[Advaita-l] Is the concept of maya essential to explain advaita?
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Mon Jan 23 02:50:57 CST 2012
praNAms Sri Sriram prabhuji
I think people are getting confused with the clay-pot example. One is
likely to be
confused here because when Clay is getting transformed into Pot, the Pot
also have the properties of Clay and hence the confusion.
> I dont think there is room for any confusion when shruti itself gives
'mruttika/lOha' example in chAndOgya to prove this point. When pot is seen
as 'pot' as a separate entity, then it is upAdhi drushti, when the 'same'
pot is seen with svarUpa drushti it is clay only nothing else. Shankara
takes pot-clay example in bruhadAraNyaka to explain nAnAtva & ekatva.
The best example suited to explain Vivartavada is "rope-snake" analogy.
The rope is appearing as snake due to ignorance. Now, when a person X is
the rope as a snake, until he has the knowledge of rope, for him the
snake is real. But how long is this perception of rope as snake is real
is the debatable
issue. It is real till one switches on the torch and the rope is
revealed. So, until the rope
is revealed, the snake is real (sat) and with the knowledge of rope, there
is no apprehension of snake and hence (asat). And hence, existence of the
snake is termed as "mithya".
> But unlike 'snake', jagat would continue to 'exist' even for the
paramArtha jnAni (like mirage water or blueness of the sky)..the
paramArtha jnAna does not destroy anything nor create anything afresh.
jnAni's drushti is paramArtha drushti, hence he would see only clay even
in the pots & jars. Therefore, for him even this socalled nAma rUpa, in
their 'sadrUpa' is satya only not mithya. Shankara after
arambhaNAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya, elsewhere clarifies that the kAryAkAra
what we see in the form of nAma rUpa is nothing but that 'kAraNa svarUpa'
only. Because there exists nothing 'apart from that 'svarUpa'.
Just as the Seed has all the inherent qualities of Tree in itself, so
also, the entire Jagat
is inherent in Brahman in avyakta avastha.
> Yes, this avyAkruta or avyakta svarUpa of jagat is nothing but THAT
only. avayAkrutaM 'svayameva' vyAkriyata. sOkAmayata, bahusyAm
prajAyeyeti...idaM sarvamasrujata, satyanchAnrutaNcha satyamabhavat etc.
would say this only.
Then, why this X perceives the world "external" to himself is the
The sankara's "swapna-driSTAnta" is a wonderful example to explain the
existence of external world.
> But when shankara upholds the Ishwara srushti (It is not avasthAtraya
viveka) in sUtra bhAshya, he clearly says 'svapna' srushti is not
pAramArthika like Ishwara srushti such as akAsha etc. which we see in
waking state. So, IMHO, context is very important when we say svapna
srushti is equal to jagat that which we perceive in waking.
> just my 2 paisa worth thoughts on the ongoing discussion.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list