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

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> 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

This then goes back to the basic questions, answers to which distinguish the
various sub-schools of advaita from one another.
 
> 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

But it is to be noted that he who considers nirguNa brahman, without this
avidyA, without this anAtman in seed form, he himself is that very brahman.
nirguNa brahman can never be the object of anyone's reasoning process. It
only appears as an object of such consideration via the reasoner's mind and
any talk of the presence of the mind invariably presumes that very avidyA.
 
> 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.

Agreed, and no need to apologize to me! From the vyavahAra perspective, it
stands to reason that an individual jIva cannot possibly create jagat. From the
paramArtha perspective, however, the jIva is not an individual, but brahman.
But then, from the paramArtha perspective, there is no more jagat either.

I'm afraid, not keeping these two perspectives of discourse apart is tightly tied
in with a certain lack of clarity in how people use various technical terms and
what meanings they associate with them.
 
Rather than asking about jIva creating this jagat  or brahman creating this jagat
and debating endlessly, the root question is really about avidyA - whose is it
and what is its nature? I believe if we went back to that, that would be useful.
At the same time, I would like to add the caveat that trying to pinpoint this
down to one definitive answer is like trying to find where darkness exists by
taking a lamp to it.
 
Best regards,
Vidyasankar