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

[V Subrahmanian]

Mandukya bhashya: 1.2 mantra:

 ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (छा. उ. ६-८-२)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Chandogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%83%E2%80%99%20(%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%AC-%E0%A5%AE-%E0%A5%A8)#Ch_C06_S08_V02>
इति
श्रुतेः । ननु, तत्र ‘सदेव सोम्य’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Chandogya&page=06#Ch_C06_S02_V01>
इति
प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम् ; नैष दोषः, बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः ।
यद्यपि सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र, तथापि
जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वमपरित्यज्यैव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि
निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत्, ‘नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-३)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Brha&page=04#BR_C04_S05_V03>‘यतो
वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ (तै. उ. २-९-१)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Taitiriya&page=02#T_C02_S09_V01>
 ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Kena_pada&page=01&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BF%E2%80%99%20(%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%A7-%E0%A5%AA)#KP_C01_V04>
इत्यवक्ष्यत्
; ‘न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३-१२)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Gita&page=13#BG_C13_V12>
इति
स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत्, सति प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः
पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ; मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः,
बीजाभावाविशेषात्, ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ;
तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः, सर्वश्रुतिषु च
कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

The translation of the above by Swami Gambhirananda, p.189-190 of Advaita
Ashrama edition, for the crucial portion: ///*Hence Existence is referred
to as prANa (in the Ch.Up.), and in all the Upanishads. It is spoken of as
the cause in all the Upanishads by *assuming* It (for the time being) to be
the seed of others (the whole creation).* And it is because of this that It
is referred to - *by refuting Its causal state* - in such Vedic texts as,
'Superior to the akshara (mAyA) (Mund. 2.1.2), 'from which speech turns
back (Tai.2.2), etc. That Supremely Real State, *free from causality,
relation with body, etc. and modes of waking etc.* of that very entity that
is called prAjna, will be spoken separately in Its aspect as the Turiya. If
Brahman in Its seedless (non-causal) state be meant there, then the
individuals that merge in It in deep sleep and dissolution cannot
reasonably re-emerge. If anybody can re-emerge from sleep or dissolution,
conceived of as nothing but identity with the pure Brahman, then there will
be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in
either case, the absence of cause is a common factor."// By saying the
above, Shankara has indicated that ‘in all the Shruti passages, wherever it
is said that during deep sleep the jiva merges in Brahman’ the ‘Brahman’
there is not the Absolute, Non-dual, Vedāntic Brahman, but the tinged,
seeded, Brahman, that is the cause of creation.


According to Shankara in all places where Brahman is referred to in the
context of deep sleep/creation it is the tinged Brahman that is meant and
not the Nirguna chaitanyam.  The reasoning is what is stated by Shankara
above.

regards
subbu


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >  the bhAShya there compares it with suShupti where avidyA is not
> destroyed
> > so we are still at the level of kAraNam brahma at this point. Same goes
> for
> > 'tadaikShata'.
> > Saying
> >  यथा सुषुप्तादुत्थितः सत्त्वमात्रमवगच्छति सुषुप्ते सन्मात्रमेव केवलं
> > वस्त्विति, तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यभिप्रायः
> >
>
> From sushupti, isn't the the bhAshya clearly referring to kevala sath -
> सन्मात्रमेव केवलं वस्त्विति?
> There is no mention of avidyA in the above line quoted when explaining sat
> before creation.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>