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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Yes sir, very true.

Btw, I think we may have overdone the arguments in this matter - with all
of us jumping onto one person, sometimes I feel we are veering into
bullying territory.

Bhaskarji, you must certainly be commended for holding your own against the
flood of replies from so many people, and especially so, for maintaining
your temper throughout the discussion.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 31 Mar 2016 7:09 a.m., "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Venkataraghavanji,
>
> To understand the dictum "Jagat Mithya" is not an easy thing for many. In
> the times of Adi Shankara, there was neither Internet and nor the yahoo
> groups and that is why the ancient greats like Adi Shankara did not make
> everything explicit in writing, as explicit one wants in todays Internet
> replies. Many things were taught with the disciple  facing the guru. It is
> said that what guru breathes out  becomes the in-breadth of the disciple
> and vice versa. Such was the momentary merging of the Guru and the Shishya
> and the guru could also touch the disciple to give the disciple a spiritual
> touch. I am sure that in such solemn moments between the guru and the
> disciple, the guru let the disciple understand that  that one should first
> meditate on Ishvara, the Saguna Brahman and at the point of the Jnani
> disciple's merging with the Saguna Brahman, the latter did advice the
> disciple to concentrate on His (Ishvara's) Nirguna state and that is in a
> way telling that saguna roop at any level is not the ultimate state, call
> it whatever you like Mithya or Impemanent or Non-Eternal. Though the Lord
> had taken the Saguna roopa,  the Lord is is basically the One without a
> second  and is the Changeless Nirguna Brahman. That is why in the
> Muktikopanishad the Lord Rama advised his greatest devotee and mahajnani
> Hanuman to meditate on His (the Lord's) Nirguna state. The Bhagavata Purana
> also  says that the Lord Himself gives the Jnana (the Advaita Jnana) to the
> ardent disciple. So this needed discussion is really as short as what the
> Lord Ram told Hauman  or the Bhagavata purana (the Vangmayee roopa of Lord
> Krishna) told us the readers.
>
> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya
>
> Sunil K.  BHattacharjya
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Wed, 3/30/16, Venkatraghavan S 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: "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2016, 10:24 AM
>
>  Yes. Sri Bhaskar's
>  contention is that jagat is Brahman. I see three ways
>  for that to hold good:
>
>  1) There is no difference between jagat and
>  Brahman. If there is no
>  difference then
>  jagat is simply nAma rUpa, which is mithyA. This ends up
>  proving the opposite of Bhaskarji's
>  contention.
>
>  2) There is a
>  difference between kArya jagat and kAraNa Brahman. If
>  there
>  is a difference then how is jagat
>  Brahman? Further, if there is a real
>  difference, and we somehow say that jagat is
>  Brahman, this implies svagata
>  bheda in
>  Brahman. This option is not possible as that is shruti
>  viruddha
>  (neha nAnAsti kinchana) and yukti
>  viruddha (we start off saying jagat is
>  Brahman and end up proving jagat isn't
>  Brahman).
>
>  3) There is a
>  difference in vyavahAra but no difference in paramArtha
>  between jagat and Brahman. Put like this, the
>  difference between Brahman
>  and jagat itself
>  is sadasat vilakshaNam. So the next question is, is that
>  difference mithyA or satyam? To answer that
>  question we have to go through
>  the same 3
>  options, and if we reject the first 2 of the options for
>  the
>  same reasons as above, we have to posit
>  a second difference that is sadasat
>  vilakshaNa too, and so on so forth, leading to
>  infinite regress. So the
>  more we try to
>  define jagat, the more it eludes description, leaving us
>  to
>  conclude that all we can say about jagat
>  is that it is mithyA and leave it
>  at
>  that.
>
>  Not sure if all that
>  makes sense, but that's my understanding of the
>  topic.
>
>  Regards
>  Venkatraghavan
>  On 30 Mar 2016 3:29 p.m.,
>  "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>  > Namaste
>  >
>  > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016
>  at 7:45 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>  > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  wrote:
>  >
>  >> Thanks
>  Bhaskar ji.
