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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste all
I find it interesting that a line from the bhAshya of Br. Up 2.1.20 was
quoted to justify the satyatva of vyavahara, supposedly derived from
Shankara's writings.   "avivekinAM..." was quoted here to represent
Shankara's views on the subject.

The context of how this line was used in the bhAshya was somehow missed,
which if considered, led to the opposite conclusion from the one being
presented.
1) Here is what the last line in the previous paragraph (previous to the
one  quoted), says:
"tasmAt ekarUpaikatva pratyaya dArDhyAyaiva sarva vedAnteShu
utpatti-sThiti-layAdikalpanA, na pratyayakaraNAya"

Translation from Swami Madhavananda (SM): "Therefore, the mention in  all
VedAnta texts of the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe is
only to strengthen our idea of Brahman being a homogenous unity, and *not
to make us believe in the origin, etc. as an actuality*"

Note: Shankara actually uses the word "kalpanA" to describe
utpatti-sThiti-layAdi. The "imagination" of the origin, sustenance and
dissolution of the universe!

2) Here is what the immediate next line to the "avivekinAm" quote says,
which explains why the avivekinAm / vivekinAm akAsha drishtAnta was given
in the first place: "Ato na paNditairbrahmasvarUpa pratipatti viShaye
brahmaNa: amsha-amshya ekadesha-ekadeshi vikAra-vikAritva kalpanA kArya,
sarvakalpanApanayana arthasAraparatvAt sarvopaniShadam."

Translation from SM: "Therefore in ascertaining the true nature of Brahman,
men of wisdom should not think of It in terms of whole and part, unit and
fraction, or *cause and effect* - for the essential meaning of all the
Upanishads is to remove all finite conceptions about Brahman."

Please note here - even cause and effect conception in Brahman has to be
removed. If cause and effect in Brahman is also a misconception, then how
can Brahman's jagat-kAraNatvam, be satyam?

The above is a sample, to simply demonstrate the flaws in the methodology
adopted thus far in this discussion. By quoting a bhAshya vAkya without
context to argue a point, there is a real danger that the main message of
the words are misunderstood, worse still, the intentions of the bhAshyakAra
are presented incorrectly to others. I could do this with every bhAshya
quote presented in the last 300 messages on this topic, but I just don't
have the time.

More fundamentally, bhAshya is only an aid, it is not a pramANA in and by
itself. All this quote and counterquote of bhAshya is simply vitaNDAvAda -
including this email.

Ultimately, people are free here (and elsewhere) to believe and express
whatever they want . However, for anyone who is reading this thread, please
do not take what anyone says, including me, as *the* truth. One should
study vedAnta - and especially so bhAshya - ONLY through a guru. Guru
upadishta shruti can be the only pramANA in matters of paramArtha.  I'm
sure people know this already, but thought I should remind.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan