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

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Pranams Bhaskarji,
SwAtma-drshti= as seen by oneself (jnAni or ajnAni )
Para-drshti= as seen by others about what a jnAni or ajnAni will be seeing.

Hari Om!
Aurobind

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:00 Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Aurobind prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> You are the lone prabhuji in the entire group atleast trying to be there
> with me J In short, svAtmadrushti is paripUrNa drushti and another one is
> parichiinna drushti.  The former one is nirupAdhika satyatva drushti the
> later is sOpAdhika dvaita drushti which is avidyA kalpita.    Frankly your
> second one i.e. paradrushitiya is not clear to me.
>
>
>
> Hari hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>
> *From:* Aurobind Padiyath [mailto:aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 5:17 PM
> *To:* Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>; A discussion group for
> Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Bhaskar YR <
> bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva
> is brahman !!??
>
>
>
> Pranams Bhaskar Ji,
>
> For my clarity in understanding of what you want to convey, can you please
> explain the same under the two segments/systems/prakriyas:
>
> 1. SwAtmadrshtiya
>
> 2. Paradrshitiya
>
>
>
> If these two aspects are explained,I think, I would be able understand it
> better.
>
> Hari Om !
>
> Aurobind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:08 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> --
>
> Aurobind Padiyath
> +91-9689755499
>
-- 

Aurobind Padiyath
+91-9689755499