[Advaita-l] (no subject)

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Sat Jun 24 09:40:09 EDT 2017

​Namaste Chandramouliji,​

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:55 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> I agree it has not been used  as such. That is the reason why I said I
> need it for my personal use. However when it is said that mAyA/avidya  is
> responsible for srishti (through pariNAma) in some contexts, it has the
> same connotation as in the bhashya for any of terms shrotra/manah etc.
> Why do you conclude otherwise?
The difference I see is thus: श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं, चक्षुषः चक्षुः, ​
​ मनः​, don't directly lead to the inner-essence of each of those, but as
that hearing which makes the ear to be an ear, that sight which makes the
sight be a sight, etc. Now, with Maya and avidyA, I do not think we would
agree to say that that which makes Maya to be Maya or avidyA to be avidyA,
since to avoid the doSha of nirguNa being a cause, we bring in Maya/
avidyA. If we use this phrase, I think it would lead to saying that Maya or
avidyA deludes because of brahma, which is clearly not the case.

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list