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

[Srirudra]

Dears
Jagath is mithya in the sense that it is not as it is with the efflux  of time.It is ever changing.Whereas Brahman is ever as It is.It is changeless.
Brahman only has become the Jagath .Why it should become Jagath is variously answered.But there is no Jagath and it is a mental construct says Mandukya .Why a mental construct is answered as due to avidhya or ignorance.
Avidhya is also synonymous with Maya .Maya is like a veil which forbids understanding or colouring the understanding of the exact Truth.
The question now is when the Jiva is Brahman why Jiva is not able to know that he is Brahman.Why Maya which is an aspect of Brahman only should act as a veil to delude Brahman.
The examples like clay ,gold,snake,rope etc throw some light but still it is beyond human thought or logic.May be it is anirvachaniyam.R.Krishnamoorthy.

Sent from my iPad

> On 02-Apr-2016, at 1:04 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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