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

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Apr 5 03:44:26 CDT 2016

Hit send before I proofread, sorry.

Last sentence should be: कार्यस्य मिथ्यात्वात् कारणस्य कारणत्वं मिथ्या एव
भवति ।
Clearly कारण is not मिथ्या, कारणत्वं is.
On 5 Apr 2016 9:40 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji,
> I see that we are just repeating, so I will only respond to this point
> briefly:
> <<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
> । अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं
> **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
> मिथ्या.
> कार्यस्य मिथ्यात्वात् कारणस्य मिथ्यात्वं संभवति.
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> 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
>> avidyA.
>> 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!!!
>> bhaskar

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list