[Advaita-l] What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?

Ramachandra Achar ramachandraachar2 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 11 10:46:10 CDT 2016

Subbu sir,

               You gave "gumma," example and said,when you come out of that
notion....gumma is mithya

Here comming out of notion means notion is present at this time right?

And also at the beginning there was only brahman or paramarthika not even a
pinch of agnana

>From there how vyvaharika jgnana or agnana came?
Without existance can some notion of agnana come?

On 11 Aug 2016 2:31 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Ramachandra Achar <
> ramachandraachar2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If Maya is avidhya kalpita,then u accept the existence of avidhya right?
>> @subbu sir,
>> agnana is not only vyvaharika,because to come from paramarthika to
>> vyvaharika also.....there is need of agnana....So,agnana is not only
>> vyvaharika
> That ajnāna that was required for Brahman to assume jivahood is also
> dispelled by the right knowledge that is of the form: I was not, am not and
> will not be a samsāri'.  So, this realization brings to the fore the fact
> of the absolute absence of avidya/ajnana in all three periods of time. Tat
> tvam asi means you are already that and not 'you will become that.'
>  Similarly aham brahma asmi also means 'I am already Brahman'. Avidyā is
> only admitted for the sake of accounting for the notion of samsāritva.
> When this notion is gone, there is no need to accept avidya.  Avidyā is an
> adhyāropa done by the shāstra, which itself does the apavada too. Just like
> the entity 'gumma' is an adhyāropa by the mother just in order to make the
> child obey. Once the child outgrows the need for gumma, it realizes that it
> was only a ploy and not real even when it was invoked. Similar with the
> case of avidya.
> vs

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list