[Advaita-l] FW: ​Re: [advaitin] A talk on avidyA by Manjushree

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudanshu Shekhar prabhuji
Hare Krishna

NAma-rUpa-bIja and nAma-rUpa are two different things. Former is cause, material cause. Latter is effect. Like bIja and tree. Mango-seed and mango-tree.

>  OK prabhuji agreed.  

NAma-rUpa-bIja is referred by avyakta/MAyA/akshara etc. It is referred by BhAshyakAra as avidyA-Atmika which means avidyA-mAtra. 

>  Yes for the mAya synonyms are avyakta, akshara, vyaktAvyaktAtmaka ( I am including here nama -rupa as well not only nAma rUpa beeja), kshara, sat, vidita, moortAmurtha, avyakta, AkAsha, avidita etc. etc. and contextually mAya has been defined as : 

(a) avidyA kalpita ( which you are not agreed since as per your explanation mAya (nAma-rUpa beeja) is avidyA-mAtra whereas nAma rUpa (which is not mAya) but avidyA kalpita 
(b) brahmAnanya (shakti-shakta abedha
(c) Ishwara shakti
(d) anirvachaneeya. 
( e) and as we know there is a statement which says avidyAtmikAhi beeja shaktiH avyakta shabda nirdeshya which gives us the impression that avidyA as beeja shakti which is denoted as avyakta. 

And frankly I am not able to understand what exactly is the point here you are trying to convey by saying mAya is not avidyA kalpita but mAya is avidyAtmaka and mAya is NOT nAma rUpa but mAya is nAma rUpa beeja!!??  Kindly clarify what purpose would be served by distinguishing these two aspects of the mAya.  After getting that clarification we can proceed further.  In the meantime, just a small observation from my side with regard to your observation :
//quote//
Nowhere BhAshyakAra stated nAma-rUpa-bIja, which is avyakta/MAyA/akshar etc, to be avidyA-kalpita
//unquote//

>  Just one example from bhAshya : sarvajneshwarasya AtmabhUte ivaavidyAkalpite nAmarUpe tattvaanyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeye samsara prapancha beejabhUte sarvajnasveshvarasya mAyA shaktiH, prakrutiH, iti cha shrutismrutyOrabhilapyete.  Here it is quite evidently said it is avidyAkalpita mAya.  Like in other places nAma rUpa itself mAya has been defined in the sense false appearance.  So I wanted to know what is the contention point here.  And with regard to floating bhAshya reference 1-4-3 with regard to identity of avidyA with mAya, those who study this whole adhikaraNa would come to know that here it is shakti is synonymous with prakruti, the causal potentiality of the world and is called mAya also.  The jeeva-s in that state are engrossed in avidyA of their true nature.  So avidyAtmaka (in katha shruti) in this context needs to be taken in gauNartha as there are sufficient other more powerful evidences to prove it otherwise.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar