[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[V Subrahmanian]

I think in one way we can consider the proposition of Sri Chandamouli ji.
Maya is admitted to be having its support in Brahman and therefore alone it
gets its 'astitva'.

आश्रयत्वविषयत्वभागिनी निर्विभागचितिरेव केवला - So maya or avidya have
chaitanya or chit for its āśraya. Everything in the universe is admitted to
be 'what it is, that is, its vishishta guna' 'because' of Brahman. t In
other words, what all is seen and experienced has Brahman for its base.
This does not mean Brahman is actually 'supplying' all those gunas, for
that will make Brahman guṇavat, it only means that kevala sannidhimātreṇa
...

That way when māyā kāryam such as shrotrādi is admitted to be what they
are/do only because of ātman/brahman and therefore shrotrasya shrotram,
etc. the māyā, as kāraṇam, can also be admitted to be a candidate for such
a nomenclature. We have clearly admitted the third pāda, both as vyashti
and samashti (jagatkāraṇam, beejam) to be having Turiya as adhishthanam,
just as the ankura, jāgrat and svapna, of that bija, is also having Turiya
as its adhishthanam, through the third pāda.  On the analogy of 'yad
rajatam, sā shuktiḥ' as taught by Shankara in BGB 2.24 (brahmarpanam....),
since maya/avidya is also adhyasta in brahman, yā māyā, tad brahmaiva
equation will be correct.

To sum up, the kārya-level equation is conveyed by shrotrasya shrotram...,
the kāraṇa-level equation also can be conveyed by 'māyāyāḥ Māyā'.  In the
first case, it is pointed out that the shaṣṭhī is anātmā and the prathamā
is Atma. Similarly māyā, in lower case, shashthi, is anātmā, abrahma, and
Māya in upper case, prathamā, is Brahman.

That I think is also implied in the Mandukya scheme: स्थूलप्रपञ्चः सूक्ष्मे
लीयते, सूक्ष्मं कारणे तथा कारणमपि तुरीये इति । Here, the shrotrasya
shrotram covers the sthula-sukshma prapancha for we experience
body-mind-organ vyapara both in jagrat and svapnam, and the kāraṇam is
covered by कारणस्यापि (मायाया अपि) कारणं ब्रह्म । We have the expression
'कारणकारणम्’ = कारणस्य कारणम् [shashti is avyaktam, maya, prathamā is
Brahman]

Says Shankara in the Kaṭhopanishad bhashya:

कठोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःतृतीया वल्लीमन्त्र ११

अव्यक्तम् अव्याकृताकाशादिनामवाच्यं परमात्मन्योतप्रोतभावेन समाश्रितं
वटकणिकायामिव वटवृक्षशक्तिः । तस्मादव्यक्तात् परः सूक्ष्मतरः *सर्व*
*कारणकारणत्वात्प्र*त्यगात्मत्वाच्च महांश्च, अत एव पुरुषः सर्वपूरणात् ।
ततोऽन्यस्य परस्य प्रसङ्गं निवारयन्नाह — पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चिदिति ।

Thus, 'मायायाः / अविद्यायाः माया/अविद्या’  may be aprasiddha in the
shāstram but the concept is well accepted in a different terminology:
kāraṇa-kāraṇam.'

warm regards
subbu

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>
> I'm just a little lost on some of what you said, clubbing them together
> below:
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:27 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to clarify my earlier statement. Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal
>> did not mention mAyA or avidyA. They are just my question.
>>
>
> ​I'm assuming that your reference to what Shastriji says was about the
> crux of Kena being that chaitanya itself gets the upAdhi name. Even if we
> take it that way, we can't say chaitanya itself gets the name Maya/ avidyA
> and hence such phrases cannot be used for them.
>
>
>> 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?
>>>
>> In the same way as ​shrotrasya shrotram? I do not think so. You may be
> able to do so only with the first part of Shastriji's explanation in that "Any
> upAdhi is active due to its association with Chaitanyam alone" but not and
> Chaitanyam gets the name of the upAdhi itself in that context." since
> chaitanya is surely what helps shrotra, etc, as well as Maya/ avidyA act,
> but chaitanya itself can be called as shrotra, etc, with the upAdhi, but
> not Maya/ avidyA with the upAdhi. The reason is that shrotra, etc, are
> upAdhis due to Maya/ avidyA.
>
> Moreover, I try to maintain that whenever mAya or avidyA are talked of as
> the cause of the world, it is with chaitanya as adhiShTAna, but when jIva
> is talked of as the cause of the world, it is with mAya/ avidyA as upAdhi;
> the exact other way around, since jIvobrahmaiva nAparaH.
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
> ,
> --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] */
> ​
>
>