[Advaita-l] Ontological status of avidyA

[Venkatraghavan S]

Absolutely!

On 25 Nov 2016 6:27 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Yes, you are right we are not here to prove a point or otherwise.  And it
> is always better for us  to know that at least there is another way to look
> at the things and understand it by contemplating  the same shruti and
> bhAshya vAkya-s.  From the same bhAshya vAkya-s, in your books both mAyA
> and avidyA are one and the same and in my books it is entirely different.
> Fine, we are still friends.  And those who are debating this issue,
> striving neither for avidyA nor mAya but only for brahman or attaining that
> brahma jnana which is Nirmala and nitya shuddha, Buddha, mukta… is it not
> prabhuji  J
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>
> *From:* Venkatraghavan S [mailto:agnimile at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 11:41 AM
> *To:* Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> *Cc:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Advaita-l] Ontological status of avidyA
>
>
>
> Thanks Bhaskar ji. There are some points I do not agree with in your post,
> as I am sure is the case for you also. I understand your position, let's
> leave it at that. These posts are meant only for our mananam, not to prove
> a point.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2016 6:03 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Your concern that by calling avidyA brahma Ashrita, avidyA becomes brahma
> svarUpa, is not valid because brahman is sat whereas avidyA is
> anirvachanIya,
>
>
>
> Ø   May I know where shankara calls avidyA is anirvachaneeya ??  And
> again may I know where shankara says brahman is sat and in it there EVER
> exist anirvachaneeya avidyA??  When shankara explains the nature of avidyA
> in geeta and bruhat  bhAshya ( i.e. avidyA is agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa and
> saMshaya ) don’t you think ‘avidyA’ is nirvachaneeya  in shankara bhAshya??
> What is anirvachaneeya in shankara bhAshyA is mAya and not avidyA, former
> is brahmAbhinna and in its svarUpa it is brahman only..mama svarUpa madeeya
> mAya, tAm prakrutiM svAm adhishtAya vasheekrutya saMbhavAmi dehavAniva
> bhavAmi jAt iva etc. clarifies geetAchArya,  mAyAntu prakrutiM vidyAm,
> mAyinantu maheshwaraM says shruti just replace the word avidyA in the place
> of mAya and see the ‘arthahAni’.
>
>
>
>
>
> two different orders of reality. That relationship is not like fire and
> heat.
>
>
>
> Ø     mAyA is the Shakti of brahma avidyA is the dOsha of jeeva.  The
> relationship between brahma and mAya is like fire and heat whereas the
> difference between avidyA and brahma is dark and dawn.  parasyApi AtmanaH
> avyAkrutajagadAtmatvena vivakshitatvAt it is because for the jagat (mAyA)
> brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and again it is because of
> brahma Shakti is mAyA, shankara elsewhere says : kAraNasya AtmabhUtA
> shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM, sA shaktiH brahmaiva ahaM  shakti
> shaktimatOH ananyatvAt…it is self-explanatory no need for further
> explanation.
>
>
>
> Your concerns also appear to step from from attributing a negative aspect
> to avidyA.
>
>
>
> Ø   May I know where in prasthAna traya bhAshya shankara explain avidyA
> as a positive aspect?? OTOH, shankara in geeta bhAshya explicitly compares
> this avidyA with poison (visha) !!??
>
>
>
>
>
> Here, what is meant by avidyA is the same as avyakta / prakriti /
> avyAkrita / mAya elsewhere in shAstra. Shankaracharya adds an adjective to
> these terms in many places as avidyAlakshaNA / avidyArUpa etc. What does he
> mean?
>
>
>
> Ø     vishamishritAnna is called ‘visha’ only though there is hell a lot
> of difference between visha and anna.  beejaM mAm sarva bhUtAnAm clarifies
> geetAchArya, the seed for this anna is parabrahman only nothing else,
> yatOvA imAni bhUtAni jAyante, yena jAtAni jeevanti etc.  and this avyakta,
> mUla prakruti, mAya has been sometimes described as ‘akshara’ also and the
> same word ‘akshara’ has been used to denote brahman as well !!?? why?? It
> is because ahaM  shakti shaktimatOH ananyatvAt.  yA mUlaprakrutiH
> abhyupagamyate tadeva cha nO brahma, na ksharati ashnute cha iti nityatva
> vyApitvAbhyAm ‘aksharaM’ parameva brahma.  What does it mean prabhuji??
> Elsewhere don’t you see the word : saMyukta between mAya and avidyA
> prabhuji??  What does it mean??  Can the word ‘saMyukta’ be used if the
> avidyA and mAya are synonyms and there exists absolutely no difference
> between mAyA and avidyA??  ‘saMyOga’ can happen between two different
> padArtha, if the mAyA and avidyA are one and the same this ‘saMyOga’ is not
> possible.  BTW, this is not the words of Sri SSS (though he strongly
> condemns the stand of equating mAyA with avidyA), this is the explanation
> of one of the achAryA-s from vyAkhyAna school.
>
>
>
> Ø   And again it is with this background we have to understand the
> suffixes and prefixes to avidyA like avidyAlakshaNa, avidyArUpa,
> avidyApratyupasthApita, avidyAtmaka, in the famous statement : avidyAtmikA
> hi beejashaktiH avyakta shabda nirdeshyA  (a most potent statement to
> wrongly equate avidyA with avyaktA/mAyA J
>
>
>
>
>
> Taken in the context of sarvajna Ishvara, avidyA is shuddha sattva guNa
> (i.e. sattva pradhAna), therefore Ishvara's avidyA does not have AvaraNa
> shakti, it is vikshepa shakti pradhAna. In the context of jIva, avidyA is
> malina sattva guNa and therefore it has both AvaraNa and vikshepa shakti.
> Fundamentally, whether it is shuddha sattva or malina sattva, it is the
> same triguNAtmaka avidyA only.
>
>
>
> Ø     Since in your dictionary there is absolutely no difference between
> avidyA and mAya you are comfortably using the word ‘avidyA’ in place of
> mAya ( for example trigunAtimika avidyA instead of trigunAtmaka mAyA /
> prakruti) but that is not the case with me prabhuji, so kindly allow me to
> disagree with you.
>
>
>
> If it still offends your sensibilities, wherever the term avidyA is used
> as being located in Brahman, you can take that to mean mAya instead
>
>
>
> Ø     Ha, ha J it is not my sentiments prabhuji since I don’t have any
> sentimental attachments to these words J I am just presenting what is
> there for our reference with regard to these words in shankara’s prasthAna
> traya bhAshya.  So you can be rest assured that my sensibilities will not
> be offended even if you say brahman is ever tainted by avidyA i.e. ONLY
> shuddha sattva guNa and equating the guNa with ‘dOsha’ i.e. avidyA J
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> Bhaskar
>
>
>
> PS:  And now I have the gut feeling that I am again tempted to ‘beat this
> dead horse’…Kindly pardon me if I am going to end this discussion
> abruptly.
>
>
>
>