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

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 24 11:49:29 CDT 2014

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!

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
 with the inquirer. The question cannot be shied away from by
 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
 answers" , will await response from the original questioners
 in this thread
 before offering my own views.
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, subhanu <subhanu at hotmail.com>
 > 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
 > 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
 >  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
 > 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/
 To unsubscribe or change your options:
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list