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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

First off all, I would like to sincerely apologise to you for any offence
my mails have caused. While you and I may disagree on this topic, it was
certainly not my intent to insult you, your knowledge of advaita and your
erudition in the matter of BhAshya. Before I was involved in a vocal manner
in the list, I have long been an admirer of your ready knowledge of
advaita, and specifically BhAshya.

By no means do I claim to have "correct knowledge" of AchArya's BhAshya. I
am very much a student of advaita. Let me admit here - I have little
knowledge to show anyone.

However, it is my sincere belief that your interpretation of BhAshya is
different from what I have been taught by my Guruji, and different from my
understanding of the traditional sampradAya of advaita AchAryas. I also
think that one needs to consider BhAshya vAkyas not in isolation, but
holistically, with a samanvaya of the entire text in particular, and
including other prasthAna traya bhAshya, and other prakaraNa granthas
generally.

Be that as it may, it appears that we should agree to disagree and leave it
at that.

Btw - the reason I didn't directly address you  in my last email was
because of your concern that you were attacked personally from various
others - I didn't want to be another one of those emails. However, that
appears to have caused problems of its own. In any case, to clarify, the
only correspondence that we have had is through this forum - apart from the
one email where I replied to you personally when you had some technical
issues reading sanskrit font.

I think I need to be more circumspect in my emails to this list. Once
again, apologies.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan S



