Creation theories (was Re: What is the exactmeaning/significance of this?)

[Vidyasankar]

>
>But Sri Vidyasankar ji, in that case what is the entity that is being
>affected by avidya? If it is jIva, then it is as good as saying that

There is really no more avidyA after realizing Brahman.

brahman
>is being affected by avidya. If it is not jIva, then how can any jada be
>affected by avidya? Dont you think we face such philosophical difficulties
>if we say that jIva is brahman in all states?

Yes, there is a paradox involved in the transition from identifying with
anAtman to losing this identification with anAtman. The "jIva" is a
transitory entity; it gets affected by avidyA and loses avidyA when it
realizes its essential identity as Brahman.

>The river becomes the sea only in the final stage, right. We dont say the
>river is always the sea. When it merges in the sea, it has no more

But the river is always water, just like the sea is always water. An oil
spill into the ocean remains as oil and doesn't merge with the ocean.
It is only because of the underlying identity of the river as water that
the river can merge into the sea and then come back as a river through the
stages of vapor and rain/snow. You can think of river as jIva, sea as
ISvara or (saguNa) Brahman and water as (nirguNa) brahman. Of course, the
analogy remains inexact, but so be it.

>individual distinction as the river. Similarly in the Br.U, we find
>Yagnavalkya telling Maitreyi that "the self has no more particular
>consciousness".
>
>Dont you think that we will be violating many sruti statements if we say
>that jIva is brahman even in the three states?

Change the word from jIva to Atman, and we aren't violating anything.

Vidyasankar