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

[V Subrahmanian]

Well said. That's also why the jnani will not be aware of anything in deep
sleep just as anyone else. Sukham aham asvaapsam na kinchit avedisham is
common for all.

vs
On Sep 24, 2016 3:43 PM, "Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Yes, that seed where all knowledge is resolved into potential form
> (prajnAnaghana) and all objects are resolved into potential form (ekIbhUta)
> is there as long as prArabdha is there. That is why a jnAni wakes up as a
> jnAni - his kAraNa sharIra has that Atma jnAna in its resolved, potential
> form.
>
> So the three avasthAs continue as normal even after jnAna, until the
> fructified prArabdha is resolved and all three bodies go back to their
> source.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 24 Sep 2016 10:54 a.m., "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkatraghavan Ji
> >
> > Understand from paramArthika dRSTi ( paramArtha jnAna standpoint, which
> is
> > the only real view ), there is no avidyA ( either as agrahana or kinchit
> > bhAva rUpa), no more questions or answers :)
> >
> > But, the discussion here is from the sabeeja sath (or tinged Brahman) in
> > the context of deep sleep/creation, by admitting the presence of beeja /
> > seed in Brahman. This is mainly to get a better understanding of avidyA
> > locii in Brahman ( kAraNa or sushUpti ) and its possible effects
> > before/after arising of knowledge.
> >
> > Are we saying that avidyA ( which is kinchit bhAva rUpa) is destroyed
> > completely ( in all formats and variants) with the arising of knowledge
> in
> > all 3 periods of time and in all 3 avasthAs ?
> >
> > This would no longer attribute to the presence of any avidyA seed or
> beeja
> > ( as mUlAvidyA or avidyA shakti) in kAraNa or sushUpti ?
> >
> > Or, B) do we admit the presence of seed in sushUpti, even after the
> > arising of knowledge? since avidyA is traikAlika bAdhita for jnAni, he
> > wakes up from sushUpti as jnAni itself, as before. And this seed itself (
> > in kAraNa or sushUpti) is no longer producing any future births, since it
> > is bAdhita/destroyed by arising of knowledge in waking? Here,we are not
> > discussing any further specifics/characteristics about this seed (
> > mUlAvidya or beeja shakti, its destruction?) itself, as it is not
> required
> > and has no tangible effects anymore (seen as mithyA), from jnAni's
> > standpoint.
> >
> > Reading your response below,  it is inclined to the para B above. Pl
> > confirm.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,
> >> "jnAni cannot reasonably re-emerge from deep sleep"
> >>
> >> Initially we think moonlight is a thing. Then we realise there is no
> such
> >> thing. Only sunlight is. However, despite knowing it doesn't exist in
> >> reality we continue seeing moonlight.
> >>
> >> The basic principle is that experience cannot invalidate fact. JnAna
> will
> >> not destroy the experience of mithyA, it will only destroy the belief in
> >> its reality.
> >>
> >> Similarly, for the jnAni there is no avidyA in reality, but to answer
> >> questions like the ones you raised we provisionally say until the
> prArabdha
> >> is exhausted,  avidyAlesha is there. He cannot have avidyA because jnAna
> >> has destroyed avidyA, and it's harmful effects like delusion and bondage
> >> are not felt by the jnAni. But the experience of duality continues, so
> we
> >> say it's because of avidyAlesha.
> >>
> >> That is why even after jnAna, we say he wakes up from sushupti as
> before.
> >> After the body falls, avidyAlesha also goes.
> >>
> >> "How does this seed in tinged Brahman itself gets destroyed, after jnAna
> >> prApti ?"
> >>
> >> By the arising of the knowledge that ultimately it never was there,
> >> despite experiencing it's effects. Again we have to apply the principle
> >> that experience cannot invalidate reality. Experience allows us to say
> >> avidyA has kinchit bhAva rUpa, and it's traikAlika bAdha through
> knowledge
> >> allows us to preserve advaita of Brahman.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Venkatraghavan
> >>
> >> On 23 Sep 2016 7:38 p.m., "Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l" <
> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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=C
> >>> handogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E
> >>> 0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%A
> >>> 8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A
> >>> E%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83%E2%80%99%2
> >>> 0%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=C
> >>> handogya&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=B
> >>> rha&page=04#BR_C04_S05_V03>‘यतो
> >>> > वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २-९-१)
> >>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=T
> >>> aitiriya&page=02#T_C02_S09_V01>
> >>> >  ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४)
> >>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=K
> >>> ena_pada&page=01&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E
> >>> 0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A
> >>> 5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E
> >>> 0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A
> >>> 4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E
> >>> 2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%A7-%E
> >>> 0%A5%AA%29#KP_C01_V04> इत्यवक्ष्यत्
> >>> > ; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३-१२)
> >>> > <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=G
> >>> ita&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
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>