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

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste Sadaji,

Yes, you have explained nicely. There is a verse (I do not remember it in toto) which says that Jnani can remember everything, but would not react and that is unlike what an ajnani does.

Regards,
Sunil KB. 


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3/29/16, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
 To: "advaita-l at lists advaita-vedanta. org" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>, "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
 Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 7:52 AM
 
 PraNAms
 
 There seems to be endless mails on this topic. Looking at
 one of the latest, I get the impression that confusion
 persists in some quarters. Example of rope/snake is
 different from the mirage waters - one is jiiva sRishTi and
 the other is Iswara sRishti. or praatibhaasika adhyaasa and
 vyaavahaarika adhyaasa or different names have been
 provided.
 
 I concur with Venkatraghavanji. 
 
 The BMI and the world - are ontologically of the same order
 of reality - similar to sun rise and sun set. Hence as long
 as BMI are there, perception of the world will be there -
 whether one is jnaani or not. 
 
 Jnaani is one who recognizes the apparent reality to the BMI
 and the world that is perceived or experienced - that
 realization comes only when one understands cognitively that
 the absolute real is that which is changeless - nirvikaaraH
 and hence nithyaH. This understanding takes place in the
 mind only. 
 
 Low of conservation demands that if something is changing
 there has to be changeless entity which is the substratum or
 adhishtaanam for the changing entity. - Krishna calls this
 as sat - to differentiate from asat -naasato vidyate bhaavo
 naabhaavo vidyate sataH. That for me is the absolute law of
 conservation. 
 
 Since the adhishtaanam of both BMI and the world - the
 apparent perceiver and apparent perceived are nothing
 but  changeless entities - sat which scriptures also
 calls it as chit or ananda - Brahman or infinite, the
 scriptures emphasizes that alone is real and everything else
 is vyaavahaarika satyam or praatibhaasika satyam.
 
 Jannam will destroy the praatibhaasika errors - just as
 rope/snake is destroyed when the underlying adhishtaanam is
 seen. Hence jiiva sRishTi which is I-ness, My-ness and raaga
 and dweshas get destroyed with the knowledge. 
 
 Jnaanam will not destroy the vyaavhaarika satyam - ring/gold
 or pot/ mud or world/Iswara (Brahman point there is no world
 even). However jnaanam involves in spite of understanding
 that everything is nothing but Brahman which is one without
 a second, he sees the world of plurality with the BMI as
 long as BMI is there to see (since they are both same order
 of reality). Only when the BMI drops out as in videha mukti
 - no more perceiver/perceived duality in Brahman.
 
 Is ring real or not - or pot real or not - Just as they are
 real enough to use - utility itself is not criteria for
 absolute reality as in dream world of objects as Goudapaada
 establishes in vaitatya prakaraNam. Since BMI and the world
 are Iswara sRishti they do not disappear with janaam. 
 
 Only samsaara which is jiiva sRishTi disappears for a a
 jnaani. 
 
 I am not sure why there is so much confusion here. Bhashya
 also has to be understood with samanvayam in mind. 
 
 Seeing the world does not make it real - in fact it makes it
 mithyaa only since it is seen. As sat cannot be seen and
 asat also cannot be seen. 
 
 Hari Om!
 Sadananda
 
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Tue, 3/29/16, Aurobind Padiyath via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is
 mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
  To: "advaita-l at lists
 advaita-vedanta. org" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>,
 "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
  Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 8:59 AM
  
  If we see the pot
  independent of mud, which is not possible and in reality
  is name and form of the mudpot, then it has to
  be defined as MithyA. As
  there will have to
  be the pot existence without mud. So the name and form
  called pot of which the base is mud all put
  together is Sat not MithyA. You
  cannot bring
  water etc with a MithyA pot. Like the snake case. That's
  why
  we are able to carry on Vyavahara even
  after knowing that the pot is made
  of
  mud.
  Same way for the Jnani, the jagat is
  nothing but Brahman but the
  vyavaharika
  Jagat is also of the same Brahman. If one sees a jagat
  (names
  and forms) without knowledge and
  existence of those names and forms (I
  don't know how it will be possible),then
  that jagat is mithya.
  Yetra na anypascati =
  sarvam Brahma,
  Yetra anypascati = how can
  this happen when one Knows the above? As there
  is nothing in reality Anya.
  
  Aurobind
  On 29 Mar 2016 17:57,
  "Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l" <
  advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
  wrote:
  
  > praNAms Sri
  Ravikiran prabhuji
  > Hare Krishna
  >
  > For a jnAni, when
  Brahman is satya always (jnAna nishTa), is there a
  > further need to mention jagat satya along
  with Brahma satya ?
  > By stating so, does
  it further qualify or enhances it, by any means?
  >
  > Ø   For
  that matter for the ajnAni also jagat is satya only and
 from
  this
  > satyatva buddhi in jagat he does
  the vyavahAra thinking that this jagat is
  > his bhOga bhUmi and he is bhOktru, this
  jagat is karma bhUmi thinking that
  > he
  is kartru / karmi etc.  So for his jagat is an
 independent
  satya and he
  > is an individual enjoyer /
  sufferer etc.  Whereas from the pAramArthika
  > drushti of the jnAni, this jagat is not an
  independent reality and jnAni is
  > not an
  independent enjoyer etc.  Because in him there is no
  jnAtru, jnana,
  > jneya triputi
  vyavahAra.  He sees Atman and only Atman in sarva vikAra,
  for
  > him jagat is not MITHYA it is satya
  in its kAraNa svarUpa.  From this
  >
  sarvAtma bhAva, whatever he does is satyameva. 
  sadAtmanA
  >
  satyatvAbhyupagamAt…sarvavyavahArANAM sarvavikArANAM
  cha
  > satyatvaM.clarifies shankara in
  sUtra bhAshya.  He is not declaring here
  > jagat is mithyA and his vyavahAra with
  this jagat is mithyA, it is
  > satyameva
  from the highest point of view that is brahmaikatva
  drushti.
  > 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
  >
  _______________________________________________
  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