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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

An addendum to one para i wrote -

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?

The reason for asking is not to contradict the basic dictum under question
viz jiva is a later product so he cannot be the locus of avidyA. Apologies
if the previous para had that obvious problem.

Rather i was reminded of one acharya saying that while neither nirguNam
brahmA needs GYAnam nor does the jada shareeram/antahkaraNam need GYAnam ,
but the jIvAtma who is a mix-up of the two does indeed "need" GYAnam.

Om

On Sat, 1 Feb, 2020, 9:08 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>