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

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu Apr 7 01:48:19 CDT 2016

praNAms Sri praveen bhat prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I am afraid to my dull wit it is not possible to understand ‘aphorism’ like observations / comments from your mail.  Yes, I think you have taken the right decision to discontinue this discussion with the mediocre student of vedAnta like me.  It is always better to have the ‘vichAra vinimaya’ with samAna skanda-s. Kindly pardon me prabhuji,  I am no way a right match to your caliber and intelligence prabhuji.  No pun intended here,  I am really serious and sincere in  accepting my limitations.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

From: Praveen R. Bhat [mailto:bhatpraveen at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:44 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
Cc: 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 !!??

Namaste Bhaskarji,
Thanks for noticing my mail(s) written to someone else and also choosing to reply to the same though not to the ones written directly to you, where we went in repeated loops. :)

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com<mailto:bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>> wrote:

IMHO, it is those who are throwing the baby with the bath water in the zeal of proving the brahma nirvisheshatva and asserting the jagat mithyatva :-)

Sure you can have your opinion, just as I can have mine. :) I have no zeal to prove anything, I just follow what is already proven. Moreover, there cannot be any proof to anyone who does not have the same, or even a definition for a word he uses. If two parties discuss that one thing is or is not X, that X has to be defined and agreed between two parties. Else I will be saying that jagat is X, where X means A and you will be saying jagat is not X, where X means B. This is exactly what we have been doing thus far. :) In other words, discussion is possible on mithyA between us only when you have a definition for mithyA, the status of which you have been refusing to jagat. I have already given the definition I used.

what exactly is this neti neti??  Does this neti neti asking us to throw away the jagat for which brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa??

If you understand that negating the satyatva of nAmarUpa means throwing away jagat, then the answer to your question is yes. I repeat, bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNam.

Neti neti should end in realizing that there is nothing that exists Atma vyatirikta.  Neti neti ityasya kOrthaH?? Na hi etasmAt brahmaNO vyatiriktamasti ityarthaH, clarifies shankara in sUtra bhAshya.  In the  Neti neti negation iti refers to jeeva mAnasa pratyaya mithyA jagat due to his anyathAgrahaNa ajnAna / avidyA and  that which is jneya (jagat) for this mithyA jnana of jeeva is not brahma, neti neti. And brahman svabhAvaM is not prapancha coz. Neha nAnAsti kiMchana...To protect this brahma nirvisheshatva, nirvikAratva there is no need to throw away the brahma kArya for which brahman is the only adhishtAnaM as well as upAdAnaM.

brahmakAryatvaM is itself mithyA, where is the need to protect that!

Jagat is pratyaksha pramANita whereas brahman's nirvisheshatva, niravayavatva, nirguNatva etc. is Agama siddha.

I have no clue why you say this, as if I dispute it!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list