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

[H S Chandramouli]

> Sri Sadananda Ji,
>
>
>
> Pranams.
>
>
>
> Reg  << 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, >>.
>
>
>
> There are other statements also in your post conveying similar meanings.
> For example
>
>
>
> <<  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. >>.
>
>
>
> I must confess I am constrained to differ.  Gold-ornament relationship is
> one of pariNAma whereas Brahman-jagat relationship in one of vivarta.The
> two should never in my opinion be considered at par while analyzing
> mithytva of jagat. The same mixup showsup in the following.
>
>
>
> Quote   << 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.>>. Unquote
>
>
>
> In Brahman-ornament relationship which is one of vivarta Brahman is
> “modified” into ornament without losing its svarupa of Brahman. In other
> words Brahman continues to exist in its own svarupa even as it is
> “modified” (appearance only ) as ornament. This is not so in the
> gold-ornament relationship which is one of pariNAma. Here Gold loses its
> unmanifest svarupa when modified as manifest ornament. Gold is no longer
> available in its unmanifest svarupa.
>
>
>
>  This is exactly what I had explained in detail in my response to the post
> by Sri Anand Ji. I am reproducing it here for clarifying my position.
>
>
>
> Quote  << Most often it is not recognized that in the statement  “mAyA as
> its
> material cause “, mAyA is the unmanifest (अव्यक्त avyakta) form of the
> material cause while jagat is the manifest (व्यक्त vyakta) effect (कार्य kArya).
> Since we are used to relating anything unknown to the known (manifest),
> perhaps "brahma satyaM jaganmithyA" is more meaningful than "brahma satyaM
> mAyA mithyA".
>
>
>
> However it is very useful in understanding the applicability of the
> wellknown Chandogya statement concerning the pot-clay relationship <<
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM vikAro
> nAmadheyaM mRttiketyeva satyam ). This is an illustration for
>  pariNAmikAraNa. Here मृत्तिक (mRttika) refers to the unmanifest clay in
> the pot-clay example. This statement can be extended upto << वाचारम्भणं
> विकारो नामधेयं मायैव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mAyaiva
> satyam)  to explain the pariNAmikAraNa  mAyA-jagat relationship. mAyA is
> the ultimate pariNAmikAraNa for the jagat and is unmanifest while jagat is
> manifest. This is the limit to which the Upanishadic statement quoted can
> be stretched .
>
>
>
> However it is very often stretched further and misunderstood to be
> applicable to the Brahman-jagat relationship also by concluding  <<
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मैव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM vikAro
> nAmadheyaM brahmaiva satyam). This stretching is not permissible since mAyA
> and Brahman relate to two different levels of Reality and mAyA is vivarta
> in Brahman and not a pariNAma of Brahman. In fact I believe this is one of
> the basic misconception regarding the Chandogya statement quoted above that
> is responsible for the wrong notion about the relationship between Brahman
> and jagat as far as Reality is concerned and is also quoted in support of
> such wrong notion. >>. Unquote.
>
>
>
> Please read it with the following correction also.
>
>
>
> Quote
>
>
>
>  For << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मायैव सत्यम्  >. Please read  <<
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं माया इत्येवसत्यम् >>( vAcArambhaNaM vikAro
> nAmadheyaM mAyA ityeva satyam).
>
>
>
> For  << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मैव सत्यम् >> please read  <<
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मइत्येव सत्यम् >>( vAcArambhaNaM vikAro
> nAmadheyaM brahma ityeva satyam). >>.
>
>
>
>
>
> Pranams and Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>