[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[Venkatraghavan S]

I agree, I don't think we can say mAya is a kArya of Brahman.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 25 Jun 2017 8:41 a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ​Namaste Chandramouliji,
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you. I just stated my discomfort at taking brahman
> itself is in the form of Maya. I'd expressed it to my Vedanta teachers also
> that for technical reasons, I have discomfort in strictly accepting both:
> i) brahman as the cause ​for Maya and also
> ii) Maya as "superimposed" upon Brahman.
>
> I'd drafted a question to the list towards the end of April to that effect,
> but my research on it to for bhAShya coverage was incomplete and so it is
> still in draft! I just thought your mail as an opportunity to voice my
> thoughts since I saw some connection. The gist of the same follows.
>
> Subbuji has replied quoting bhAShya and taking it as अव्यक्तस्य कारणम्/
> कारणस्य कारणम्। However, I see it as loosely making the above two points
> via अव्यक्तात् सूक्ष्मतरः/ सर्वकारणकारणत्वात्। That is, अधिष्ठानत्वेन
> कारणम् that too, only उपादानकारणम्, cause due to being the basis/
> substratum. In the strict analysis, I cannot see brahman being अधिष्ठान as
> the same as meaning माया as अध्यस्त, else it will amount to say that the
> holder of शक्ति is the cause for that शक्ति। My thinking is thus: just as
> fire is the cause of burning others through its burning power, but not the
> cause for its burning-power, brahman is the cause for the world, but not
> the cause for its burning power.
>
> ​Thank you.​
>
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
> ,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:51 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > Reg << but chaitanya itself can be called as shrotra, etc, with the
> > upAdhi, but not Maya/ avidyA with the upAdhi.>>,
> >
> >
> >
> > wherever  it is said avidya covers (AvaraNa) chaitanya, the position is
> > exactly the same as with shrotra etc. Avidya by itself cannot cover, it
> > is enabled to do so only because of Chaitanya. But then Chaitanya goes by
> > the name of avidya itself, just as with shrotra etc. I hope I have at
> least
> >  made my point understandable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reg  << I try to maintain that whenever mAya or avidyA are talked of as
> > the cause of the world, it is with chaitanya as adhiShTAna, but when jIva
> > is talked of as the cause of the world, it is with mAya/ avidyA as upAdhi
> > >>,
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope I have understood you correctly when I make the following point.
> It
> > just represents my understanding, different from the above, but no claim
> is
> > made that my view only is correct. Just take it at its face value and if
> > you disagree, fine. No issues.  BU states
> >
> >
> >
> > << तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत् (taddhedaM tarhyavyAkRRitamAsIt) >>.
> >
> >
> >
> > At this stage chaitanya is adhiShTAna only, but Creation has not taken
> > place. TU states
> >
> >
> >
> > << सोऽकामयत  (so.akAmayata) >>.
> >
> >
> >
> > This represents association with upAdhi after which only Creation takes
> > place. Hence it is only after mAyA becomes an upAdhi for Chaitanyam,
> > Creation takes place. Not when Chaitanyam is an adhiShTAna only. I have
> > resorted to different Upanishads since I could not readily get the
> > references I wanted from the same Upanishad. This should not be a
> problem.
> >
> >
> >
> ​
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>