[Advaita-l] 'world' is not the mental creation of tiny soul !!
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 28 00:31:38 CDT 2014
Subbuji - PraNAms
With due respects, I still feel one has to be careful in interpreting the pourusheya slokas if it appears to contradict the statements of srithi. jnaamadyasya yathaH defining Brahman (Iswara) using the taTastha lakshna cannot not be applied to local tiny BMI identified jiiva where the BMI is part of that creation. If you say Jiiva in reality is nothing but Brahman, then we are talking about from the point of jnaani. If jiiva thinks that is the local tiny BMI which is essentially jiiva-hood, he cannot be the creation of the cosmos. We cannot have both ways here. Either accept that jiiva that is being mentioned as the creator of the entire cosmos is not from the local BMI point but from Iswara point. Apply the same thing to the dream world. The dream world is not the projection of the mind of the subject in the dream who is running away from the chasing tiger in the dense forest, but the total mind that pervades the whole creation, the tiny jiivas BMI,
his notions, the tiger, the forest and any other chara achara in that world. The tiny subject in the dream cannot create the tiger and the run away from it.
vyaavahaarika satyam has to differ from the praatibhaasika in that not only cognition but transaction is involved - such as running away from the tiger or shooting it either in the waking world or in the dream world.
Cognition does not involve creation and then cognizing that creation by the local mind. Mind perceives what is there that which is beyond its creation. Even in praatibhaasika when the local mind is projecting as in the case of snake on a rope, the snake comes from the memory of the object perceived in the past or assembled in the mind using the perceived objects such as hare with horns etc. The assembled parts are again not the creation of the tiny jiiva in the praatibhaasika.
I would interpret the mental creation mentioned in the sloka not to the objective world outside but formation of the vRittis in the mind which becomes knowledge of the subject, chidaabhaasa. Here the local mind is only creating the vRitti of the object for volition and cognition and what Krishna says is what ever you cognize using the mind is mithyaa which as I mentioned Shankara says - dRisyatvaat - in this commentary on Madukya kaarika.
I am unable to accept your interpretation that the cosmic creation is by the local mind therefore it is mithyaa. I would say it is by the global mind and is taken as real by ajnaani's mind until he recognizes that it is neither sat nor asat,, thus becoming jnaani.
Only when using that mind when a jnaani understands that I am not this tiny mind but I am the substratum for the entire universe, then one can say that identified Brahman is the creation of the entire universe in tune with the scriptural statements.
I would say you are extending the rope/snake example beyond the range of applicability. Shankara uses the example to indicate the adhyaaas aspect. There are two types of adhyaasa - sOpaadika and nirupaadika that I know you are familiar. Rope/snake which is praatibhaasika error and mirage waters or appearing red crystal, or modern example of sunrise and sunset etc or more vyaavahaarik adhyaasa - both come under mithyaa, dRisyatvaat. Shankara is not endorsing cosmic creation by the local tiny jiiva's mind. Jnaani and ajnaani see the Iswara sRishTi - the difference as you know the one sees as mithyaa while other thinks it is satyam. Hence contextual interpretation has to be done in tune with whole vedantic teaching.
Since we are not going anywhere, I will stop with this unless I am wrong in saying that it is not the global mind that creates the cosmas in tune with Krishnas' many statements in Geeta - prabhavaH pralaya sthaanam.. gatir bhartha prabhuH saakshii, mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat .. etc. as you are very familiar. Laya and pralaya and mahaa pralaya are distinctly different one from micro and the other from macro. aabrahma lOkaaH... etc are all part of macro and cannot be created by tiny jiiva and then entering into those. Creating and then cognizing by the local mind comes from my understanding close to vijnaana vaada than Vedanta.
Sorry I am unable to accept your interpretation that tiny jiiva's mind is creates the whole cosmos and then cognizes it and therefore whatever cognized by that mind is mithyaa. What ever cognized is mithyaa as dRisyatvaat is true but that need not involve creation by the local jiiva.
He only creates more confusion on top of Iswara creation which we call it as jiiva srushti.
Since I have nothing more to add, I stop here.
On Thu, 3/27/14, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian 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: Thursday, March 27, 2014, 3:28 AM
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:12 AM,
kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> Subbuji - PraNAms
> What I have mentioned is local mind cannot create and
then cognize and
> then say that it is illusion. That is not Vedanta.
