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

[Ravi Kiran]

True, but, if jnAna is not 100% (samyak), avidyA is not completely bAdhita
..

Regards,

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Very true SadAji.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 24 Sep 2016 4:38 p.m., "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > PraNAms
> >
> > Just reading some mails on the topic.
> >
> > Yes, jnaani sleeps as jnaani and ajnaani sleeps as ajnaani. The sleep is
> > the absence of subject-object duality as anandamaya kosha is there for
> both.
> >
> > Just one thought.
> >
> > From thermodynamics there is no 100% purity as in there is no 100% pure
> > gold. It is always 99.999999...%.
> >
> > Similarly jnaanan involve first paroxa jnaanam and for it to become
> > aparoxa jnaanam purity of the mind is needed. It is not a discrete event
> > since there is no 100% purity. Hence Swami Paramarthanandaji calls it as
> > FIR reduction - F frequency of perturbation from the samatva dRishTi, I
> is
> > the intensity of disturbance and R-recovery time from perturbation - FIR
> > gets reduced as one abides in the knowledge of aham brahmaasmi.
> >
> > Hence 100% jnaani is not there and therefore one can still say there is
> > identification with BMI can be there which gets reduced.
> >
> > My 2c
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> > vedanta.org>
> > *To:* Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> > vedanta.org>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:13 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and
> > avidhya ?T
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>