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

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Apr 5 06:53:52 CDT 2016

praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krishna

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 am really wondering where exactly I am  differing here to continue this discussion with you :-) Yes, when the upAdAna is known of an effect then all upAdAna's effects are automatically known.  It is not possible if the one thing is entirely different from another thing.  But here effects (pot, jar etc.) are not different from the cause (clay).  Therefore, if the cause is known / realized all its effects are automatically known.  chAndOgya says same thing.  When one realize the cause behind the effect vAchAraMbhaNa all effects would be known automatically.  All the effects are only vAchArambhaNa, special shapes and names to make the cause known.  It is only through them we can understand the cause.  If we wrongly conclude this vAchAraMbhaNa itself is mithyA ( it would become mithya when it is perceived independently from its cause) then the cause which is adhishtANam and upAdAnaM would become mithyA as well.  Result is shUnya !! :-) shankara somewhere clarifies that if the name and form were not distinguished, then the upAdhirahita nature of this prajnAnaghana Atman would not have been known.  The content of effect is only in their cause hence it has been said in chAndOgya : vAchAraMbhaNam vikArO nAmadheyaM mruttiketyeva satyaM.  mrutsAmAnya what needs to be realized while seeing the mrutvikAra.  One need not smash and brake the pot to know the clay in it or do we !!??  :-)

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Advaita-l [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 4:04 PM
To: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>; Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??

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!

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
 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.
 On 2 Apr 2016 8:09 a.m.,
 "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
 Sri Sadananda Ji, 
 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.  
  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/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list