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

[Ravi Kiran]

Thanks for this explanation and nice reminder ..

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>