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

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Praveen ji

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Raviji,
>
> Looks like you sent this mail only to me by oversight. Reply inline...
>

I got a response from you to me only..


>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you accept there is no trace of avidyA in paramArthA sat,
>>
>
> I suspect there is a mix up here in understanding when you say this.
> Having brahman as the locus of avidyA doesn't mean that brahman
> is affected by avidyA. The latter is mithyA, as said earlier. Moreover,
> avidyA is opposed to jnAnam and vice versa, but brahman is opposed to
> NOTHING. avidyA can "happily" have parabrahman as its locus.
>

On same page here ..


>
>
>>
>> सदेव सदिति अस्तितामात्रं वस्तु सूक्ष्मं निर्विशेषं सर्वगतमेकं निरञ्जनं
>> निरवयवं विज्ञानम्,
>>
>> That which is sukshmam, nirvishesham, sarvagatham, ekam , niranjanam,
>> niravayavam, viJnAnam is kevala sat, ekam eva adviTIyam, before creation (
>> paramArthika), is devoid of any mithyA  (mUlAvidyA) or any nAma rUpa
>> vishesha that can be comprehended
>>
>
> There is NO difference whatsoever in brahman before creation and after
> creation. The creation stories should not be taken as idam ittham. They are
> adhyAropa to explain the world that we perceive. If you go ahead and still
> differentiate in brahman prior to creation and that after creation, you
> will have to explain where from this creation cropped up? You will surely
> have to answer that it indeed came from Ishvara, who is nothing but brahman
> with mAyA upAdhi. Then where was mAyA? Was it different from brahman in
> which case advaita will become dvaita, or is it same as brahman in which
> case brahman will not remain pure.
>

The point raised is - whether from paramArthika standpoint (nirguna
nirvisesha brahman) or not , not differentiating in brahman :)


> Sureshvaracharya says that this mAyA/ avidyA rests in brahman itself,
> without affecting it in Naishkarmyasiddhi (NS).
>

Yes


> Some may differentiate between terminologies of avidyA and mAyA, but with
> the principle of Occam's razor, if you just see mAyA as that universal
> avidyA, it has to have its locus in sat padArtha brahman itself.
>

True


> If you differentiate between both and say Maya is shakti of brahman and
> avidyA is seen in individuals, where would this individual avidyA have its
> locus? Mind you, there is nothing other than brahman. jIva is brahman,
> (unless you think jIva has an anAtmA component like some do). So it really
> cannot rest anywhere else. And if doesn't rest in anything, it cannot come
> from nothing. We are not shUnyavAdis. :)
>
>

Yes, agreed :)


>
>> नामरूपक्रियावद्विकृतमुपलभ्यते -  creation is nAma rUpa vishesha
>> superimposed on adhiSThAna sat (result of avidyA)
>>
>>
> The only other non-option left is that avidyA rests in anAtmA.
> Sureshvaracharya proves why this is a non-option in NS. If you think that
> is a possibility and not brahman itself, refer to NS or let me know so that
> I can jot down the points here.
>

I am clear ..Thanks

>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>