[Advaita-l] Relationship between Brahman and avidyA

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

I am not at all concerned with Ramanuja.

//If there is nothing other than Brahman (being infiniteness) by definition
avidya has to rest in Brahman only. If not, we have advaita haani//

I am in complete agreement with you and this is the root of my problem. The
fact that even we are even discussing something called avidya -- does it
not ipso facto indicate -- that something has happened. Something.. no
matter how feeble.. some vibration.. something .. otherwise what is all
this? This is certainly not horns of hare.

And if there is anything, there is contradiction with nishkriyatva of
Brahman.

The fact that there is nothing but Brahman -- and the fact that vyavaharika
is even being discussed -- does it not indicate contradiction?

I have read and read and read and read.. and yet am clueless about this
basic thing.

Sorry to irritate you all with my rant.

Sudhanshu.

On Sun 23 Jun, 2019, 22:56 kuntimaddi sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Sudhansuji - PraNAms
>
> If there is nothing other than Brahman (being infiniteness) by definition
> avidya has to rest in Brahman only. If not, we have advaita haani. Hence
> locus or substantive of avidya as well as it counterpart -vidyaa have to be
> Brahman. At the same time, Brahman cannot have avidyaa too. Hence the
> contradiction is resolved by recognizing that avidya as well as it's
> counterpart, vidyaa, are at vyaavahaarika level only.
>
> But for transactional purposes, we can say avidya is located on the Jeeva,
> who has not understood his real nature. Hence avidya gets destroyed at the
> Jeeva level only - all at vyavahaarika level. At paarmaarthika level - na
> vaak gacchati, na manaH; yad gatvaa na nivartante apraapya manasaa saH - no
> description of Brahman is possible. Hence all the pointers are only from
> vyaavahaarika point to a jeeva who is confused. Realization involves as
> Subbuji pointed out - aham brahamaasmi - I was, I am and I shall be.
> akarthaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaham avyayaH.  Hence realization involves
> only a re-cognition of the true state of affairs. 'Ignorance I never had I
> lost!' - That losing is also at vyavahaara.
>
> By the by, the point you have raised is also one of the seven objections
> against Advaita avidya by Shree Ramanuja in his Shree Bhasya of
> Brahmasutras.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 23, 2019, 11:50:15 AM EDT, Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hari Om Acharya Sada ji
>
> These are irresistible questions and hence your response is natural.
>
> //Since the substantive of Jeeva-jagat-Iswara is Brahman only, in the
> final analysis - the substantive of even avidya is also Brahman.//
>
> Can you elaborate upon this a bit more? What exactly do you mean by
> Brahman as the substantive of avidyA? Let us forget everything else and
> concentrate on Brahman and avidyA because in the final analysis, only these
> two are left.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun 23 Jun, 2019, 20:15 kuntimaddi sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> . Should that mean that the inquiry for relationship between Brahman and
> avidyA is
> meaningless.
>
> Sudhanshu.
> -------------------------
>
> PraNAms
>
> These discussions indicate normal confusion that arises when one switches
> the references states. Here are some points for contemplation.
>
>  1. There cannot be anything other than Brahman, by definition since
> Brahman means infiniteness.
>
>  2. Hence from Brahman point, there is no inquirer nor inquired.
>
>  3. Hence questions can arise only from the point of vyaavahaarika
> reference where there a triad - jeeva-jagat and Iswara - the substantive of
> all the three being Brahman only, again by definition - since there cannot
> be anything other than Brahman.
>
>  4. The questions arise because of avidya or ignorance only - which by
> nature is anaadi or beginning-less. No ignorance can have a beginning.
>
>  5. Locus of avidya - It is jeeva since he feels the triad is real.
>
>  6. Since the substantive of Jeeva-jagat-Iswara is Brahman only, in the
> final analysis - the substantive of even avidya is also Brahman.
>
>  7. Hence we also say locus of avidya is Brahman; and yet from Brahman
> references, there is no avidya, nor jeeva-jagat-Iswara triad.
>
>  8. There is no contradiction here since the reference states
> (paaramaarthika vs vyaavaharika) are different. Krishna makes a declarative
> statement to this effect - ..mastaani sarva bhuutani (all being are in Me)
> and in the very next sloka again says ... na cha mastaani bhuutaani (no
> beings in Me). One is vyaavahaarika and the other is paaramaarthika states.
>
>  9. What is the relationship between Brahman and avidya or even Brahman
> and the triad.
>
>  10. When from Brahman point there is nothing other than Brahman- a
> discussion of any relationship has no meaning from that reference.
>
>  11. From the references of jeeva - we can say it is
> relation-less-relationship or mithyaa. From the Iswara point, scriptures
> call him as sarvajna and sarvavit (Mundaka) - Hence he has no avidya - we
> call it as maayaa shakti. maayaa is yaa maa saa maayaa - that which is not
> there but appears to be there.
>  12. From my understanding, it is futile to discuss the avidya as bhaava
> ruupa. While avidya provides lack of understanding the underlying truth
> (non-apprehension) the projection is done by maayaa shakti or Iswara level
> and nidraa shakti at jeeva level during the dream state and vaasanaa shakti
> involving likes and dislikes projected on top of Iswara sRishti. In
> essence, mind is required for projection - either global mind or local
> mind. At Iswara level - tat aikshataa - bahusyaam - prajaayeyeti - involves
> projection involving the global mind.
>
> Could not resist.
>
>  Hari Om!
>
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>