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

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 16 02:28:45 CDT 2014

Bhaskarji – PraNAms

I just had a chance to go over your post. 

Here are some comments you may wish to consider, otherwise you can ignore them.

You started well saying that paaramaarthika point – it is pure sat chit ananda – ekam eva adivittiiyam brahma – as pointers that scriptures provide  - but nothing can be said nor need to be said regarding Brahman, the infiniteness or limitless hence ananda swaruupa. 

sRiShTi –sthithi and laya are all based on the vyaavahaarika satyam level with karma which itself is generated due to avidya as the basis for creation. Hence karmaphala daata, Iswara who becomes the abhinna nimitta upaadana kaaraNa the creation as Tai. Up quote you have mentioned – yatovaa imaani bhuutani … etc. scripture itself provides the sat itself became many based on the karma principle. All this at vyavahaaraika level – now we have brought Iswara as creator, controller ect with all the Gunas in terms of sarvajnatvam etc. 

All terms of description will drop out from Brahman point since from paramarthika point nothing can be said about Brahman. Hence from now on as we account jiiva-jagat-Iswara we should only stick to the vyaavahaarika satyam only. What I find in write up by saying Iswara/brahman there is unintentional switching from saguna Iswara to nirguna Brahman – thus shifting from vyaavahaarika to paaramaarthika. If we strictly limit the usage of Iswara to vyaavahaarika as creator, etc and as karmaphala daata, etc and use Brahman to indicate the nirguna sat chit ananda swaruupa, then there will be less of confusion for everybody – otherwise there is shift of reference, even unintentionally, from vyaavahaarika to paaramaarthika, with one leg here and one leg there.  I am providing the pertinent statements of yours where there is apparent shift from Brahman to Iswara and back. 

When we consider creation is a real event, shAstra tells us for this creation brahman is the ekameva abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  He is both efficient and material cause of this jagat. Ishwara at the beginning of every kalpa thinks about the creation as per his previous kalpa creation………
We may ask the question here, How ApatakAma Ishwara got the idea of creation, what he has to do with it ??  how does the pravrutti of srushti kArya generated in brahman??  
The pravrutti of Ishwara is because of jeeva..to give karma phala to the jeeva-s Ishwara involves himself in srushti kArya.  (the doubts like how jeeva first generated and how they got the first karma phala etc. are mute here!!) So, in short, srushti is there for jeeva to get their karma phala and this karma phala distribution (karmAdhyaksha says shvetaashvatara) will be done by Ishwara as per jeeva's karma.  Ishwara/brahman is the nimitta kAraNa (efficient cause) and he first thought of his creation to set a stage to jeeva-s.   


Now, for  the question whether it is parabrahman (nirvishesha) or mAyAvishesha, sOpAdhika brahman depicted as creator??   shankara himself answers in the sUtra bhAshya (1-1-2) :  The origination etc. of the universe with these characterstics cannot be possibly conceived to be effected by any cause other than the Ishwara possessing these qualities.  And in sUtra (1-2-21) bhAshya shankara further clarifies : This source of all beings the possessor of qualities like invisibility etc. is the HIGHEST LORD (parameshwara) ONLY nothing else.  How is this conclusion arrived at ??  Because his attributes have been cited.  The clause : He who is all knowing (sarvajna) and all perceiving (sarva druk) evidently refers to the exclusive attribute of the highest lord.  Some may argue here, since brahman is nirguNa, nirvishesha, niravayava, nirvikAri and he is one without second how can he be with attributes??  in what sense it is sarvajna, sarvashakta?? is it
 contradiction in terms to say that there isno act of knowing on the part of brahman and yet it is sarvajna, it exercises no power (since nothing else is there to show its power) and yet it is sarvashakta??  how can brahman know at all before creation since it has no upAdhi then and hence brahman must have something extra (which is not his svarUpa) to become sarvajna and sarvashakta and that something extra is called mAya / avyAkruta / avyakta etc. which gives force to brahman and if this external force is not there, then brahman is buddhi heena (an idiot), shakti heena (impotent).  

