[Advaita-l] Brahman and Avidya - mutually exclusive?

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Sri Venkatraghavanji,

This is exactly what I was telling all through. Only Brahman exist. mAyA or
Avidya and all other names we use is only to know the unrealistic existence
of the same irrespective where they are located. For non existent things
there is no real locations too.

Aurobind Padiyath
On 23 Jun 2015 20:14, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sri Aurobind,
>
> >>Do you say that mAyA which has no fundamental existence has a location
> in Brahman?
> Yes, with one small change to the wording - mAyA which has no fundamental
> existence, *appears to exist* in Brahman.
>
>  That apparent existence is only possible because of brahman lending
> existence to it.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>
>> When you say
>> " mAyA cannot be destroyed because it does not exist fundamentally.  That
>> does not mean that experience of mAyA doesn't exist. mAyA and its effects
>> are experienced by gyAnI also, but he knows that a) mAyA does not exist and
>> b) He, the Brahman, is not the one apparently experiencing the effects of
>> mAyA. In deep sleep he doesn't experience mAyA, but it does not mean that
>> the kArANa sharIra is destroyed."
>>
>> Do you say that mAyA which has no fundamental existence has a location in
>> Brahman? mAyA is like the X introduced in a mathematical equation to know
>> the Unknown.  So it has to have location only where the unknown need to be
>> located. But when the unknown is the only One and all pervading, then?
>> That's why it becomes mystical in expressions.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aurobind Padiyath
>> On 23 Jun 2015 19:56, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Aurobind,
>>>
>>> There is a risk that we are debating all over the place. The topic under
>>> discussion is not whether mAyA has fundamental existence or not - it does
>>> not.  We are only debating whether avidyA and Brahman can co-exist or not.
>>>
>>> My contention is that it can and does.
>>>
>>> You say >> Maya or MoolAvidya or what ever we call it is not in
>>> Swaroopa or Brahman, both being the same, but in the
>>> Anthakarana thru which the Jeeva bhava is assumed.
>>>
>>> My point is that Brahman, being asangA, is not affected by mUlAvidya -
>>> so yes, mUlAvidyA is not "in" the svarUpA of Brahman, however,  you cannot
>>> say mUlAvidyA is not "in" Brahman. mUlAvidyA has to exist with brahman as
>>> its locus. Nothing else can lend apparent existence to mUlAvidyA. mUlAvidyA
>>> cannot have antahkaraNa as its substratum - in fact, the antahkaraNa is a
>>> projection of mUlAvidyA, which in turn, depends upon Brahman for its
>>> apparent existence.
>>>
>>> mUlAvidyA's apparent existence in Brahman does not affect the asangatvam
>>> of Brahman in any way whatsoever.
>>>
>>> mAyA cannot be destroyed because it does not exist fundamentally.  That
>>> does not mean that experience of mAyA doesn't exist. mAyA and its effects
>>> are experienced by gyAnI also, but he knows that a) mAyA does not exist and
>>> b) He, the Brahman, is not the one apparently experiencing the effects of
>>> mAyA. In deep sleep he doesn't experience mAyA, but it does not mean that
>>> the kArANa sharIra is destroyed.
>>>
>>> All this talk of turIyam etc. are introducing elements of mysticism,
>>> which is not really needed for mokshA in my opinion.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <
>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>
>>>> Your two questions are:
>>>> So two questions here:
>>>> 1) Are you saying that mAyA or mUlAvidya is non existent in deep sleep?
>>>>
>>>> mAyA is only to him who in waking feels or experiences the effects of
>>>> it. In his deep sleep he doesn't have any experience (visheSha vigjnanam)
>>>> since his all types of sharIrA is in laya and has merged into the Turiya.
>>>> When that Turiya vibrates (spandanam) again, the cycle repeats. This laya
>>>> is in fact becoming one with IT as there is no two in reality. But what
>>>> happens or seems to happen, even though in reality it is not happening, is
>>>> the all pervading when reflects through the same sharIrA the individuality
>>>> appears to come back to life in the waking as Jnani or AJnani or the Jagat
>>>> through their respective Upadhis. These explanations of theory of mAyA etc
>>>> are only to make one inward and not in reality. In reality only That is
>>>> there. Rest are for the inquisitive mind to calm down and realise that
>>>> "Brahmaivedam sarvam" or "Atma vyatirekena nasti kinchit".
>>>>
>>>> 2) Are you saying that the lack of experience of sharIrA is equal to
>>>> the lack of existence of the sharIrA
>>>>
>>>> From the above you can understand that the laya is a temporary absence
>>>> like a wave when not seen does not mean it is absent in the ocean.
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Aurobind Padiyath
>>>>
>>>>
>