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

[Bhaskar YR]

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.

praNAms 
Hare Krishna

If the mAndUkya says like this then mAndUkya shruti is nothing but buddhistic vijnAnavAdi doctrine :-) But that is not the case.  Jeeva srushti is not possible for the jeeva (even siddha jeeva-s)  only Ishwara has that capacity.  Na cha girinadisamudrAdishu nAnAvidheshu nAmarUpeshu aneeshvarasya jeevasya vyAkaraNasAmarthyaM asti clarifies shankara in sUtra bhAshya.  If anyone takes the mAndUkya shruti, kArika and bhAshya  to prove jagat mithyatva and jeeva avidyAkalpita jagat they have to do the samanvaya with sUtra bhAshya, after all sUtra is nyAya prasthAna and what is stated in the shruti and smruti to be reconciled without doing any Advaita hAni. I am really surprised that sofar no one commented on this jeeva avidyAkalpita srushti, does mAndUkya really saying that this jagat is only in the mind of conditioned jeeva??  I don’t think so. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

-----Original Message-----
From: Advaita-l [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Srirudra via Advaita-l
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 1:49 PM
To: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??

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
_______________________________________________
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