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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sadaji, Chandramouliji,
I agree with the ideas in both your mails.

The examples of pot/clay or ornament/gold may not exactly apply to the
world/Brahman in all respects, but that is the nature of all examples I
suppose. Their utility is limited to justifying something particular
through one aspect of the drishtAnta.

I will let Sadaji confirm, but I think he will agree with you
Chandramouliji when you say the world is a vivarta of Brahman.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 2 Apr 2016 8:09 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>