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

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Bhaskarji,

I am not sure if we are discussing on the basis of different platforms in
which case there may not be any agreed common conclusions. Most of my
understanding perhaps conforms to vivarana school  ( I am not sure if it is
entirely in conformity with it either so I cannot vouchsafe for it )
whereas your arguments are in conformity with the Sri SSS school of
thought. Since the definitions and concepts of same terms in the two
schools are different we will not be talking of the same entity though
using same words !!!  Anyway for the sake of completion  I have attempted
to clarify my position on the points made by you. But perhaps no useful
purpose will be served by continuing this intersting discussion. Very
regrettable though.

P ::

<< >  I dont think scenario like this is necessary.  Since as per advaita,
what is there before creation in brahman is not in kArya rUpa it will be
in kAraNa rUpa only.  It is because of this only the ananyatva between
shakti & shakta has been endorsed by shankara when it comes to creation.
There is an interesting discussion with regard to this in bruhadAraNyaka
bhAshya.  Here pUrvapaxi asks :  at one place it has been said avyAkruta
(unmanifest) by itself become vyAkruta (manifest) and at another place it
is said that the Ishwara has did the job of making the avyAkruta as
vyAkruta and entered in vyAkruta (tatsrushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat) ??  For
this shankara gives the clarification : naisha dOshaH, parasyApi AtmanaH
avyAkrutajagadAtmatvena vivakshitatvAt..what is there is avyAkruta
jagatrUpa in brahman is nothing but brahman only.  Hence, advaita says
what is there in brahman before srushti is kAraNa only and this kAraNa
itself would become vyAkruta, the point to be noted here is kArya jagat is
not in kArya rUpa in brahman it is in kAraNa rUpa only in brahman before
creation.  Hence his 'ekatva' would not suffer. >>

H ::

I have not differed at all. Avyakruta is indeed in karanarupa only ( seed
form or potential form ). However it cannot be said to have the same status
of reality as brahman itself in which case it will have to be considered as
different from brahman and there is advaitahaani. It cannot be said to be
nonexistent also as Shruti itself confirms its existence. Hence it is
termed anirvachaniya and of a lower level of reality , and nondifferent
from brahman thus not affecting his " ekatva ".

P ::

<< >  I know there is a trend in advaita that treats 'mAya' and 'avidyA' on
equal terms uses both terms interchangeably.  But in this creation
context, there would be a lot of problem if we equate avidyA with mAya
prabhuji.  Here in this context what is there is brahman is avyAkruta
shakti rUpa (which is nothing but kAraNa only as cleared above) and nobody
would say 'avidyA' is the shakti of brahman...avidyA would always treated
as 'dOsha' 'anishta' 'klesha' only, if I am right nowhere it is said that
'avidyA' is the shakti in brahman in creation.  Kindly see what
bhagavatpAda says in sUtra bhAshya (2-1-18) :  kAraNasya Atma bhutA
shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Hope you would understand what
would be harm we are going to do to this bhAshya vAkya if we replace the
word shakti with 'avidyA'.  Hence, in this context, in this kAraya-kAraNa
prakriya, in this brahman's abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNatva of jagat
'avidyA' cannot be the paryAya pada of mAya since the mAya / avyAkruta /
avyakta / akshara / mUla prakruti etc. here nothing but kAraNa svarUpa
only which is none other than brahman. >>

H ::

Sri Bhaskarji, as I mentioned in the preamble, we are I think discussing on
different platforms. I have always considered Avidya ( with a capital A )
and Maya ( with a capital M ) as synonymous. My understanding and arguments
are based only on that. I would not like to enter into a discussion on the
relative merits of the two schools of thought. So I am not responding to
this observation and hold on to my previously stated position.

P ::

<<
<<
because avyakruta is not of the same level of reality.

> In the context of creation, shankara says whatever is their in avyAkruta
rUpa is brahman's shakti only or brahman only and vyAkruta rUpa (kArya) is
nothing different from that shakti and in turn this shakti is nothing but
brahman only. >>

H ::

I have covered this in the first part above.

P ::

<< >  It would be better if we clearly define what exactly is 'mithyA' and
what is 'anirvachaneeya' !!??  If we already determined something as
'mithyA' we cannot say at the same time it is anirvachaneeya also.
Shankara gives the example of water-foam while explaining tatvAnyatvAbhyAm
anirvachaneeya.  So, it is clear that shankara uses this 'visheshaNa'
(adjective) 'anirvachaneeya' to the thing that is already exist in
different forms which pertains to pratyaksha and shAstra in the form of
shakti-shakta or kArya-kAraNa.  Where as mithyatva is kevala kalpita jneya
due to anyathAgrahaNa.  Example, if we see the 'sarpa' in 'rajju', 'sarpa
jnAna' is mithyAjnAna (due to lack of correct knowledge of 'rope) and here
mithyatva or mithyAstitva or 'mithyA sarpa' is the vishaya (subject) of
kevala 'kalpita jneya'.  It cannot be anirvachaneeya, we dont say I am
seeing some anirvachaneeya sarpa in rajju.  Either it should be correct
jnAna of rajju or mithyAjnAna of sarpa.  For elaboration on these issues,
kindly see Sri SSS's work with regard to 'asatkArya vAda' or
anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda.>>

H ::

Same answer. The two arguments are based on different platforms.

P ::

<<
 << In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
power.


>  It is agreeable to me also.  But as you might have seen brahma - maya
power = shakti rahita brahman, who does not have the capacity to do
anything  whereas brahma + maya power = Ishwara who is mAyAshabAlita
brahma who can create jagat.  So, here it is very clear that brahman needs
an external force like mAya to become Ishwara mere nirguNa parabrahman is
NOT  capable of anything since he remains always shakti rahita. >>

H ::

Maaya is not considered " external " or " internal " at all. Its "
residence " in brahman or otherwise is anirvachaniya. Before Creation it
remains unmanifest and for Creation it becomes manifest. Difference in our
approach is due to same reason ;; different platforms.

Regards


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> H ::
>
> When the Shruti states as in the above vakya that avyakruta does indeed
> exist in seed form prior to
> creation, and at the same time it maitains that brahman is
> nirguna/nirvikari etc It has to be accepted that nature of "residence" of
> ayakruta is anirvachaniya and of a lower level of reality. This change in
> status of avyakruta itself means that its characteristics cannot affect in
> any way the nature of brahman.
>
> >  I dont think scenario like this is necessary.  Since as per advaita,
> what is there before creation in brahman is not in kArya rUpa it will be
> in kAraNa rUpa only.  It is because of this only the ananyatva between
> shakti & shakta has been endorsed by shankara when it comes to creation.
> There is an interesting discussion with regard to this in bruhadAraNyaka
> bhAshya.  Here pUrvapaxi asks :  at one place it has been said avyAkruta
> (unmanifest) by itself become vyAkruta (manifest) and at another place it
> is said that the Ishwara has did the job of making the avyAkruta as
> vyAkruta and entered in vyAkruta (tatsrushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat) ??  For
> this shankara gives the clarification : naisha dOshaH, parasyApi AtmanaH
> avyAkrutajagadAtmatvena vivakshitatvAt..what is there is avyAkruta
> jagatrUpa in brahman is nothing but brahman only.  Hence, advaita says
> what is there in brahman before srushti is kAraNa only and this kAraNa
> itself would become vyAkruta, the point to be noted here is kArya jagat is
> not in kArya rUpa in brahman it is in kAraNa rUpa only in brahman before
> creation.  Hence his 'ekatva' would not suffer.
>
>
> Also it may be emphasized here that " avidya
> " is the power " Maya " and not " anishta " which includes all the three
> gunas corresponding to the three shaktis jnana/icha/kriya .  There is
> absolutely no doubt that this interpretation has to be based on Sri
> Bhagavatpada Bhashya  which has been elaborated upon by by many jnanis
> themselves including Sri Vidyaranya Swami.
>
> >  I know there is a trend in advaita that treats 'mAya' and 'avidyA' on
> equal terms uses both terms interchangeably.  But in this creation
> context, there would be a lot of problem if we equate avidyA with mAya
> prabhuji.  Here in this context what is there is brahman is avyAkruta
> shakti rUpa (which is nothing but kAraNa only as cleared above) and nobody
> would say 'avidyA' is the shakti of brahman...avidyA would always treated
> as 'dOsha' 'anishta' 'klesha' only, if I am right nowhere it is said that
> 'avidyA' is the shakti in brahman in creation.  Kindly see what
> bhagavatpAda says in sUtra bhAshya (2-1-18) :  kAraNasya Atma bhutA
> shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Hope you would understand what
> would be harm we are going to do to this bhAshya vAkya if we replace the
> word shakti with 'avidyA'.  Hence, in this context, in this kAraya-kAraNa
> prakriya, in this brahman's abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNatva of jagat
> 'avidyA' cannot be the paryAya pada of mAya since the mAya / avyAkruta /
> avyakta / akshara / mUla prakruti etc. here nothing but kAraNa svarUpa
> only which is none other than brahman.
>
> P ::
>
> <<
> because avyakruta is not of the same level of reality.
>
> > In the context of creation, shankara says whatever is their in avyAkruta
> rUpa is brahman's shakti only or brahman only and vyAkruta rUpa (kArya) is
> nothing different from that shakti and in turn this shakti is nothing but
> brahman only. >>
>
> H ::
>
> Yes. But this shakti is also declared as " anirvachaniya " . Hence
> anything
> coming out of this shakti enjoys the same level of reality , that is
> anirvachaniya or mithya.
>
>
> >  It would be better if we clearly define what exactly is 'mithyA' and
> what is 'anirvachaneeya' !!??  If we already determined something as
> 'mithyA' we cannot say at the same time it is anirvachaneeya also.
> Shankara gives the example of water-foam while explaining tatvAnyatvAbhyAm
> anirvachaneeya.  So, it is clear that shankara uses this 'visheshaNa'
> (adjective) 'anirvachaneeya' to the thing that is already exist in
> different forms which pertains to pratyaksha and shAstra in the form of
> shakti-shakta or kArya-kAraNa.  Where as mithyatva is kevala kalpita jneya
> due to anyathAgrahaNa.  Example, if we see the 'sarpa' in 'rajju', 'sarpa
> jnAna' is mithyAjnAna (due to lack of correct knowledge of 'rope) and here
> mithyatva or mithyAstitva or 'mithyA sarpa' is the vishaya (subject) of
> kevala 'kalpita jneya'.  It cannot be anirvachaneeya, we dont say I am
> seeing some anirvachaneeya sarpa in rajju.  Either it should be correct
> jnAna of rajju or mithyAjnAna of sarpa.  For elaboration on these issues,
> kindly see Sri SSS's work with regard to 'asatkArya vAda' or
> anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda.
>
>
> P ::
>
> << In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
> power.
>
>
> >  It is agreeable to me also.  But as you might have seen brahma - maya
> power = shakti rahita brahman, who does not have the capacity to do
> anything  whereas brahma + maya power = Ishwara who is mAyAshabAlita
> brahma who can create jagat.  So, here it is very clear that brahman needs
> an external force like mAya to become Ishwara mere nirguNa parabrahman is
> NOT  capable of anything since he remains always shakti rahita.
>
>
> There is no change in It becuse maya is vivarta in nirguna brahman.
> Devadatta's example does not in any way vitiate this position. There is
> really no change in the " person " devadatta when the postures are
> changed.>>
>
> >  Yes, this is what shankara says..but story is entirely different
> according to some when it comes to creation :-))
>
> 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
>