[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Another evidence of avidyA and mAya identity - bRhadAraNyaka vArttika

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

very nice reference from BBV.

In fact, I also earlier used to hold that avidyA is different from mAyA and
that it is not bhAvarUpa. But when I read SAyaNa bhAshya on NAsadIya Suktam
mantra 3, where it is categorically stated that mAyA is another name of
avidyA and that it is bhAvarUpa, all doubts melted. I really hold  SAyaNa
bhAshya in very high esteem. Without him, we cannot even understand one
mantra of Rigveda.

Also, BhAshyakAra in MANDukya 3.10 says -

सङ्घाताः स्वप्नवत्सर्व आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः ।
आधिक्ये सर्वसाम्ये वा नोपपत्तिर्हि विद्यते ॥ १० ॥

घटादिस्थानीयास्तु देहादिसङ्घाताः स्वप्नदृश्यदेहादिवन्मायाविकृतदेहादिवच्च*
आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः*, न
परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः । यदि आधिक्यमधिकभावः तिर्यग्देहाद्यपेक्षया
देवादिकार्यकरणसङ्घातानाम् , यदि वा सर्वेषां समतैव, तेषां न
ह्युपपत्तिसम्भवः, सम्भवप्रतिपादको हेतुः न विद्यते नास्ति ; हि यस्मात् ,
तस्मादविद्याकृता एव, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ॥

He says  आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः. I
mean how can one bring any further clarity? The mAyA of Atman i.e. avidyA.
And Atma-mAyA-visarjitA means avidyA-pratypasthApita. This is as clear as
it can get.

In the very next verse, BhAshyakAra says -  यस्मादात्मनः
स्वप्नमायादिवदाकाशादिक्रमेण रसादयः कोशलक्षणाः सङ्घाता आत्ममायाविसर्जिता
इत्युक्तम् । This Atma-mAyA-visarjitA i.e. avidyA-pratyupasthApita applies
to the creation from Atman i.e. supreme Brahman of AkAsha etc. So, there
cannot be any confusion that "AtmA" in Atma-mAyA does not talk of Brahman
but to jIva etc. It is clear from 3.11 that AtmA in Atma-mAyA refers to
Brahman.

So, it is just plain against bhAshya to claim that AtmA and mAyA are
different.

SSS ji has merely translated the bhAshya in MK 3.10 and 3.11 and did not
say anything to defend his position of difference of mAyA and avidyA. Even
though bhAshya is so unambiguous in stating -  आत्मनो माया अविद्या.

I really wonder -- in which other manner could BhAshyakAra have said that
mAyA and avidyA are identical!!

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.