[Advaita-l] Why is jagat mithya?

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Praveen Bhat

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hari Om, Venkateshji,
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> How is Brahman so difficult to understand?
>
> Due to mithyA. :)
This is the fundamental problem. You can end up in Brahman showing the
world is Mithya. A better way is show the world is Saguna Brahman only
and then  even that Saguna Brahman is Pure Consciousness Chit. The Big
problem created by Mayavada debates with other Vedantis will vanish.

Sruti has many Vakyas to proclaim Saguna Brahman like Sahasra Sirsha,
Antarbahishca Tat Sarvam Vyapya Narayanaha Sthitaha etc. But many
Advaitis have neglected Saguna Brahman. There is too much focusing on
Mayavada.

>
> This is true for Nirguna
>> Brahma but Saguna Brahma is easy to understand.
>
> To you, maybe, To some others, not quite. To each his own. There are
> umpteen number of people who have no reasoning for Ishvara, but have
> for advaita vedAnta! This may not be a very sAmpradAyika approach but
> it suits them nonetheless. Just like saguNa argument with no place for
> nirguNa is also not sAmpradAyika way. So while you want mithyA
> argument to go, and only saguNa to remain as brahman, they want your
> saguNa argument to go and mithyA to remain. Their goal is the same
> nirguNa brahman that you have been writing about all the while. You
> cannot impose your easy understanding of whatever upon them, having
> absolutely no idea what their problems are. The advaita AchAryAs
> understand their problems. Unfortunately, you don't seem to find that
> easy to understand.
The advantages of giving up Mayavada by Advaitis are great. There will
not be big debates on Mayavada with Dvaitis and Visistadvaitis and
other Bhakti type followers. Second advantage is Unity of Brahmins.
All Brahmins should be firm followers of Saguna Brahman. In Vyavahara
Reality Saguna Brahma is the Ultimate. We have to bow to Him. The
others except Advaitis all believe in Saguna Brahman and practicing
Theistic principles. But Mayavada can result in Atheism. This is very
bad for Brahmins. If Advaitis give up Mayavada and accept Sagunopasana
like the others there will not be much debates and quarrels.
Sagunopasana is Positive Approach. Mayavada is Negative Approach.

>
> That is why Sruti is
>> saying Sahasra Sirsha and all that to explain Saguna Brahman.
>
> No one denies that, but the same shruti doesn't stop with that one point.
>
> Even a
>> child can understand if you say God is everywhere.
>
> And only a child remains satisfied with such argument. Despite your
> view, children do grow up to be more inquisitive and take their quest
> beyond God is everywhere into details of what it means.
>
You have misunderstood. We are not only telling God is everywhere but
also that God is also final Nirguna Brahma only. God is the way to
Nirguna Brahman. If some one is very inquisitive he can understand the
final Doctrine.

> The approach of
>> Mayavada is more difficult to understand because you are asking a
>> student to go against his natural feeling.
>
> Again, to you, maybe. As Bhaskarji said if you find what is naturally
> easy for you to do, you should carry on your sAdhanA with it. Advaita
> Vedanta has a very important place for saguNopAsana. Why should that
> be a hindrance to others finding mAyAvAda easy? You don't, others do,
> period.
>
Kindly see the advantages of giving up Mayavada above. Saguna Brahma
Upasana is the Theist approach. Mayavada can easily takes us to
Sunyavada,

>>
>> If there is a pot in front of the student. You can explain using Sruti
>> why it is Mithya. But another way is you can explain that Pot is Sat
>> only.
>
> Bboth ways are there and sampradAyA uses both; there is no problem
> anywhere, except in your putting one view at a high point of
> comparison to others. neti neti doesn't stop with neti neti.
> sampradAyA teaches neti neti, and also iti to be beyond.
>
> That Sat is the same everywhere. It is appearing in different
>> names and forms. Now it is appearing as Pot. There it is appearing as
>> Table. Etc. Not necessary to use Mayavada at all.
>
> That appearance of names and forms is exactly what mAyAvAda is, you
> seem to have completely put it out of perspective. You think it to be
> something it is not. Its like saying I see the sun rising but since
> its not really rising, one should never say that the sun is rising.
> Its a pointless argument.
>
The problem is too less focus on Saguna Brahman and too much on
Mayavada. Kindly see above.


>
> gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh