[Advaita-l] BhAgavatam : The objective world is illusory

[H S Chandramouli]

<< which says that the objective world grasped by the senses is but a
phantom
creation of
the mind, illusory:  >>

The use of the word mind as the cause of the illusion in respect of
creation I think always is confusing. Individual jiva's mind itself is an
illusory creation from the paramarthic standpoint. So is Creation. Hence
should not the word for cause of Creation be interpreted as Maya only
instead of mind ? Nodoubt subsequently in some places the word maya is also
used. But is it not preferable to use the word maya only anytime the
context is Creation. This could avoid a lot of confusion for the students
of vedanta. I have often heard this from many other learners as the use of
the word mind is fairly common both in literature and lectures. Or is my
understanding itself wrong ?

Regards


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> which says that the objective world grasped by the senses is but a phantom
> creation of
> the mind, illusory:
>
> >  I am always at trouble when it is said that world is mere illusion of
> mind..because this is the theory of vijnAnavAda (bauddha mata) which
> shankara refutes in sUtra bhAshya (for example in 3rd adhyAya).  I think
> important point to be noted here is world AS GRASPED by the senses is
> ofcourse an illusion, because it varies from individual to individual
> according to his/her taste and tendency...but world AS IT IS is nothing
> but HIM since he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for the jagat.  For
> example if one sees a rose AS A ROSE without attributing any visheshaNa to
> it,( like it is red, it is big, it smells good, it;s petals are weak, good
> if we keep it in pooja room, bad if my girl friend rejects it :-)) etc)
> then that rose is ROSE only without any visheshaNa attributed by the
> conditioned mind/senses.  And this rose is  which is without any
> visheshaNa is always remains ROSE only without any attributes.  Perhaps
> that is what the below bhAgavata quote is saying :
>
> // not having a reality apart from the dRk, seer //
>
> >  Yes, there is no reality for the jagat apart from THAT...hence it is
> said in chAndOgya that when nAma rUpa vikAra is treated separately from IT
> is asatya, but when it is seen from its 'sadrUpa' it is SATYA only...
>
> 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
>