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

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Sri Venkatraghavanji,
Trying to use Avidya to remove Avidya is not possible due to Atmashraya
dosha.

Vyavahara is a product of Avidya and in that the knowledge which we use is
also within that realm of Avidya only. But some say it is like using a
thorn to remove another. So when Avidya had no existence In Paramarthata,
what is the use of knowing a non existent ghost. Abhoota abhinivesham
that's it.

Because of this all Gurus at the end will say one needs Eswara anugraham
for it.

Regards,

Aurobind Padiyath
On 23 Jun 2015 20:33, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sri Aurobind,
>
> Then why the talk of deep sleep, dream state and waking states? Brahman is
> beyond the three states.
>
> The problem comes in when you speak of gyAni, sleep state etc -  all of
> these are only in the vyAvahArikA plane, not the pAramArthikA plane of
> existence. When you are in the vyAvahArikA plane of existence, you have to
>  explain the appearance of the world, the jiva and Iswara. So when
> discussing the vyAvahArikA plane, we need to correctly understand the
> nature of avidyA.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Aurobind Padiyath <
> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>