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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna

H ::

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. 

>  I dont think scenario like this is necessary.  Since as per advaita, 
what is there before creation in brahman is not in kArya rUpa it will be 
in kAraNa rUpa only.  It is because of this only the ananyatva between 
shakti & shakta has been endorsed by shankara when it comes to creation. 
There is an interesting discussion with regard to this in bruhadAraNyaka 
bhAshya.  Here pUrvapaxi asks :  at one place it has been said avyAkruta 
(unmanifest) by itself become vyAkruta (manifest) and at another place it 
is said that the Ishwara has did the job of making the avyAkruta as 
vyAkruta and entered in vyAkruta (tatsrushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat) ??  For 
this shankara gives the clarification : naisha dOshaH, parasyApi AtmanaH 
avyAkrutajagadAtmatvena vivakshitatvAt..what is there is avyAkruta 
jagatrUpa in brahman is nothing but brahman only.  Hence, advaita says 
what is there in brahman before srushti is kAraNa only and this kAraNa 
itself would become vyAkruta, the point to be noted here is kArya jagat is 
not in kArya rUpa in brahman it is in kAraNa rUpa only in brahman before 
creation.  Hence his 'ekatva' would not suffer. 


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.

>  I know there is a trend in advaita that treats 'mAya' and 'avidyA' on 
equal terms uses both terms interchangeably.  But in this creation 
context, there would be a lot of problem if we equate avidyA with mAya 
prabhuji.  Here in this context what is there is brahman is avyAkruta 
shakti rUpa (which is nothing but kAraNa only as cleared above) and nobody 
would say 'avidyA' is the shakti of brahman...avidyA would always treated 
as 'dOsha' 'anishta' 'klesha' only, if I am right nowhere it is said that 
'avidyA' is the shakti in brahman in creation.  Kindly see what 
bhagavatpAda says in sUtra bhAshya (2-1-18) :  kAraNasya Atma bhutA 
shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Hope you would understand what 
would be harm we are going to do to this bhAshya vAkya if we replace the 
word shakti with 'avidyA'.  Hence, in this context, in this kAraya-kAraNa 
prakriya, in this brahman's abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNatva of jagat 
'avidyA' cannot be the paryAya pada of mAya since the mAya / avyAkruta / 
avyakta / akshara / mUla prakruti etc. here nothing but kAraNa svarUpa 
only which is none other than brahman. 

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.


>  It would be better if we clearly define what exactly is 'mithyA' and 
what is 'anirvachaneeya' !!??  If we already determined something as 
'mithyA' we cannot say at the same time it is anirvachaneeya also. 
Shankara gives the example of water-foam while explaining tatvAnyatvAbhyAm 
anirvachaneeya.  So, it is clear that shankara uses this 'visheshaNa' 
(adjective) 'anirvachaneeya' to the thing that is already exist in 
different forms which pertains to pratyaksha and shAstra in the form of 
shakti-shakta or kArya-kAraNa.  Where as mithyatva is kevala kalpita jneya 
due to anyathAgrahaNa.  Example, if we see the 'sarpa' in 'rajju', 'sarpa 
jnAna' is mithyAjnAna (due to lack of correct knowledge of 'rope) and here 
mithyatva or mithyAstitva or 'mithyA sarpa' is the vishaya (subject) of 
kevala 'kalpita jneya'.  It cannot be anirvachaneeya, we dont say I am 
seeing some anirvachaneeya sarpa in rajju.  Either it should be correct 
jnAna of rajju or mithyAjnAna of sarpa.  For elaboration on these issues, 
kindly see Sri SSS's work with regard to 'asatkArya vAda' or 
anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda. 


P ::

<< In the same way nirguna brahman is the same with or without his maya
power. 


>  It is agreeable to me also.  But as you might have seen brahma - maya 
power = shakti rahita brahman, who does not have the capacity to do 
anything  whereas brahma + maya power = Ishwara who is mAyAshabAlita 
brahma who can create jagat.  So, here it is very clear that brahman needs 
an external force like mAya to become Ishwara mere nirguNa parabrahman is 
NOT  capable of anything since he remains always shakti rahita.


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.>>

>  Yes, this is what shankara says..but story is entirely different 
according to some when it comes to creation :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar