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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Shree Venkatraghavanji – PraNAms

You make perfect sense, But, If I can add little bit to what you wrote;

------------------------------

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.
---------

Brahman being infinite there cannot be anything different from Brahman by definition, since if it exists Brahman ceases to be Brahman. Hence from Brahman point there is absolutely no jagat. 

Yet, everything has to be in Brahman or on Brahman even though there cannot by anything in Brahman or on Brahman – since Brahman is undifferentiable infiniteness. Hence any appearance is mithyaa. In Vedantic discussions, we have various khyaatis or vaadas - sat kaarya vaada, asat kaarya vaada; but Advita accepts only anirvachaneeya vaada or khyaati. Hence maayaa, the apparent cause of creation which is mityaa – is sat asat vilakshaNam- since we cannot say it is absolutely real or sat or we cannot really say it is unreal as it is experienced. 

When one says jagat is Brahman only – since everything is nothing but Brahman and this statement is only valid in vyaavahaarika since paaramaarthika – there is no jagat also and no jnaani or ajnaani also. Even though everything is Brahman, ajnaani due to ajnaanam think that there is nothing like Brahman since Brahman is imperceptible, and there world is really real since it is experienced. This conclusion is also from vyaavahaarika point; but ajnaani has no clue about paaramaarthika. Jnaani can also makes statement that the world is apparently real but not really real, and the appearance is due to maaya which itself is apparent since Brahman is pure sat chit ananda, one without a second. - since he was a student of Vedanta. 

Bhaskarji’s problem with due respects to him, as I see, is getting mixed up with paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika – of course; he refuses to acknowledge this, and keeps arguing the same thing again and again. There is no problem as long as the fundamental doctrine – brahma satyam, jagan mithyaa, aham brahma eva na aparaH – is clearly understood. 
------------------------------

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).
------------

Jagat is Brahman only – but only as apparent Brahman since Brahman by definition cannot appear – anantatvaat – just as ring is gold only. But one cannot say really say ring = gold, since that limits the gold – and also we cannot really say all ornaments = gold; as it negates the independent existence of gold without being ornaments. One can only say gold appears as ring, but also appears as bangle and most importantly also exists without being ring and bangle too – Similarly Brahman exists without being jagat, as in deep-sleep state since deep sleep state exists or more correctly in vidhehamukti.  Appearance can appear or disappear since it is mithyaa- but Brahman cannot do that – anantavaat. Hence it is there in the deep sleep state too as witnessing as the adhiShTaanam for that too – as in videhamukti for jnaani. 


Important is that in vyavahaara where both jnaani- and ajnaani exist – Jnaani cognitively understands or realizes  aham brahmaasmi – using the appearances only and recognizing the adhishtaanam usind adhyaaropa apavaada analysis. That is why realization is also in vyavahaara using upahita chaitanya. Jnaani can teach that – all beings are in Me; nay no beings are in Me. Both statements are correct and no REAL contradiction. 
I am only putting what you wrote in different words. 

----------------------------

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
-------------

Yes. We cannot really say between Jagat and Brahman, but can say that with tongue in cheek just as we say – between ring and gold. Are ring and bangle the same or different – they are same from the point of adhiShTaanam even though from that reference there is no ring even – as there are no being in Me. Are they different- they are different only when we want to differentiate ring from bangle from neckless. The problems of ring, bangle and neckless do not belong to gold – na cha aham teshu avasthitaH. Hence for Rings, Bangles etc – six-fold problems – asti – jaayate etc and these problems do not belong to gold. Hence if question is raised - are ornaments the same as gold –or  is jagat same as Brahman – yes indeed – since Brahman is anantam. Are ornaments different from Brahman? Yes indeed, as they are only at the transactional level, since the attributes of ornaments do not belong to Brahman – na cha aham teshu avasthitaH. Gold can declare that all ornaments are in Me but really there are no ornaments in Me; look at my glory. Gold can exists as ornaments as well; and that is its vibhuuti- and gold can exist without being ornaments.

Hence Krishna discusses vibhuti yoga in the 10th Ch. concluding that infinite are my vibhuuties.  

If the reference state from which the discussion is done is clear then there should not be any confusion.

I know you know all thus but just could not resist.

Hari Om!
Sada

Not sure if all that makes sense, but that's my understanding of the topic.

Regards
Venkatraghavan