reposting again

[K. Sadananda]

>
>
>5. Finally, all that said, there is no reason why the mAyA that is
>parameSvara Sakti cannot also be described as sad-asad-vilakshaNa.
>The later authors in the Advaita tradition are close enough in spirit
>and in intent to Sankaracarya himself. mAyA is not the same as the
>pure Brahman (sat) and it is not like the hare's horns, i.e. totally
>unreal (asat or atyanta asat). That is why it is said to be a thing
>that is other (vilakshaNa) than either sat or asat.
>
>Vidyasankar

Thanks Vidya for your comments.

The point that is being raised is not the validity of maaya or its
definitions or its usage of it in Adviatic tradition.

The question is only, is there a direct or implied reference in
shastra - particularly in the ten upanishads to the concept of maaya
- Is maaya brought in as logical explanation taking advaitic
statements- tat tvam asi or aham brahmaasmi- to explain how one
appears to be many or is there direct shaastric pramaaNa.

 From what I gather from all the responses so far is that Shreeman
S.M.S. Chari appears to be right in his comments that direct
reference to it in the Upanishhat-s  in the meaning associated in
advaitic doctrine is not there.

I agree with your comments on anupalabdi. As Siddharthaji mentioned
arthaapatti may be more appropriate.  Other aachaarya-s consider all
these are only shades of a anumaana pramaaNa.  Referenced question
pertains to direct shruti pramaaNa for maaya.  Question on maaya does
not necessarily validate alternate theory of Ramanuja to explain the
one ness of jiiva and Brahman. That is a separate issues that one
should examine.

I intend to post slowly my understanding of his talks in both the
lists and we should discuss at that time objectively and impartially
the extent of the validity of his comments or analysis.

Hari Om!
Sadananda
--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623