[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??

[Venkatraghavan S]

I second that, very well put. Enjoyed reading your responses.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 16 Mar 2016 12:17 p.m., "kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Praveenji - PraNAms
>
> Beautiful. Pleasure to read your responses.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 3/16/16, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman
> !!??
>  To: "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 6:20 AM
>
>  Namaste Bhaskarji,
>
>  I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you really read my mail, since
>  I DID NOT
>  disagree with you! Your verbose reply only talks from a
>  Paramarthika angle,
>  where everything is brahman. You did not have to quote
>  several Shruti and
>  bhashyam sentences to prove that, since no one disagrees
>  there. Your
>  question was in the context of Bhagavatpada's half a verse.
>  To convey what
>  you have conveyed, only सर्वम्
>  ब्रह्म एव would have sufficed. He didn't
>  have to bring in 3 different parts and explain the
>  connection between them.
>  Since you have pulled away from your thread, I will try to
>  reply briefly
>  and especially to parts where for some reason, I see you
>  have misquoted my
>  position. That is inline below please...
>
>
>  On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>  wrote:
>
>  >
>  >
>  >  Ø   For all the three questions
>  shruti itself has the answer.
>  >
>
>  All answers are found in Shruti, but your question was
>  specific to the half
>  verse, which Bhagavatpada says is the essence of all
>  scriptures! That is
>  all I replied on.
>
>
>  > The world is कार्यम्/
>  मिथ्या.
>  >
>  > Ø   The world is kAryaM but I don’t
>  think it is mithyA per se.  Yes,
>  > world is mithyA when it is seen aloof from brahman
>  since it cannot have
>  > independent existence apart from its kAraNa, but that
>  is not the case in
>  > Advaita,
>  >
>  Your words are contradictory. That is the *very definition*
>  of mithyA and I
>  don't think there is any case other than Advaita for mithyA!
>  सदसद्भ्याम्
>  अनिर्वचनीय मिथ्या, all
>  कार्यम् fits in. Is the pot clay? Yes. Is pot
>  real?
>  No. Is it unreal? No. Is it both? No. Is it neither? No.
>  Although it is
>  only clay, but with name and form of a pot. So clayness of
>  pot is real, but
>  name and form is mithyA.
>
>  >
>  >    1. ब्रह्म is the
>  कारणम्/ सत्यम्.
>  >
>  > Ø   Prabhuji, don’t you get the doubt
>  here how kAraNa brahma can be the
>  > creator of kArya jagat which is mithyA??
>  >
>  No. स्वप्नवत्, like a dream. I am real,
>  but my dream that I create is
>  mithyA.
>
>
>  > Can we say satya brahma/kAraNa is the creator of this
>  mithyA jagat for
>  > which he is at the same time abhinna nimittOpadAna
>  kAraNa??
>  >
>
>  Yes. As above. For my dream, I am
>  अभिन्ननिमित्तोपादानकारण,
>  yet the dream is
>  मिथ्या, not truly same as me, not truly
>  different.
>
>  > And if the jagat is mithyA, why shruti saying sarvaM
>  khalvidaM brahma,
>  >
>  Because it only appears to be different, but is not really
>  different in
>  essence. And there is a difference between appearance and
>  essence.
>
>
>  >
>  >    1. जीवः ब्रह्म एव
>  = कारणम् एव, न अपरः = न तु
>  कार्यम्. The individual
>  >    who considers himself as a created just
>  like the world, is not the created.
>  >    So the relation of the individual is that
>  he is one with the creator and
>  >    therefore the
>  सत्य्-अधिष्ठान of
>  मिथ्या-जगत्. His complex of body, mind
>  >    and senses is part of the created world,
>  मिथ्या प्रपञ्च, while he is
>  >    not.
>  >
>  > Ø   That chaitanya which is there in
>  the jeeva is there in jagat also
>  > since he is the Atman for sakala charAchara vastu.
>  >
>  When I say that the individual is the essence, he is
>  consciousness,
>  consciousness is not something that is there in him. While
>  the world is not
>  consciousness, its basis is conscious brahman which is the
>  individual.
>
>
>  > Itareya AraNyaka says brahman is there in inert things
>  as well as
>  > innerconscious ...
>  >
>
>    Don’t you think either we have to call both jeeva
>  & brahma are mithya (
>  > since both are endowed with nAma rUpa upAdhi) or both
>  are satyameva since
>  > in their svarUpa both are brahma only??
