the tinged Brahman that is meant and
> not the Nirguna chaitanyam.  The reasoning is what is stated by Shankara
> above.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >  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
>> >
>>
>> From sushupti, isn't the the bhAshya clearly referring to kevala sath -
>> सन्मात्रमेव केवलं वस्त्विति?
>> There is no mention of avidyA in the above line quoted when explaining sat
>> before creation.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>