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

[Sanju Nath]

Here's the link to स्वामी दयानंद's commentary:

http://hinduonline.co/DigitalLibrary/SmallBooks/PurnamadahPurnamidamACommentarybySwamiDayanandaEng.pdf

धन्यवाद:
Sanju

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 
> praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> 
> I must say that you are jumping from one reference to another reference. From each reference point the statement are right. Here is where the reference state is being jumped
> 
>> I don’t think the reference point between vyavahAra and pAramArthika would become a big enigmatic issue  when bhAshyakAra himself categorically says 'paramArthastu' at some places to clarify his position on certain issues.   
> 
> jagat too brahman only. 
> 
> Sada: No. the correct statement again is what was said before - the adhishTaanam of jagat too is Brahman only. otherwise you are jumping form one reference to the other.
> 
>> My dear sada prabhuji,it may kindly be noted shruti is not talking about mere adhishtAnaM but upAdAna also.  When we are accepting the adhishTAnaM we have to accept the upAdAna also because it is shruti itself saying for the jagat brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  We cannot keep adhishtAnam as brahman and treating it as satya and upAdAnaM as mithyA.  That which is adhishtAnaM for the jagat is also upAdAnaM for that same jagat.  yadidaM kiMcha tatsarvamabhavat, mundaka gives the spider example for this.  IMHO, we should not adopt 'ardha kukkuti nyAya' while deciding the jagat svarUpa.
> 
> --------------------
> Bhaskarji
> 
> Impartial surgery of both jeeva and jagat leads us tosubstantive brahman only nothing else.
> 
> Sada: Correct. 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Bhaskarji: 
> 
>  Under this scenario, the famous vAkya traya to be : brahma satya jagat  satya jeevo brahmaiva na aparaH.
> 
> Sada: 
> 
> No 
> 
> Again jumping from one reference to the other.
> 
> The correct statement is Brhaman alone is stayam or to be  or precise - satyasya satyam.but for short, satyam is OK as long as it is defined as trikaala abhaaditam satyam. 
> 
>> This is what shankara says in sUtra bhAshya (quoted earlier) :  Just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect, the world, never deviates from existence in all the three periods (of srushti, sthiti & laya).  And existence again is only ONE.  So for this reason also THE EFFECT IS NONE OTHER THAN THE CAUSE.
> 
>> By the way, the reference point here is quite clear since it is talking about asthitvaM (existence) which is only one, it is from paramArthika drushti the kArya which is in kAraNa rUpa before srushti and even when it is manifested (vyAkruta rUpa) it's asthitvaM is not different from the cause.  The ornament was gold only before becoming /appearing as gold and after losing its nAma & rUpa so even when it is an ornament it does not exist apart from gold even in sthiti kAla too it is gold only.  Shankara gives the example of devadatta, the devadatta is same devadatta whether he has folded his legs and hands to rest or stretched his limbs for movement.  
> 
> Hence the correct statement again is :
> 
> Brahma satyam (since it is trikaala abhaaditam) and jagan mithyaa since while the adhishTaanam is satyam the adhyaasa is not - bhaadhitatvaat - it is naama ruupatmikam and every changing. 
> 
>> since jnAni's drushti is on the gold & gold only  the changing AkAra will  hardly be seen by him, (like a professional jeweler who just see the 'gold' content in all ornaments) and he knows even there are somany ornaments in his shop his 'evaluation' of the jewelry will be in terms of 'gold' only.  And again he very well knows that for the ornament the gold is the only upAdAna and nothing else.  
> 
> Sada: 
> 
> Bhaskarji - PurnamadaH sloka requires eloborate analysis which Swami Dayanandaji has done and is available on line. 
> 
> In the first line Purnam part is adhiShTaanam; and adam idams are not, and they are mithyaa only. Hence both words are dropped in the second line to illustrate only Purnam part  or adhishTaanam part is satyam. Otherwise the first line leaves with two purnams are infinities which makes the line invalid. Hence the second line comes in to unravel the statement. 
> 
>> I think more elaboration / clarity required here.  By the way where can I read SDS's commentary on pUrNamidaM mantra??  As you know we have discussed this pUrNamidaM mantra in advaitin list comprehensively with Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji and Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji where I countered the view points on jagat satyatvaM from the brahman's nirvisheshatvaM.  
> 
> 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