[Advaita-l] 'world' is not the mental creation of tiny soul !!

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Vidyashankarji,

Reg  << If you accept that avidyA is a seed material entity responsible for
a distinction
between brahman and jIva, you still have to address whether this avidyA
belongs
to brahman or to jIva. If your answer begins with a distinction between the
great
brahman and the tiny jIva, that will be advaita-hAni as well. >>.

The shruti  says << tadhetam tarhi avyakrutamaaseet >> . Here avyakrita
includes both atma and anatma. anatma in seed form. It is only proper to
consider that avidya is " resident " in brahman/atman. This does not in any
way lead to advaita hani because avyakruta is not of the same level of
reality.It can also vanish when we consider nirguna brahman who is then
without even this seed avidya. That is also the reason why it is called
anirvachaniya, it has to be inferred by the karya only ( of Creation etc ).
In his Panchadashi Sri Vidyaranya Swami while elaborating on the concept of
Maya says as much.

I am really surprised at the various posts in this thread as well as in
another thread that jiva also could be considered as cause for creation  by
adducing the reason that he is none other than brahman << jivo brahmaiva na
parah >>. Does it also follow that the statement << brahmo jivaiva na parah
>> is also valid. Pardon me for being crude but I think it is the briefest
way to establishing the inadmissibility of such a reasoning. Kindly do not
misunderstand my stand. If you consider it offensive, my apologies in
advance.

Regards


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > >  Kindly pardon me prabhuji.  I am not able to understand this clearly
> > with the purported intention of your goodself.  Do you mean to say here
> > avidyA pertains to brahman and not to jeeva??
> >
>
> Dear Bhaskar,
>
> The point of my rather cryptic earlier message was this - jIvo brahmaiva,
> i.e.
> ayam AtmA brahma.
>
> If you say that avidyA is strictly absence of knowledge, only a natural,
> mental
> affliction of the jIva, and that it has absolutely no relation to material
> reality as
> perceived, then a jIva that is separate from brahman, has to exist before
> avidyA
> even comes into the picture. This will be advaita-hAni, at some level, in
> an
> attempt to save avidyA from materiality (bhAva-rUpa ityAdi).
>
> If you accept that avidyA is a seed material entity responsible for a
> distinction
> between brahman and jIva, you still have to address whether this avidyA
> belongs
> to brahman or to jIva. If your answer begins with a distinction between
> the great
> brahman and the tiny jIva, that will be advaita-hAni as well.
>
> To even say the words, "tiny jIva" and "omniscient ISvara," and then to
> ask the
> question, "whose is avidyA?," one needs to presume avidyA. So long as one
> is
> caught up in this game, one can never step aside from avidyA.
>
> Therefore, in one sense, brahman is the abhinna-nimittopAdAna kAraNa of
> jagat,
> but as this is said only from the vyavahAra perspective, one presumes the
> duality
> set up by avidyA. One has to accept a second principle, call it mAyA, give
> it only a
> dependent reality on the independent reality, etc. Therefore, it is said
> that all this
> is avidyA-parikalpita, avidyA-lakshaNa etc. Whose is this avidyA? We will
> go round
> in this circle once again, unless we qualify any and every answer to this
> question
> with acknowledging the Sruti teaching that the jIva is ultimately brahman,
> not
> different.
>
> Once we do this qualification, the questions, did brahman create the jagat
> or did
> the jIva create the jagat becomes meaningless. For the jIva is realized as
> brahman
> alone, none else. What does it really mean to say that the jIva is brahman
> even
> when the jIva did not know itself as such? One can "save" brahman from
> avidyA by
> saying that avidyA does not affect brahman, only the jIva, but if one
> accepts that
> jIva is always "brahman alone, none else," even when it is under the sway
> of avidyA,
> one is indirectly saying that avidyA affects "brahman alone, none else."
>
> All this happens when one talks in a theoretical manner, presuming the
> very duality
> that advaita seeks to transcend. In reality, when jIva is known as brahman
> alone,
> none else, sRshTi is a non-event. There is no creation, no destruction, no
> bondage,
> no liberation. This may not seem like a satisfactory solution to the
> question of who
> created jagat, the great ISvara/brahman or the tiny jIva. It just makes
> the entire
> question meaningless and makes it goes away as a quite wrongly formulated
> issue.
>
> Best regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>