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

[H S Chandramouli]

<< > 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.


*The student of vedAnta is supposed to be: medhAvI puruSho vidwAn
UhApohavichakShaNaH along with the sAdhana chatushtaya: he is stated in the
vivekachudamani as the 'adhikAri AtmavidyAyAm'  *>>

Let us be reasonable. Are we all , who are discussing vedanta in this forum
, sadhanachatushtaya sampannas , as the above quote from by you from
vivekachudamani requires the student of vedanta to be ?? It is perhaps not
too far from truth that none of us in this forum qualify under this clause
to be students of vedanta. Still we are discussing it. Is it not. The
requirement of sadhanachatushtaya is for a sudent of vedanta who is
considered to be in an advanced stage of sadhana. It does not apply to us
who would like to know what vedanta is all about in the hope that some time
or other we also would become sadhakas in the above sense. My obseravations
pertain to only such mundane students who form a majority who need not be
unnecessarily be confused when it could easily be avoided. I am not
contesting anyone's right to explain the way he likes. But would be
interested in knowing the reason for such usage.


<< *In YogavAsiShTha it is said that the mAyA and mind are synonyms.* >>

This itself clearly means that individual mind is not meant while talking
of the cause of Creation. It is not that Yoga Vasishta is contradicting
what I am saying.

Regards



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:09 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM, H S Chandramouli
> <hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > << 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 ?
>
>
> *In YogavAsiShTha it is said that the mAyA and mind are synonyms.*
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> *The student of vedAnta is supposed to be: medhAvI puruSho vidwAn
> UhApohavichakShaNaH along with the sAdhana chatushtaya: he is stated in the
> vivekachudamani as the 'adhikAri AtmavidyAyAm'  *
>
> regards
> vs
>
>
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>