>  >
>
>  ... no, since having consciousness and being consciousness
>  are two
>  different things. The साक्षी जीव when
>  associated with the दृश्य BMS
>  complex, which is really not different from दृश्य
>  जगत्, considers himself
>  as an individual. However, when he dissociates, and knows he
>  is not the
>  worldly BMS complex, he remains as brahman. This is not true
>  of the world,
>  which includes his BMS complex. By his knowledge, the BMS
>  and the world do
>  not become the cause, they remain the effect. He himself is
>  the cause.
>
>  After the dawn of knowledge, at the level of
>  व्यवहार the world still exists
>  > *as मिथ्या* for the ज्ञानी, but
>  the जीव exists as one with ब्रह्म, *not
>  > as मिथ्या*.
>  >
>  > Ø   What is this jeeva that exists in
>  jnAni when jeeva itself is avidyA
>  > kalpita??
>  >
>  Misquoted. There is no *in*. ज्ञानी is जीव
>  is ब्रह्म.
>
>
>  > And jeeva itself means identification of an indivisual
>  in his BMI is it
>  > not??
>  >
>  That is exactly what is denied by saying there is no
>  individual. I can ask
>  you the same thing. What is identification of an individual?
>  The identity
>  makes an individual; without identity there is no
>  individual, there is only
>  one.
>
>
>  > And as you said this BMI of an individual is also part
>  of this mithyA
>  > jagat.  Here you are calling one part of the jagat
>  (i.e. jeeva with upAdhi)
>  > is satya and other part (jagat outside the karaNa-s of
>  this jeeva) as
>  > mithyA.
>  >
>  Misunderstood. It is exactly what I am not doing! I am
>  calling BMS complex
>  as mithyA since it is part of the world and world is mithyA.
>  The individual
>  who thought he was a kAryam is actually kAraNam, He knows
>  that and is no
>  longer an individual, but the whole.
>
>
>  > Moreover, jnAni would not see the jagat as mithyA he
>  would look at the
>  > jagat as his own Atman nothing else.
>  Shankara/shruti  clarifies this  at
>  > various places. ...Here shankara does not say sarvaM
>  mithyA bhavati ...
>  >
>  Nor is it said that nAmarUpatmakam jagat satyam bhavati
>  anywhere. All that
>  it means is that jnAni sees the world as not existing
>  independent of him.
>
>
>  > ...And he did not say manu & Aditya are part of the
>  mithyA prapancha.
>  >
>  ... manu and Aditya are names and , so mithyA.
>
>  > jnAni would see the satyatva in everything because for
>  him ‘kArya
>  > prapancha’ is ‘vishesha’ darshana of kAraNa
>  svarUpa.  Hence for him the
>  > socalled ‘bAhya lOka’ is no more bAhya and mithya,
>  it is satya and
>  > Atmameva.  Sa cha bAhyalOkO nAstyasmAkaM
>  AtmavyatiriktaH, sarvaM hi asmAkaM
>  > Atmabhutameva sarvasya cha vayaM AtmabhUtaH.
>  There is nothing that can be
>  > called asatyaM, mithyaM etc. when jnAni has this bhUma
>  drushti clarifies
>  > again shankara in chAndOgya : sata eva dvaita bhedena
>  anyathAgruhyamANatvAt
>  > na asatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti brumaH.
>  >
>  Having said all these, I am not at all claiming both jagat
>  and brahma have
>  > the same level of reality, what I am trying to say is
>  since kArya jagat is
>  > not abhinna from kAraNa like ring and bracelet not
>  different from gold,
>  >
>  Again, that is the very definition of mithyA. Rings and
>  bracelets are mere
>  names and forms, not having reality of their own, and
>  therefore mithyA!
>  What it means that if you remove goldness from ring and
>  bracelet, there
>  will be no ring or bracelet. If you remove ringness and
>  braceletness from
>  gold, gold still remains. Similarly, the world is made up of
>  names and
>  forms, that do not exist separately from brahman and hence
>  mithyA. Names
>  and forms are not real.
>
>
>  > kArya is satyameva in its kAraNa svarUpa.
>  >
>  Neither me nor anyone so far on the thread denies this. The
>  whole problem
>  is jagat is not seen as kAraNasvarUpa, due to name and form,
>  and therefore,
>  mithyA. :)
>
>  Kind rgds,
>  --Praveen R. Bhat
>  /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this
>  is known!
>  [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>  _______________________________________________
>  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
>