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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:40 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Bhaskarji - PraNAms
>
> 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
> ---------------------------------
> Bhaskarji:
> .......but what is seen as jagat in jaagrat in vyAkruta rUpa for which
> adhishtAnaM is brahman only hence like jeeva in its adhishtAna (it is not a
> causal form - it is substantive form since from Brahman point it is not
> even a cause for creation)
> ..................................
> Sada:
> upto this, the statements are correct. - following statement
>
> Bhaskarji:
>
>  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.
>
> --------------------
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
In the spirit of jumping from one reference to the other, I agree with you
in calling adhyaasa "jagat" as mithya. In the same we should also call
"Jiva" as mithya as the notion of jIvahood is equally adhyAsa over the same
adhishTAnaM. Then statement would be -- brahma satya jagan mithyA jeeva
mithyA ubhyOr brahmaiva na aparaH.

Why not the same treatment to jIva is given?

/sv