[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

You guys reject SAyaNa BhAshya on Rigveda also. Right?


Ø     sAyaNa is after shankara right??  Whatever said in mUla not diluted in later works definitely acceptable to us prabhuji.  So, if sAyanAchArya explaining the mUla tattva without going against shankara tattva definitely acceptable to us.

Because Rigveda BhAshya on NAsadIya SUkta clearly says that MAyA is synonym of ajnAna and that it is bhAvarUpa. And SSS ji rejects both of these concepts.


Ø     mAyA is not avidyA there are ample evidences within bhAshya.  So, no need to search for any further clarification anywhere else.  Having said that I don’t deny that there are sentences which seem to say avidyA=mAya like vishAnna called as visha.  mAya is anirvachaneeya whereas avidyA is nirvachaneeya.  avidyA is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa whereas it is mAya tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya,at some places maaya explained as avidyA Kalpita, somewhere else avidyAtmaka, yet another place mAya as Ishwara shakti, mAya is brahmAbhinna, mAya is eternal as well.  So as per our books there is hell a lot of difference between avidyA and mAya 😊 By the way you are the man of logic and Sanskrit scholar do you agree both words giving the same meaning in all the contexts to declare that both avidyA and mAya are synonyms??  just curious to know.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar