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

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Kuntimaddiji,

Reg << Hence the best way is we do have jiiva-jagat-Iswara as long as jiiva
notion is there. and with knowledge we shift to aatma-anaatma diad and the
whole question of ignorance get sublimated. The creation becomes vibhuti of
the aatma. >>

You have mentioned " with knowledge " . Agreed. But during this period when
knowledge is not yet aquired, in order to aquire the same ,  is it not
necessary to   deliberate on avidya, its nature, origin, locus. its
undesirable effects ,  etc. Absolutely agreed, since we are mired in avidya
itself, it is not possible to understand it fully. I am not saying it is
possible. But unless there is a desire to get out of it, it is clearly not
possible to undertake any sadhnas for transcending it. It is only for this
that vichara on avidya is essential. I do feel this is not overemphasizing
the issue. In fact I think in our anxiety to move forward quickly to the
final Goal, we are perhaps underemphasizing the preliminary steps so
essential for undertaking the further steps.

Regards


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:19 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Chandramouli and Subhanuji - PraNAms
>
> I do feel that the question is being overemphasized. The best answer is -
> ignorance belongs to the one who does not know that he is Brahman and when
> he understands that he is, his vision shifts form jiiva-jagat-Iswara triad
> to aatma-anaatma diad with anaatma as adhyaaropa on adhiShTaanam aatma, the
> self which is now understood as Brahman.
>
> Brahman cannot have ignorance but there is nothing other than Brahman.
> Hence Ignorance rests on Brahman only. This is possible since ontologically
> ignorance and Brahman are of different orders of reality. At this point, we
> can just say, since there is nothing other than Brahman, Brahman identified
> with jiiva has the ignorance - that is possible again since jiva notion and
> ignorance order is different from Brahman and Brahman as jiiva can have
> ignorance.
>
> Is world mental creation of tiny soul - No.
>
>  When we use the word tiny - automatically we have given a realty to the
> jiiva and tiny jiiva cannot create the entire universe with the rest of the
> beings (jiivas in it).. Once a tiny jiiva is identified by very exclusion
>  other tiny jiivas which are infinite of them are also get solidified along
> with Iswara, who has maayaa as sum total of all the vaasanaas of all tiny
> jiivas put together.
>
> Let us the same question about the dream world of creation.
>
> Is dream world mental creation of the dream subject. No it is the creation
> of the waker's mind which pervades the whole dream world that includes all
> the jiivas, jagat and Iswara. The scriptural statement is after creation he
> entered into - upavishati. Who enters into what? Iswara after creation as
> though enters into the localized jiiva. Which jiiva? In principle, life is
> pulsating all jiivas and each jiiva has to interact in that frame of
> reality with all other jiivas in that world. If there is a eka jiiva then
> aneka jiivas also get solidified. You can not have one tiny jiiva and
> ignore other tiny jiivas that are  there that this tiny jiiva is
> transacting.
>
> The problem I find is shifting from micro to macro since creation is macro
> while jiiva notion is by the tiny statement is localized. Jiiiva has his
> own tiny creation which results in samsara since he superimposes his raga
> and dveshaas on the Iswara's creation.
>
> Hence the best way is we do have jiiva-jagat-Iswara as long as jiiva
> notion is there. and with knowledge we shift to aatma-anaatma diad and the
> whole question of ignorance get sublimated. The creation becomes vibhuti of
> the aatma.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 3/24/14, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'world' is not the mental creation of tiny soul
> !!
>  To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Date: Monday, March 24, 2014, 11:36 AM
>
>  Since there has been no response so
>  far to the post by Sri Subhanuji, I
>  thought I would just make a simple point without entering
>  into the question
>  and answer themselves. The whole point arises because Sri
>  SSS is critical
>  of mulavidya approach and advances the adhyasa approach. In
>  the process he
>  maintains that with the elimination of adhyasa by knowledge,
>  realization is
>  attained. How then can one go about deliberating on this
>  subject unless one
>  knows whose avidya is to be eliminated ? Surely one cannot
>  do so by
>  considering adhyasa and knowledge as some external elements
>  unconnected
>  with the inquirer. The question cannot be shied away from by
>  maintaining
>  that the question is not relevant. In fact It is the only
>  relevant question
>  apart from the solution to the same.
>
>  On the observation about Sri Bhagavatpada's " frustratingly
>  evasive
>  answers" , will await response from the original questioners
>  in this thread
>  before offering my own views.
>
>  Regards
>
>
>  On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, subhanu <subhanu at hotmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>  > V Subramanian wrote:“Where, in whom, does this
>  AtmAjnAnAtatA [//“api tu
>  > ajñātātmaiva kāraṇam ityasmākam abhyupagamah “
>  ,//
>  > inhere as per SriSwamiji? remains to be answered.
>  Is it Brahman that has
>  > the AtmAjnAtatA or the jIva?
>  > Has sri Swamiji said anything on this?
>  > From what I understandfrom the quotes given by you
>  here, Sri SSS is
>  > non-committal on that. “ And“I would like scholars
>  to comment on the
>  > samAsa (ajnAtAtmA) shown above and offer other
>  possibilities too to make
>  > the understanding firm.” Namaste, I would like to
>  throw some light on the
>  > comments and questions above:1)
>     We can see Sri Swamiji’s view from his
>  > comments in Māṇḍūkya Rahasya Vivrittih 1.2
>  section 24 ajnātam brahma khalu
>  > sabῑjam brahmochyate,  Brahman unknown is
>  falsely imagined to be Brahman
>  > with causative seed. This is in keeping with Suresvara
>  ajnātāmaikasamsiddha
>  > bῑjāvastham idam jagat [BUBV 1.4.191]-This world
>  appears to have the
>  > “state” of seed causality because atman is not
>  known. As has already been
>  > mentioned by others on the list, duality is falsely
>  imagined [kalpitam
>  > prasajed dvaitam at BUBV 5.1.31]. Sri HS Chandramouli
>  sent me a Kannada
>  > phrase from one of Sri Swamiji’s works where he
>  explicitly states he does
>  > not support the view that the jiva “creates” the
>  world2)     With regards
>  > to where/in whom is ajnātātmatā, Sri Swamiji
>  strictly follows Shankara and
>  > Suresvara. VPP section 223 (section 225 in Alston’s
>  English translation)
>  > has: avidyā jñātur eva na jñeyasya,
>  ātmano’apyajnānāshrayatvam ajnānādeva
>  > nānyathā ityetat bhāṣya-vārtikayoh spaṣṭam:
>  “Ignorance has its seat in the
>  > knower, not the known, and the notion that the Self is
>  the seat of
>  > ignorance is as a result of ignorance and nothing else.
>  This is the clear
>  > view of Shankara and Suresvara”. All will be familiar
>  with Shankara’s
>  > frustratingly evasive responses to the question
>  “whose is avidyā?” at BSB
>  > 4.1.3 and Gita 13.2, where the response is “to
>  whomever is asking the
>  > question”. Equally Suresvara tells us at SV 176
>  nāvidyāsyetyavidyāyām
>  >  evāsitvā prakalpyate; brahmadriṣṭyā
>  tvavidyeyam na kathanchana yujyate
>  > “No, the notion that ignorance has its seat in the
>  absolute and belongs to
>  > it is itself only imagined in ignorance. From the
>  standpoint of Brahman,
>  > ignorance cannot exist in any way”. This should be
>  clear to all: since the
>  > notions of space and time do not apply to Brahman, how
>  can one talk of
>  > something being “in Brahman”? For further details
>  on Sri Swamiji’s views
>  > please consult his comments at VPP section 75, where he
>  discusses Maṇḍana
>  > Mishra’s views on the seat of ignorance, or his
>  comments on Nai Si 3.1 in
>  > kleshāpahāriṇῑ on the same topic. Now you may
>  wonder why Shankara gives
>  > such an elusive answer to the question “whose is
>  avidyā?”. Well it is
>  > because the answers to certain questions in
>  Shankara’s tradition yield no
>  > productive value, and are of the nature of a
>  nirarthakah prashnah, a
>  > valueless question. Why is this? Well it is because one
>  who is afflicted
>  > with ignorance can never know its nature. Suresvara
>  tells as at SV 179
>  > avidyāvān avidyām tām na nirūpayitum kshamah, one
>  endowed with ignorance
>  > can never know its nature. This is the point
>  Vidyasankar makes in his March
>  > 18 post (those of you who are observant will note how
>  he deftly quotes N.S
>  > 3.66, ignorance does not brook enquiry, as it is like
>  searching for dark
>  > with a lamp). Such questions where the answers are
>  valueless are:-
>  > What is the nature of avidyā? Is it positive or
>  negative?-       Whose is
>  > avidyā?-       What causes my
>  confusion?It is sufficient for Shankara,
>  > Gaudapada and Suresvara and their tradition to point
>  out the error so it
>  > can be removed for a qualified aspirant through the
>  shruti texts alone such
>  > as tat tvam asi. To the extent it is helpful, one can
>  at most characterise
>  > one’s ignorance as imagined, of the nature of “I do
>  not know”, established
>  > in our everyday experience through lack of critical
>  reflection. Nothing
>  > more is needed for the sādhaka who is qualified to
>  receive the teachings of
>  > vedānta. This can be frustrating for many, as our
>  nature is to look for the
>  > cause of something, or know what it is and where it
>  came from. We even have
>  > the following statement in the Shri Dakshinamurthy Math
>  Prakashana edition
>  > of Pañchapādikā p xxix (which includes the
>  commentaries vivaraṇam ,
>  > tattva-dῑpana, and rjuvivaraṇam-an excellent
>  reference book for all serious
>  > students of advaita), made by the renowned scholar
>  Panditraja
>  > Shastraratnakara S Subrahmanya Shastri: “It is
>  undeniable that the great
>  > master Sankara did not work out all the implications of
>  his avidyā, for he
>  > was more interested in brahmavāda”. Now many on this
>  list, regardless of
>  > whether they follow vivaraṇa-prasthānam,
>  bhāmati-prasthānam or
>  > bhaṣya-prasthanam of Holenarsipur Swami, will dispute
>  this statement by an
>  > authority on vivaraṇam, and will feel that
>  Shankara’s words as-is are
>  > sufficient to fully explain his tradition. However, it
>  just shows how
>  > strong is the impulse within the tradition to attempt
>  to answer such
>  > questions as the 3 above. I would submit that the
>  simple solution is to
>  > never forget that the ātmavichāra of advaita is the
>  enquiry into Brahman,
>  > not avidyā. When in doubt, strive to understand
>  Brahman, not avidyā.
>  > RegardsSubhanu
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>