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

[H S Chandramouli]

There appears to be a small error at the end of my post.

For << P ::

<< In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
power. There is no change in It becuse maya is vivarta in nirguna brahman.
Devadatta's example does not in any way vitiate this position. There is
really no change in the " person " devadatta when the postures are
changed.>>


please read



 In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
power. There is no change in It becuse maya is vivarta in nirguna brahman.
Devadatta's example does not in any way vitiate this position. There is
really no change in the " person " devadatta when the postures are changed.

Regards



On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Sri Bhaskarji,
>
> You will pardon me if many of the arguments advanced herein are of a very
> elementary nature and need not have been elaborated upon. But for the sake
> of clarity of my views I have included the same. Kindly bear with me.
>
> P ::
>
> << The shruti  says << tadhetam tarhi avyakrutamaaseet >> . Here avyakrita
> includes both atma and anatma. anatma in seed form. It is only proper to
> consider that avidya is " resident " in brahman/atman. This does not in
> any
> way lead to advaita hani
>
> >  Yes, it does not do any advaita hAni, but dont you think this would
> lead to conclude that before srushti, brahman was endowed with 'anishta'
> like avidyA and brahman was giving the ashraya to the anishta hetu
> avidyA?? >>
>
> H ::
>
> It has to be conceded that the entire sequence of events from brahman to
> creation/sustenance/dissolution including cannot be argued out purely on
> the basis of reasoning/logic. Only a possible direction for the analysis
> could be the limit of reasoning. For assertion about the finality of the
> conclusion Shruti is the only authority.  Only the interpretation of the
> Shruti is left to us. Even here the interpretation and analysis by
> themselves cannot lead upto the final realization. Only direct experience (
> aparoksha jnana ) leads to absolute finality in this regard. Due to this a
> certain level of nonunderstanding of the position must necessarily be
> admitted till aparoksha jnana arises. When the Shruti states as in the
> above vakya that avyakruta does indeed exist in seed form prior to
> creation, and at the same time it maitains that brahman is
> nirguna/nirvikari etc It has to be accepted that nature of "residence" of
> ayakruta is anirvachaniya and of a lower level of reality. This change in
> status of avyakruta itself means that its characteristics cannot affect in
> any way the nature of brahman. Also it may be emphasized here that " avidya
> " is the power " Maya " and not " anishta " which includes all the three
> gunas corresponding to the three shaktis jnana/icha/kriya . There is
> absolutely no doubt that this interpretation has to be based on Sri
> Bhagavatpada Bhashya  which has been elaborated upon by by many jnanis
> themselves including Sri Vidyaranya Swami.
>
> P ::
>
> <<
> because avyakruta is not of the same level of reality.
>
> > In the context of creation, shankara says whatever is their in avyAkruta
> rUpa is brahman's shakti only or brahman only and vyAkruta rUpa (kArya) is
> nothing different from that shakti and in turn this shakti is nothing but
> brahman only. >>
>
> H ::
>
> Yes. But this shakti is also declared as " anirvachaniya " . Hence
> anything coming out of this shakti enjoys the same level of reality , that
> is anirvachaniya or mithya.
>
> P ::
>
> <<
>
> It can also vanish when we consider nirguna brahman who is then
> without even this seed avidya. That is also the reason why it is called
> anirvachaniya, it has to be inferred by the karya only ( of Creation etc
> ).
>
> >  kArya is nothing but kAraNa's vishesha rUpa clarifies shankara in sUtra
> bhAshya.  And he continues to say that there is no difference between
> kArya & kAraNa since kArya cannot exist on its own apart from kAraNa.
> Shankara here gives 'devadatta' example, who is the same person when he
> stretched his arms & legs and when he  folds his limbs some other time. >>
>
> H ::
>
> Same as above.
>
> P ::
>
> << In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
> power. There is no change in It becuse maya is vivarta in nirguna brahman.
> Devadatta's example does not in any way vitiate this position. There is
> really no change in the " person " devadatta when the postures are
> changed.>>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
>> praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>> The shruti  says << tadhetam tarhi avyakrutamaaseet >> . Here avyakrita
>> includes both atma and anatma. anatma in seed form. It is only proper to
>> consider that avidya is " resident " in brahman/atman. This does not in
>> any
>> way lead to advaita hani
>>
>> >  Yes, it does not do any advaita hAni, but dont you think this would
>> lead to conclude that before srushti, brahman was endowed with 'anishta'
>> like avidyA and brahman was giving the ashraya to the anishta hetu
>> avidyA??
>>
>>
>> because avyakruta is not of the same level of reality.
>>
>> > In the context of creation, shankara says whatever is their in avyAkruta
>> rUpa is brahman's shakti only or brahman only and vyAkruta rUpa (kArya) is
>> nothing different from that shakti and in turn this shakti is nothing but
>> brahman only.
>>
>> It can also vanish when we consider nirguna brahman who is then
>> without even this seed avidya. That is also the reason why it is called
>> anirvachaniya, it has to be inferred by the karya only ( of Creation etc
>> ).
>>
>> >  kArya is nothing but kAraNa's vishesha rUpa clarifies shankara in sUtra
>> bhAshya.  And he continues to say that there is no difference between
>> kArya & kAraNa since kArya cannot exist on its own apart from kAraNa.
>> Shankara here gives 'devadatta' example, who is the same person when he
>> stretched his arms & legs and when he  folds his limbs some other time.
>>
>> I am really surprised at the various posts in this thread as well as in
>> another thread that jiva also could be considered as cause for creation by
>> adducing the reason that he is none other than brahman << jivo brahmaiva
>> na
>> parah >>.
>>
>> >  Yes, it is really perplexing to see this vijnAna-vAda like theory from
>> the banner of advaita tradition.  jeeva cannot be a srushti karta and this
>> portfolio has been assigned forever to brahman only without any variation
>> when it comes to the event and context of creation.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>