[Advaita-l] BhAgavatam : The objective world is illusory

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:

> << which says that the objective world grasped by the senses is but a
> phantom
> creation of
> the mind, illusory:  >>
>
> The use of the word mind as the cause of the illusion in respect of
> creation I think always is confusing. Individual jiva's mind itself is an
> illusory creation from the paramarthic standpoint. So is Creation. Hence
> should not the word for cause of Creation be interpreted as Maya only
> instead of mind ?


*In YogavAsiShTha it is said that the mAyA and mind are synonyms.*



> Nodoubt subsequently in some places the word maya is also
> used. But is it not preferable to use the word maya only anytime the
> context is Creation. This could avoid a lot of confusion for the students
> of vedanta.


*The student of vedAnta is supposed to be: medhAvI puruSho vidwAn
UhApohavichakShaNaH along with the sAdhana chatushtaya: he is stated in the
vivekachudamani as the 'adhikAri AtmavidyAyAm'  *

regards
vs


> I have often heard this from many other learners as the use of
> the word mind is fairly common both in literature and lectures. Or is my
> understanding itself wrong ?
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > which says that the objective world grasped by the senses is but a
> phantom
> > creation of
> > the mind, illusory:
> >
> > >  I am always at trouble when it is said that world is mere illusion of
> > mind..because this is the theory of vijnAnavAda (bauddha mata) which
> > shankara refutes in sUtra bhAshya (for example in 3rd adhyAya).  I think
> > important point to be noted here is world AS GRASPED by the senses is
> > ofcourse an illusion, because it varies from individual to individual
> > according to his/her taste and tendency...but world AS IT IS is nothing
> > but HIM since he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for the jagat.  For
> > example if one sees a rose AS A ROSE without attributing any visheshaNa
> to
> > it,( like it is red, it is big, it smells good, it;s petals are weak,
> good
> > if we keep it in pooja room, bad if my girl friend rejects it :-)) etc)
> > then that rose is ROSE only without any visheshaNa attributed by the
> > conditioned mind/senses.  And this rose is  which is without any
> > visheshaNa is always remains ROSE only without any attributes.  Perhaps
> > that is what the below bhAgavata quote is saying :
> >
> > // not having a reality apart from the dRk, seer //
> >
> > >  Yes, there is no reality for the jagat apart from THAT...hence it is
> > said in chAndOgya that when nAma rUpa vikAra is treated separately from
> IT
> > is asatya, but when it is seen from its 'sadrUpa' it is SATYA only...
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>