Sada: Bhaskarji – I find all our your rhetorical questions about Brahman is not valid if we stick to the use of the word Brahman to pure sat chit ananda – No further questions about Brahman should be there or need be there. Since the questions pertain within vyavahaara only, then they pertain to Iswara only and from Iswara everybody agrees that he has to sarvajna, sarva shaktimaan etc. The confusion arises only if we shift the reference to Brahman where knowability is also not there – You cannot even say Brahmna has self-awareness. Hence the moment you use the term sarva .. anything you, we come down to vyaavahaarika Iswara not Brahman. This distinction should be very clear otherwise we confuse ourselves and others too. para and apara are again related to vyavahaara only as Geeta 7 slokas  Bhuumiraapo .. etc and apareyam .. etc. since there are no distinctions of para and apara in Brahman- see your statements below:
For these mundane doubts on the highest (para) brahman shankara answers vividly in Itareya's very first maNtra (1-1-1).  And if we look at svetAsvatara maNtra (6-8) if would be further clear, it says : he has no body and no senses.  There is none equal to or greater than HIM.  His supreme power is heard to be variously described, and belonging to HIS VERY NATURE is His knowledge, strength and act (jnAna, shakti & kriya).  No need to mention here consciousness is here described as brahman's very nature and so also is HIS POWER.   

In this regard, two startling evidences from shankara's sUtra bhAshya quite relevant to understand how the sarvashaktitva, sarjnatva etc. are inherent in parabrahman which he exercises / exhibits at the time creation and it does not depend on any external force to become sarvajna and sarva shakta.   

(a) ekshatyadhikaraNa - sUtra - EkshatenArshabdaM (1-1-5) :- (pleas check for the origianl Sanskrit bhAshya) 

Sada: There is no inherence also in Pure sat chit ananda Brahman. All these discussions only pertain to vyavahaara and Iswara only. Potency, utility and anything else you can add – all pertain only to Iswara not to Brahman. The statements below again I find a shift from Iswara to Brahman- a shift on reference state. 
It is self contradiction to maintain the one who possesses eternal consciousness capable or throwing light on everything, is not omniscient.  If his knowledge were impermanent, he could know things sometimes and could not know at other times, and consequently it would follow that he may not be omniscient.  This defect is inconceivable in case His consciousness is eternal.   

the point to be noted from the above is that consciousness being his very nature, it is inconceivable that he does not know certain things on certain occasions.  So, as the consciousness is his very nature so is his omniscience and omnipotence are his very nature.   

(b) ArabhaNAdhikaraNa - sUtra - yukteH shabdAntarAccha ( 2-1-18) --( as a note : 2-1-14 also importat here to know how effect is not different from cause) :- 

The power which may be supposed to inhere in the cause in order to ensure a particular effect (and no other), cannot ensure the production of the particular effect, if it is other than the cause, or non-existent .  For in that case, it would be quite like any other thing which is non-existent or other than the cause (and there could be no valid reason why that cause alone should produce the particular effect).  Hence we have to conclude that the POWER IS IDENTICAL WITH THE CAUSE AND THE EFFECT IS IDENTICAL WITH THE POWER.   

In short as per shankara siddhAnta para brahman apara brahman and Ishwara is that the same brahman only and this same brahman is called highest brahman (para brahman) when it is jneya and Ishwara or the omniscient and omnipotent when it is thought of as the cause and ruler of the phinomenal world which contains individual souls.  
Sada: Omnipotency, omnisciency, omnipresence all pertain to Iswara only and not to Brahman as nothing can be said – na vaak gacchati na manaH, yato vaacho nivertante apraapya manasaa saha. .. Hence what you have said applies to vyaavahaarika Iswara only not to paaramaarthika Brahman. This distinction is very important as one moves from triangular format – jiiva-jagat-Iswara to binary format – aatma-anaatma vichaara. 

And now finally to the big question : can this complex, sublime and systematic order of world be created by tiny soul called jeeva??   If we see the above in detail, this question does not arise at all.  But our compassionate shankara, for those who still say that this jagat is mere mental creation of individual jeeva clarifies as follows : 
Sada: Question is posed by jiiva only and the very notion of jiiva is due to avidya. In that sense both ekajiiva or aneka jiva vadaas are both in the realm of ajnaana jiiva. When the jiiva-hood itself is questioned, then the above questions also gets sublimated since one sees only aatma-anaatma with no jiiva – eka or aneka.
Bhaskarji, I know you know, therefore I am only pointing out the shift in reference state as we should be careful otherwise we can keep arguing endlessly even though we know what is vyaavahaarika and what is paaramaarthika from the advaita darshanam. 

Hari Om!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list