[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Apr 5 03:40:14 CDT 2016
Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji,
I see that we are just repeating, so I will only respond to this point
<<Kindly give me the shankara bhAshya / shruti quote where it has been said
that brahman’s nimittA & upAdAna kAraNa both are mithyA >>
Mandukya kArika, Agama PrakaraNa:
नान्तःप्रज्ञं नबहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं नप्रज्ञानघनं नप्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् ।
**प्रपञ्चोपशमं** शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥ ७ ॥
AchAryA's BhAshya for प्रपञ्चोपशमं:
प्रपञ्चोपशममिति जाग्रदादिस्थानधर्माभाव उच्यते
What is जाग्रत् स्थानधर्म if not कार्य प्रपञ्च? कार्य प्रपञ्च अभाव = जगत्
कार्यस्य मिथ्यात्वात् कारणस्य मिथ्यात्वं संभवति.
On 5 Apr 2016 6:19 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji & other prabhuji-s
> Hare Krishna
> Due to hectic first quarter end work at office I was not able to reply in
> time to so many posts on this topic (yes it is indeed so many J). Kindly
> pardon me for that. Today I would try to address some of those. And as I
> said before, I would like to ignore the mails which is not directly
> contributing to this topic and having unwarranted personal comments.
> <<First of all as I have been reiterating the jagat which is Ishwara
> hetuka, the jagat for which brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, the
> jagat / kArya which is like kAraNa trishu kAleshu na vyabhicharati, that
> jagat which has been pointed out by shruti as brahma (like sarvaM khalvidam
> brahman, brahmaivedaM vishwaM etc.) is not mithyA.>>
> This jagat that you refer to as not mithyA, is Brahman. What you are
> merely doing is attributing a name called jagat to this Brahman and saying
> that the "name" is non different to brahman, which is just a tautology -
> anything in your conception of jagat, other than a mere name, would imply a
> difference from Brahman, and there can be no svagata bheda in Brahman.
> Ø Yes, this repetition is required to question / doubting the famous
> open declaration that jagat is mithyA. Shruti / bhAshya saying something
> else when dealing with jagat svarUpa. Attributing the independent
> existence to name and form apart from its upAdAna and nimitta is not the
> intention of shruti / bhAshya. And whenever shruti / bhAshya says brahman
> is everything it is because of the fact that socalled nAma rUpa satyameva
> as its content is nothing but brahman anrutameva when it has been treated
> as an independent entity. And with regard to svagata bheda in brahman,
> kindly note the shankara bhAshya : brahma svabhAvO hi prapanchaH na
> prapancha svabhAvaM brahma and ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasya
> kAraNAtmatvaM “ na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM”. Ring and bangles gold only
> and there is no ring or bangle when there is no gold in it since gold is
> the both efficient and material cause of this ring and bangle whereas gold
> itself is not ring or bangle as it does not have svagata bheda. It is
> because of this reason only vedAnta says kArya after praLaya merges in
> brahman in its ‘kAraNa rUpa’ as avyAkruta/ avyakta only not as kAryAkAra
> vyakta rUpa to maintin the nirvishesha, nirguNatva of brahman.
> <<The jagat which is independent of its kAraNa is mithyA, since this
> mithyA jagat is in reality not possible to exist it is mithyA only. >>
> Then your conception of mithyA is just Atyantika asat, not sadasat
> vilakshaNa mithyA.
> Ø tattvAnyatvAbhyAm has been attributed to mAya not to avidyA kalpita
> mithyA of jeeva. For that matter I am not the party with those who treat
> both avidyA and mAya as synonyms. mAyA which is Shakti of brahman is
> brahmAbhinna when it comes to creation and related issues. And as I said
> that which we have already decided as ‘mithyA’ cannot be redefined as
> ‘anirvachaneeya’. It is because of the fact that to say anything
> ‘anirvachaneeya’ at the first place that thing should exist and the svarUpa
> of that existence needs to be arrived through pratyaksha or shAstra. It is
> related to kArya-kAraNa, Shakti-shakta prakriya. Whereas when we already
> consider that something (jagat in this case) as mithyA that mithyA vastu
> cannot be ‘anirvachaneeya’ at the same time, because mithyA jagat is kevala
> jeeva mAnasa pratyaya and it always remains as mithyA only. More details
> on this we can have at some other time.
> <<jnana does not bring bhedAkAra nivrutti, it only bring bheda buddhi
> nivrutti. brahmavidyA does not create or destroy a thing in front says
> shankara in bruhadAraNyaka.>>
> Yes, Bhaskarji. We don't state that the AkAra of jagat is destroyed by
> jnAna. However, what is bheda buddhi nivrutti actually mean? Since AkAra is
> the thing that is "perceptible", bheda buddhi nivrutti means bhedAkAra
> satyatva nivrutti. And if the satyatva of bhedAkAra is negated, what is
> left? Only Brahman.
> Ø Yes, this is what the whole contention of this thread. jagadAkAra in
> its kAraNa rUpa does not go anywhere after the dawn of samyak jnana i.e.
> even after knowing the svarUpa kAryAkAra continue to exist hence jagat
> itself is not mithyA. What is then mithyA here in this kAryAkAra
> vyaktAtmaka jagat?? Looking at the kAryAkAra apart from brahman and
> attributing independent existence to it due to avidyA is mithyA. That is
> reason why when shruti / bhAsya talking about brahma kArya jagat, asserts
> : bahusyAM prajAyeya yathA mrudghatAdyAkAreNa it does not continue to
> clarify buddhi parikalpitena to label brahma kArya as mithyA. In short
> bhedAkAra is brahma mAnasa pratyaya for which brahman itself abhinna
> nimittOpadAna kAraNa whereas bheda buddhi in bhedAkAra and resultant
> vyavayAra is kevala jeeva mAnasa pratyaya due to his anAdirananta avidyA.
> And this jeeva’s anyathA jnAna’s jneya is mithyA jagat that would go after
> the dawn of samyak jnana or Atmaikatva darshana.
> <<Not only antaryAma /AdhAra / AdhishtAna he (brahman) is the upAdAna too
> for this vyAvahArika objects. That we should not forget while throwing the
> vyAvahArika jagat in mithyA basket.>>
> This is just a provisional status. Initially we say brahman is the upAdAna
> for the vyAvahArika objects, but in reality, its upAdAna status is also
> adhyAropita only, it is mithyA also.
> Ø Kindly give me the shankara bhAshya / shruti quote where it has
> been said that brahman’s nimittA & upAdAna kAraNa both are mithyA when
> jnAni continues to have the vyavahAra in his Atmaikatva jnana. When the
> shurit insists mruttiketyeva satyaM it implies that there is mrutsAmAnya
> (kAraNa) in mrutvikAra and mrutsAmAnya is what vivartOpadAna to whatever is
> mruNmaya. If we deny this very existence of mrutsAmAnya in mruNmaya kArya
> and saying that mrutsAmAnya itself is adhyArOpita we are, I am afraid
> heading towards Buddhist shUnyavAda.
> In apavAda, even this upAdAnatvam is negated as mithyA. That is why
> Krishna says "na cha matsthAni bhUtAni".
> Ø Yes, in gold / clay there is no upAdAna or nimitta vyavahAra whereas
> for the ornaments / pot gold / clay is the ONLY both kAraNa-s. I am in all
> but nothing is there in me is the lord’s declaration in geeta.
> <<If we discount the kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM, if we negate the Ishwara
> hetuka srushti, if we deny the pancheekaraNa, trivrukkaraNa just to prove
> the illusory nature of jagat we have to ignore major portion of sUtra,
> geeta and shruti and without our knowledge unfortunately we are wearing the
> attire of vijnAnavAdins when it comes to jagat existence. >>
> It is simply part of adhyAropa-apavAda prakriyA. We are not vijnAnavAdis,
> because they say that jagat is a projection of the mind, whereas we say it
> is a projection of avidyA. By the way, by avidyA, I mean brahmAshrita
> Ø brahmAshrita avidyA !!?? Anyway I am not going to dwell on this
> topic right now but in short as I said above, according to me mAya and
> avidyA are not synonyms in my Advaita dictionary J
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list