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

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is one more dimension to this discussion:

In the Bṛ.Up.Bh <http://xn--nig.up.bh>āṣya vārtika, Sureshwaracharya cites
a purāṇic verse, that is cited by Shankara at the beginning of his
introduction to the Bh.Gita bhāṣya:

नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात् अण्डमव्यक्तसंभवम् ।
अण्डस्यान्तस्त्विमे लोकाः सप्तद्वीपा च मेदिनी ॥

[Narayana is beyond avyatka, the Great Egg is born of the avyakta (maya),
within the Egg exists the entire cosmos consisting of these worlds..]

Anandagiri, raises a question: How does Narayana become the cause of
creation? And answers: through ajnāna.

That shows that ajnāna has to be admitted even at the level of Narayana
(Nirguna Brahman), the Cause.  This is reminiscent of the Br.Up.1.4.10
bhāṣya where Shankara admits ignorance to Brahman. So, whether it is for
the Cause-Brahman or for the jīva-Brahman, the attribution of ajnāna is
inevitable. To put it simply, since as per Advaita, the entire world, along
with the jiva-s, is a vivarta of Brahman, ajnāna (also can be termed māyā)
is at the root of everything: creation of the bhogya prapancha, the bhoktā,
and the bhoga. Here it is clear that it is enough to admit just one
Ignorance, called by whatever name, to account for the entire creation and
all that consists in it, including the bandha-mokṣa vyavahara of jīva-s.
And it is quite patent from Anandagiri's comment that such an ignorance is
at the level of Nirguna Brahman itself. Of course, that ignorance is itself
unreal goes without saying. It is only an admitting, abhyupetya, in the
Śāstra to account for the world. When the need for such accounting is
outgrown, there is no ignorance, no cause, no world and no jiva-s.

regards
subbu

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>