Global mind, yes- which
> we call Iswara.
> The above sloka you quoted is in tune with my
Dear Sri Sada ji,
The bhAgavatam verse is not about any global mind called
is about the individual's mind who is being addressed in
those verses. The
verse is an upadesha for Uddhava, an individual and not
him the Lord says: whatever is comprehended by the
instrumentality of the
mind, senses, etc. is mAyAmanomayam, an imagination,
reverie. The Lord is
not talking of Hiranyagarbha/Ishwara's creation for they do
not use the
mind, senses, etc. for apprehending the world. Also,
it would be
irrelevant to Uddhava to talk of Ishwara's creation and
asking him to see
it as mAyAmanomayam. Uddhava cannot correct Ishwara's
> Hence- sa kaale satyavat bhaati PRABHODE satyasat
bhavet - says Shankara -
> applicable to both dream creation and creation in the
waking world. The key
> word is prabhode - All the slokas that you quoted can
> interpreted from the perspective of jnaani than ajnaani
where one shifts to
> aatama-anaatma reference.
What the Jnani realizes is the path, practice, for the
ajnani. Also, in
the manIshA panchakam verse, the Jnani says: all this is
imagined by me
through avidyA. Where is avidyA for Jnani?
> As you know the Advaita makaranda sloka you
mentioned -... jagat gandharva
> pattanam -comes as the third sloka - after establishing
> brahmaasmi in the first two slokas and even in that
sloka it says -
> sarvajnam sarvakaaraNam - that does not pertain to the
The shloka is addressed to the ajnani for contemplation,
practice. He is
not to be tied down to the local mind; he has to expand,
elevate himself to
the higher prakriyA of eka jIva construct and view all
minds, etc. as the projection of his own mind.
> My point is one has to obviously interpret smRiti
slokas in consistent
> with Vedanta. I am sure you agree with that. The
point is only to come up
> what is the correct interpretation that is in tune with
In fact the question does not arise at all, as I pointed out
Himself is commenting on the shruti-creation bahu syAm
'rope-snake like projection, an imagination of the
mind.' It is already in
tune with the bhAgavatam /advaitamakaranada/manishApanchakam
So, if the charge of wrongly interpreting the bhAgavatam
smRti verse is
raised, it is first applicable to Shankara.
> This is my understanding : As long as one is in the
triad format -
> jiiva-jagat-Iswara- which involves I am a jiiva notion
with the local BMI
> as I am, the creation is not by that local mind and
after creating perceive
> with the mind that it has mind created all the
attributive world that it
> perceives using again its senses and then cognize it as
if it is there
> outside that local BMI.
Actually, the adhyAsa bhashya itself is the ground for the
construct. There itself we have the avidyA-base for
the pramAtru, his
mind, sense organs, reactions, etc.
> Even for praatibhaasika one uses the attributive
content of the snake or
> ghost from the memory that is projected on the object.
atasmin tat buddhiH
> involves (a) the object that is there that mind
did not create, (b) the
> projection of attributes of another object from the
memory based on (c) the
> prior perception of the object that the mind did not
All these questions are answered by Advaitins. There
is anAdi adhyAsa and
the question of any prior knowledge of the object
superimposed is not there
to be addressed. It is enough if the object is
> I must say that so far my understanding has not been
negated - that the
> creation is not by the local mind but by the global
mind, where local mind
> only cognizes as well as transacts with what is created
by the global mind.
> This transactions can continue even after jaanam. As I
> mind can create on top of what is created by global
mind due to its raaga
> dweshaas which we call as jiiva shRiShTi in contrast to
Iswara shRiShTi as
> vidyaranaya discusses in 4th Chapter of Pancadashi.
Jiiva sRiShTi is the
> cause for samsaara and not Iswara sRiShTi. The
difference is very important
> from jnaanam point, which I know that you know.
Actually in that very chapter, soon after the above
Vidyaranya wants the aspirant to take steps to eradicate the
dvaitam. pl. ref. to verses 38 onwards of that
chapter. He says: the
jIva-created dvaitam can be subdued during dhyAna/samAdh but
that will not
put an end to his re-birth cycles. For that he has to
know that the entire
dvaitam (not just jIva-created) has to be known to be
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list