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

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 2 11:54:51 CDT 2016


Why not also refer to Mundaka. He created the world like a spider creates its web.

Sunil K. bhattacharjya

On Sat, 4/2/16, Srirudra via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is	brahman !!??
 To: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Saturday, April 2, 2016, 1:19 AM
 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
 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
 Sent from my iPad
 > On 02-Apr-2016, at 1:04 PM, Venkatraghavan
 S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 > 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,
 > 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
 >>> <<  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
 >>> 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
 >>> Since we are used to
 relating anything unknown to the known (manifest),
 >>> perhaps "brahma satyaM
 jaganmithyA" is more meaningful than "brahma
 >>> 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
 >>> pariNAmikAraNa. Here
 मृत्तिक (mRttika) refers to the unmanifest
 clay in
 >>> the pot-clay example.
 This statement can be extended upto <<
 विकारो नामधेयं मायैव
 सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM
 >>> 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. >>.
 >>> Please read it with the following
 correction also.
 >>> Quote
 >>> For <<
 वाचारम्भणं विकारो
 नामधेयं मायैव सत्यम् 
 >. Please read  <<
 वाचारम्भणं विकारो
 नामधेयं माया
 इत्येवसत्यम् >>( vAcArambhaNaM
 >>> nAmadheyaM mAyA ityeva
 >>> 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,
 > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
 Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
 To unsubscribe or change your
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list