[Advaita-l] avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference?

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste SadAji,
You can ignore the multiple Ishvara , multiple jagat point, because as per
your system, avidyA will be many, but mAya is only one.

However, one more point which you mentioned, but I did not refer to in KY
email previously:

4) if the purpose of this formulation is to explain the continued
perception of the world, even after jnAna removes avidyA, one need not do
this. The appearance of the world is no proof of either the existence of
the world or it's creation. One need not postulate Ishvara srishTi to
explain continued appearance to jnAnis. Mirage water continues to be seen
even if one knows it's a mirage. One need not say "God created it" to
explain it's continued appearance after sublating knowledge.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 29 Nov 2016 2:03 p.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste SadAji,
>
> Let's leave the question of whether your formulation is shAstra sammata or
> not, aside, as I think you agree it is as not.
> Let's only take a look at the merits, as identified by you:
> 1) It saves Ishvara from being endowed with "avidyA", thereby
> contradicting his sarvajnatva. As Sri Chandramouliji and I  have pointed
> out, this is forgetting what avidyA stands for in the context of Ishvara.
> It only refers to Ishvara having the shakti to project, and not indicative
> of ignorance (the popular usage of the term)  on the part of Ishvara.
> 2) It attributes the locus of avidyA as the "jIva". This has its own
> issues because such an attribution suffers from anyonyAshraya doSha. If
> jIva is Brahman endowed with avidyA, how can such an avidyA be then located
> in a jIva? If it is said that this defect is remedied because of anaditva,
> then such an anAdi avidyA and jIva would be ananta, would mean that such an
> anAdi jIva with anAdi avidyA would also be an avidyA yuta jIva forever,
> leading to anirmokshatva. It would also mean that each jIva is endowed with
> a different avidyA, requiring multiple Ishvaras and multiple creations.
> However, such a view would be contrary to shruti.
> 3) You invoke the principle of lAghavatva, ie you do not need avidyA to
> have both AvaraNa and vikshepa. Your proposal has avidyA with only AvaraNa,
> and mAya with vikshepa and by doing so, you say it makes the system more
> logical. This leads to a problem, that moksha becomes a multi step process,
> where not only is AvaraNa rUpa avidyA needs to be removed in one step, but
> would necessitate a separate step that falsifies vikshepa rUpa mAya.
> Because by definition, by negating only AvaraNa rUpa avidyA, the jIva only
> negates AvaraNa , and he would need another basis to negate vikshepa rUpa
> mAya, whose effects he perceives as this world. If he only does the former,
> but not the latter, we end up with sAnkhya darshana, where the jIva
> identifies with kUtastha, but still attributes reality to prakriti, seen in
> the form of the world. This would lead to advaitahAni. Therefore, a second
> step to negate mAya would be needed in your state. This obviously hurts the
> principle of lAghava, which was the one of the advantages of the proposal
> in the first place.
>
> The purpose of shAstra is to give moksha, so any system should not only be
> internally consistent, it should also seek to achieve that purpose in the
> easiest manner possible.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 29 Nov 2016 1:29 p.m., "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Chadramouliji - PraNAms - Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> Yes, I  am aware of all that you mentioned. Hence my note, to see if this
>> can be made simple by separating vishepa aspect from avidya.
>>
>> As I see vastutva is required since there is vikshepatvam.
>>
>> I feel it is not necessary make avidya with both aavarana and vishepa -
>> since vishepa requires only partial ignorance and not full ignorance as in
>> deep sleep. Hence deep sleep state provides a clear example where ignorance
>> can exist with just aavarana without vishepa.
>>
>> Avarana aspect alone exist in deep sleep state and realization involves
>> only removing this aspect - leaving vikshepa part. Hence it is obvious that
>> knowledge removes ignorance and not vishepa aspect. It is therefore logical
>> to separate the Avarana part and associate it with avidya or ignornace and
>> vishepa part with maaya.
>>
>> adhyaasa is defined as satya - anRuta mithuneekaraNam - where some truth
>> is mixed for vishepa in the form of  anRita. for mixing.
>> Many criticisms of avidya of advaita comes because of this vishepa aspect.
>>
>> Here I have separated the vishepa from avidya and grouped with maaya -
>> contributing to jeeva sRiShTi and Iswara sRishTi. Since avidya is only at
>> vyashti level, we spare Iswara having avidya without making another
>> postulate that Iswara is free from it. He is only maayaavi.
>> In essence both aavarana and vishepa are involved - saying avidya is same
>> as maaya to accomplish this, I am seperating it since we have invoke maaya
>> as - aghaTita ghaTanaa paTeeyasi. which pure ignorance will not do without
>> giving some special power with the proposition that it is vastu.
>>
>> My proposition is only - we can avoid it since it is not needed.
>> I realize that traditionalist do not appreciate what I wrote, but my goal
>> is to make things simple without getting into hair-splitting arguments.
>> Hope I am clear.
>> Hari Om!Sadananda
>>
>>
>>       From: H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
>> ta.org>
>>  To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group
>> for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>>  Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:51 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference?
>>
>> Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << Here, Iwould like to distinguish between avidya and maaya -
>> although they have beenused interchangeably by many advaitins >>,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is Sri Bhagavatpada who has stated avidya and maaya as synonymous. Yet
>> it is true  many advaitins still consider them to be different.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << Ignorance has the power ofprojection does not really make sense
>> since ignorance is inert since it is removed.>>,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is just taking the literal meaning (in English ) of avidya as
>> “ignorance”. As per the bhashya of Sri Bhagavatpada, avidya is a technical
>> term having  a much wider significance than just what is indicated by the
>> term “ignorance” in English language. It is a vastu (which “ignorance” of
>> English language is not) synonymous with the terms
>> maaya/avyakruta/avyakta/prakriti/kaarana
>> etc. All are inert including maaya. The differences you have tried to
>> pointout considering avidya and maaya as different are considered in the
>> bhashya as different aspects of the same vastu mentioned above. Not as
>> different vastus. Is there anything in what you have elaborated upon which
>> cannot be explained by considering avidya and maaya as the same vastu
>> endowed with different aspects as broughtout in the bhashya and can be
>> explained only by considering them as different entities ( I have avoided
>> using the word vastus in respect of your concept as you do not appear to
>> consider avidya as a vastu ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>