>  >>
>  >> <<First of all as I have been
>  reiterating the jagat which is Ishwara
>  >> hetuka, the jagat for which brahman is
>  abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, the
>  >>
>  jagat / kArya which is like kAraNa trishu kAleshu na
>  vyabhicharati, that
>  >> jagat which has
>  been pointed out by shruti as brahma (like sarvaM
>  >> khalvidam
>  >>
>  brahman, brahmaivedaM vishwaM etc.)  is not
>  mithyA.>>
>  >>
>  >> This jagat that you refer to as not
>  mithyA, is Brahman. What you are
>  >>
>  merely
>  >> doing is attributing a name
>  called jagat to this Brahman and saying that
>  >> the "name" is non different
>  to brahman,
>  >
>  >
>  > Yes, this is exactly what I understood
>  also from all the posts from
>  > Bhaskar-ji
>  and commented so, in one of the earlier emails ..
>  >
>  > If this Atmaikatva
>  jnana (as he says) is extended further to a different
>  > realm ( as in jnAni's vyavahAra he
>  quotes - whatever he does is
>  > satyameva,
>  his vyavahAra with this jagat  is satyameva ), I see the
>  > dilution (avidya kalpita) ...
>  >
>  > which is just a
>  tautology -
>  >> anything in your
>  conception of jagat, other than a mere name, would imply
>  >> a
>  >> difference
>  from Brahman, and there can be no svagata bheda in
>  Brahman.
>  >>
>  >>
>  <<The jagat which is independent of its kAraNa is
>  mithyA, since this
>  >> mithyA
>  >> jagat is in reality not possible to
>  exist it is mithyA only. >>
>  >>
>  >> Then your
>  conception of mithyA is just Atyantika asat, not sadasat
>  >> vilakshaNa mithyA.
>  >>
>  >> <<jnana
>  does not bring bhedAkAra nivrutti, it only bring bheda
>  buddhi
>  >> nivrutti.  brahmavidyA does
>  not create or destroy a thing in front says
>  >> shankara in bruhadAraNyaka.>>
>  >> Yes, Bhaskarji. We don't state
>  that the AkAra of jagat is destroyed by
>  >> jnAna. However, what is bheda buddhi
>  nivrutti actually mean? Since AkAra
>  >>
>  is
>  >> the thing that is
>  "perceptible", bheda buddhi nivrutti means
>  bhedAkAra
>  >> satyatva nivrutti. And if
>  the satyatva of bhedAkAra is negated, what is
>  >> left? Only Brahman.
>  >>
>  >> <<Not
>  only antaryAma /AdhAra / AdhishtAna he (brahman) is the
>  upAdAna too
>  >> for this vyAvahArika
>  objects. That we should not forget while throwing the
>  >> vyAvahArika jagat in mithyA
>  basket.>>
>  >>
>  >> This is just a provisional status.
>  Initially we say brahman is the upAdAna
>  >> for the vyAvahArika objects, but in
>  reality, its upAdAna status is also
>  >>
>  adhyAropita only, it is mithyA also. In apavAda, even this
>  upAdAnatvam is
>  >> negated as mithyA.
>  That is why Krishna says "na cha matsthAni
>  bhUtAni".
>  >>
>  >> <<If we discount the
>  kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM, if we negate the Ishwara
>  >> hetuka srushti, if we deny the
>  pancheekaraNa, trivrukkaraNa just to prove
>  >> the illusory nature of jagat we have
>  to ignore major portion of sUtra,
>  >>
>  geeta and shruti and without our knowledge unfortunately we
>  are wearing
>  >> the
>  >> attire of vijnAnavAdins when it comes
>  to jagat existence. >>
>  >>
>  >> It is simply part of adhyAropa-apavAda
>  prakriyA. We are not vijnAnavAdis,
>  >>
>  because they say that jagat is a projection of the mind,
>  whereas we say it
>  >> is a projection
>  of avidyA. By the way, by avidyA, I mean brahmAshrita
>  >> avidyA.
>  >>
>  >> Regards,
>  >>
>  Venkatraghavan
>  >>
>  _______________________________________________
>  >> 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
>