[Advaita-l] Why did Brahman create the world?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

> There was a typo in the earlier message sent exclusively to you which I
> corrected here viz.," Hence कथम् स्वोत्पत्तेः पूर्वकालीनां सृष्टिं
> जानीयुः। is valid *in general*, not just in one special case of jIva's
> sRShTi."
>
>> Namaste Subbu ji
>> The point about gochara being 'viShaya' has been clearly brought out by
>> you. Brahman alone is fit to be the locus (Ashraya) .
>>
>> Is there *any* context in the entire shAstra where we can justify the
>> statement "avidyA is *in* or located in the anatahkaraNam/mind"? No , is my
>> understanding.
>>
>>  I understand the assertion of many texts like naishkarmya siddhi  is -
>> "the antahkaraNam being itself a product of avidyA cannot be called the
>> locus of avidyA".
>>
>> Two queries-
>> 1. Now we can examine  the validity of a modified statement viz.
>> , "the jIvAtmA is the locus of avidyA", i.e.,
>>  "brahman with vyaShTi-sharIra as the upAdhi is the locus of avidyA" -
>> what if any is the flaw in this statement?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Regarding the sAyana-vAkya -
>>  तथाविधास्ते कथम् स्वोत्पत्तेः पूर्वकालीनां सृष्टिं जानीयुः।
>> (How can they , the Devas, who themselves were created later in the
>> sRShTi-kramam know (objectively) the prior steps entailing their own
>> creation?)
>>
>> Does the above assertion not hold true always rather than holding good
>> only in the special case of  sRShTi of the jIva alone? That is my doubt.
>>
>> We could argue (in defence of the proposition) that even in the case of a
>> child knowing the mother, the child only knows objectively his own physical
>> body's cause (his physical body is a viShaya for him) which can be traced
>> to the parents' bodies.
>>
>> Now, can we argue that we cannot in this way conceptualize and objectify
>> the cause or point of origin of the antahkaraNam itself. Hence कथम्
>> स्वोत्पत्तेः पूर्वकालीनां सृष्टिं जानीयुः। is valid in general, not just in
>> one special case of jIva's sRShTi.
>>
>> Is the above way of reasoning tenable?
>>
>>
>>
>> Om
>>
>> Raghav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Feb, 2020, 7:40 PM V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:33 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
>>>> Regarding gocharo'pi na bhavati, how do we address examples like the
>>>> child
>>>> can know the mother etc.?
>>>>
>>>> I would presume we should attach an upAdhi to the syllogism such as,
>>>> "X cannot know X's *upAdAna* kAraNam"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The word 'gochara' in the verse means: jiva which has come 'after'
>>> Brahman cannot be the object (gochara) of avidya. That is, the first line
>>> says: Only Brahman can be the locus and object (avidya conceals, veils,
>>> Brahman) of avidya. The second line says 'jiva cannot be the either the
>>> locus or the object, viShaya, for avidya (tamas) (to veil).  'Gochara' is
>>> given the meaning of 'vishaya' in the Kathopanishat mantra 1.3.4  इन्द्रियाणि
>>> हयानाहुर्विषयांस्तेषु गोचरान् ।  भाष्यम् -  तेषु इन्द्रियेषु हयत्वेन
>>> परिकल्पितेषु गोचरान् = मार्गान् = रूपादीन्विषयान् विद्धि ।   The tamas
>>> which has to precede the jiva cannot have the jiva as its locus and object
>>> (of veiling). It can have Brahman alone as its locus and object of veiling.
>>>
>>> regards
>>> subbu
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Om
>>>>
>>>>