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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Chandramouli ji - PraNAms

Just quick answer - Just reached States and I have to take a class at Chinmaya mission in couple of hours.

Yes world is vivarta - since Brahman cannot undergo pariNAma - anantatvat.

However even gold transforming involves vivarta only - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - Gold remains as gold when ring, bangle etc form - It is transformation-less transformation.

Ring becoming bangle is pariNAma - in this case we are not taking about gold - one form transforms into another by pariNAma. This applies also for jagat when tree transforms into table and chair, etc. Ontological status of gold and ornaments are different - hence vivarta. The ontological status of ring, bangle etc are same hence one transforming into other is pariNAma only. 

The sad vidya starts with the proposition - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - This is not possible for pariNAma and possible only if the forms with names are only vivarta. 

Vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam is the essential statement to show that world is mithyaa.

I have  to go.

Best wishes

Hari Om!
Sada


--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/2/16, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
 To: "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
 Date: Saturday, April 2, 2016, 3:34 AM
 
 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