[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​Namaste Chandramouliji,

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just stated my discomfort at taking brahman
itself is in the form of Maya. I'd expressed it to my Vedanta teachers also
that for technical reasons, I have discomfort in strictly accepting both:
i) brahman as the cause ​for Maya and also
ii) Maya as "superimposed" upon Brahman.

I'd drafted a question to the list towards the end of April to that effect,
but my research on it to for bhAShya coverage was incomplete and so it is
still in draft! I just thought your mail as an opportunity to voice my
thoughts since I saw some connection. The gist of the same follows.

Subbuji has replied quoting bhAShya and taking it as अव्यक्तस्य कारणम्/
कारणस्य कारणम्। However, I see it as loosely making the above two points
via अव्यक्तात् सूक्ष्मतरः/ सर्वकारणकारणत्वात्। That is, अधिष्ठानत्वेन
कारणम् that too, only उपादानकारणम्, cause due to being the basis/
substratum. In the strict analysis, I cannot see brahman being अधिष्ठान as
the same as meaning माया as अध्यस्त, else it will amount to say that the
holder of शक्ति is the cause for that शक्ति। My thinking is thus: just as
fire is the cause of burning others through its burning power, but not the
cause for its burning-power, brahman is the cause for the world, but not
the cause for its burning power.

​Thank you.​


​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] */

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:51 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Reg << but chaitanya itself can be called as shrotra, etc, with the
> upAdhi, but not Maya/ avidyA with the upAdhi.>>,
>
>
>
> wherever  it is said avidya covers (AvaraNa) chaitanya, the position is
> exactly the same as with shrotra etc. Avidya by itself cannot cover, it
> is enabled to do so only because of Chaitanya. But then Chaitanya goes by
> the name of avidya itself, just as with shrotra etc. I hope I have at least
>  made my point understandable.
>
>
>
> Reg  << 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
> >>,
>
>
>
> I hope I have understood you correctly when I make the following point. It
> just represents my understanding, different from the above, but no claim is
> made that my view only is correct. Just take it at its face value and if
> you disagree, fine. No issues.  BU states
>
>
>
> << तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत् (taddhedaM tarhyavyAkRRitamAsIt) >>.
>
>
>
> At this stage chaitanya is adhiShTAna only, but Creation has not taken
> place. TU states
>
>
>
> << सोऽकामयत  (so.akAmayata) >>.
>
>
>
> This represents association with upAdhi after which only Creation takes
> place. Hence it is only after mAyA becomes an upAdhi for Chaitanyam,
> Creation takes place. Not when Chaitanyam is an adhiShTAna only. I have
> resorted to different Upanishads since I could not readily get the
> references I wanted from the same Upanishad. This should not be a problem.
>
>
>
​