[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[H S Chandramouli]

Just wanted to clarify my earlier statement. Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal did
not mention mAyA or avidyA. They are just my question.

Regards

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:21 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Praveen Ji,
>
> In some contexts, when it is declared mAyA/avidya or jIva for that matter
> is the cause of srishti, (cannot give references readily for this), , does
> it not mean the same way?
>
> Regards
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_6048752195345682842_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:08 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any upAdhi is active due to its association with Chaitanyam alone and
>>> Chaitanyam gets the name of the upAdhi itself in that context. Thus
>>> Chaitanyam itself is termed shrotraM, manaH etc.
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> ​True Chandramouliji, but
>> ​we wouldn't like to say Chaitanya itself is termed Maya and avidyA.​
>> ​ That itself should settle not using the similar "तस्य तत्/ तस्याः सा"
>> kind of phrases w.r.t. Maya/ avidyA.
>>
>> Kind rgds,
>> --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] */
>>
>>
>