On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Since it is me who have quoted the bruhadAraNyaka 2-1-20 I have to clarify
> certain points to the NEUTRAL readers of this thread.  Yes, I typed the
> word neutral in caps just because it is presented to them and it is not for
> those who are trying every possible means   to demean the efforts of other
> side.  It is really unfortunate that just because they did not hear what
> they want from other side they are finding  immature ways  to pick the
> topic :-) Let that be aside, here is my clarification :
>
> First the context of the quote :
>
> Sri Ravi Kiran prabhuji asked doubt about jnAni's vyavahAra and said when
> everything enveloped in 'saMyaK jnAna' why there is special mention of
> jagat and vyavahAra that too attributing 'satyatva to it??  For this I
> replied since jnAni has the Atmaikatva jnana or sarvAtmakatva jnana through
> that jnana whatever he does is satyameva (satya only) not mithyA.  For the
> ready reference I am quoting Sri Ravi Kiran prabhuji's question and my
> relevant observation with bruhad bhAshya quote :
>
> // quote //
>
> With all the above description on vyavahAra, are you only stating the
> significance of samyak jnAna (just like by saying jagat satya, you actually
> meant Brahma satya) ? Or, if you are extending it to mean jnAni's vyavahAra
> as satyam, can you elaborate what is this vyavahAra you are referring to,
> which is not involving pramAna-pramEya, which is not samyak jnAna but
> satyatvam eva ?
>
>
> Ø    Please shankara bhAshya on bruhadAraNyaka (2-1-20) avivekinAM
> vivekinAM cha upacharitA buddhirdrushtA iti chet, na, avivekinAM
> mithyAbhuddhitvAt, vivekinAM cha samvyavahAramAtrAlambanArthatvAt, yathA
> krushNO raktascha AkAshaH, iti vivekinAmapi kadAchit krushNatA raktatA cha
> AkAshasya samvyavahAramAtrAlambanArthatvaM pratipadyate iti na
> paramArthathataH krushNO raktO va AkAshO bhavatimarhati.  His vyavahAra on
> the face of it matches with ajnAni, but fact remains that ajnAni does the
> vyavahAra through mithyAjnAna (mithyAbuddhitvAt) whereas the jnAni’s
> vyavahAra is samyak vyavahAra which is the result of his sarvAtma jnana.
> Kindly read this bhAshya vAkya completely to understand jnAni’s vyavahAra.
>
> // unquote //
>
> From the above, it is clear that he is asking me about the jnAni's
> vyavahAra and asking me about its satyatvaM and he is having the doubt here
> whether the jnAni's vyavahAra what I am talking about is within the realm
> of samyaK jnana or something external to it??  For this query, I have
> quoted the above bhAshya vAkya.  How the same 'vyavahAra' with different
> viewpoints will be executed by both viveki and aviveki-s.  Here the context
> of this discussion is all about 'vyavahAra' that jnAni is appears to be
> executing.  This quote does not have to do anything about the other things
> and other issues those are pending for further clarification.  Moreover,
> after quoting that bhAshya vAkya, I have explained to the best of my
> ability what is the 'difference' between aviveki and viveki vyavahAra and
> finally I asked Sri Ravi Kiran prabhuji to study the bhAshya IN COMPLETE to
> know more details of this topic.  So, there is no any hidden agenda behind
> my bhAshya quote.  So,  IMHO, those who are picking the bhAshya quote and
> accusing me of misrepresentation of the context should know that they are
> engaging themselves in a straw-man argument or they want to show others how
> deeply they have correctly  understood  shankara siddhAnta.  Anyway, just
> to clarify I don’t have any disagreement with the previous and subsequent
> bhAshya vAkya-s as they donot do any harm to the topic being discussed here.
>
>
> Again, this quote of bhagavatpAda is just like krishna's clarification to
> arjuna after hearing the arjuna's question : sthitaprajnasya kA bhAshA,
> samAdhisthasya keshava??  sthitadheeH kiM prabhAsheta?? kimAseeta vrajeta
> kiM?? If everything mere 'kalpana' and 'mithya' as the socalled perfect
> knowers of shankara bhAshya literally interpreting the previous bhAshya
> vAkya in bruhat bhAshya, geetAchArya would have dismissed the arjuna's
> queries straightaway by saying, what is vyavahAra for the sthitha prajna
> his movements his sthitha prajnata etc., his talks, walks etc. too  are
> mere kalpana so don’t ask questions on kalpana jagat:-)  If everything is
> mere kalpana and literal interpretation of some words without knowing the
> siddhAnta drushti, these literal interpreters are unknowingly propagating
> the buddhistic philosophy like vijnAnavAda, kshaNika vAda or shUnyavAda.
> No, that is not at all the case as we all know.  Likewise, the quoted
> jnAni's vyavahAra unlike aviveki is after considering the fact about the
> natural outgoing tendency of the jnAni's indriya-s (vAk, manaH, kAyANAm).
> It has been clarified in this context that the jnAni would have the
> conviction that the jagat is not different from him.  Only then he can know
> that he is not related to the transactions of his body with the world.
> Samyak vyavahAra is not like individually executed vyavahAra with katrutva,
> bhOktrutva buddhi, it has been carried out automatically without any effort
> in that samyak jnAni hence shankara says in chAndOgya : for the jnAni ALL
> THE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO ALL THE NAME AND FORMS ARE SATYA because they are
> viewed causally.  Here point to be noted that shankara not only includes
> ONLY name and form BUT also the TRANSACTIONS.  Hence it has been insisted
> that for the jnAni, in that highest point of view everything satyameva and
> there is no anAtma vastu or mithyA vastu for him.  After all samyak jnana
> or sama darshitva advocates this point of view only.  And it has been in
> this context shruti also says aham annam, annaada and shloka karta.  More
> emphatic and categorical quote we can find in chAndOgya where in it has
> been said : Before self-realization creation destruction etc., were from
> one who was different from me.  But with self realization 'THEY ARE NOW
> FROM MYSELF.  IN THIS WAY ALL TRANSACTIONS FROM HIMSELF IN THE CASE OF
> JNaNI.
>
> Those who are standing on their toes to pick silly points  and enthused to
> highlight the socalled damages to Advaita should read these bhAshya vAkya-s
> properly and discuss with their respective guru-s sincerely without any
> prejudiced mindsets.   Then only they will come to know what exactly other
> party is trying to convey / share with regard to this topic.
>
> As a matter aside,  I can show the fallacy & inanity  in personal comments
> floated  freely by some prabhuji-s on and off the board thinking that I am
> a soft target :-)  but I do not want to do that it is because  I donot want
> to offend anyone and more importantly I think, everyone entitled to have
> their own opinion on anything and everything and every person :-)  May
> almighty bless them all.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>