[Advaita-l] Is the concept of maya essential to explain advaita?

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 23 22:05:45 CST 2012

Namaste Sri Subrahmanian

Kindly answer this question. If a clay pot is front what does a Jnani
see and what does ignorant person see?

A Pot only
B Pot and Clay only
C Clay only
D Brahman only but not Pot not Clay
E Brahman and Clay only
F Brahman and Pot only
G Brahman and Pot and Clay

I think ignorant person will see Pot. We can also tell him it is a
clay pot and he will see clay also. A  pseudo Jnani will see C and
think he is very intelligent.

Mayavada is saying Jnani will see D. Pot and Clay will vanish. This is
the problem. It is not correct to say the Pot and Clay will get
destroyed by Jnana. The Pot and Clay will still be there but he will
see the base Brahman. I am saying he will see G.

If you look at all arguments in Mayavada they are saying world will
get destroyed with Jnana. They say Pot will be destroyed with Jnana.

A dangerous mistake Mayavadis are making is they are saying World is
like snake illusion over a rope. If that is true after Jnana we cannot
see Snake. Snake is destroyed with Jnana. The Snake is Maya. Nobody
will say I am seeing Snake and Rope both. He will see only Rope.
Mayavada is saying World is destroyed with Jnana. It is not true Adi
Sankara philosophy. Where is he saying World is like Snake?

But the World is not like Snake. A correct example is reflection in
mirror. Brahman is reflected as many World objects. The Ignorant
Person is seeing only reflections. But a Jnani is seeing both Brahman
and reflections. The reflections are not destroyed with Jnana.

Kindly see below response.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> This question of yours need not be answered for no one has ever claimed
> that 'the world will get destroyed if a man has Jnana'.  Your opposition
> seems to be directed at some phantom.  While the non-Advaitins coined the
> term 'mAyAvAdin' to caricature the Advaitin, you, claiming to be an
> Advaitin, are trying  to make a non-existent  distinction between a
> 'mAyAvAdin' and a 'true' Advaitin, since you have not got the correct
> teaching of Advaita, a sample of which I have provided above in the form of
> the two quotes.  Your trying to 'save' Shankara from the 'mAyAvAdin' is a
> failed attempt for the above two quotes prove Shankara to be a fine
> 'mAyAvAdin' and at the same time an unparalleled BrahmavAdin.
Above I have said how Mayavada is using wrong example of Snake and
Rope to explain Advaita. But correct example to explain Advaita is
Mirror Reflection. Using wrong example Mayavadis are confusing others
like Dvaitis and they are confusing Advaitis also. True Brahmavada
using the Mirror reflection example will not be confusing. The Padma
Purana has said Mayavadam Asacchastram. But Brahmavada is the true

> subrahmanian.v



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list