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

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 15:54:28 CDT 2016

Namaste Sri Srinath,

<samskAra cannot generate unless you have real cause to begin with.

If you say samskAra is anAdi and never originated, then it is equivalent in
saying such samskAra is self-same nature of the jIva, and hence never get
rid of it, and hence never is Brahman to begin with.>

Yes. However, you seem to think that getting rid of jivatva or samskAra is
an "action" - it isn't.  It is simply the denial of its ultimate reality.
If it is understood as not being real, there is nothing to get rid of.

<Do not forget ajAti vAda. There is no srishTi at all, period. Given this
fact, you cannot invoke many janma argument to support samskAra.>

You are jumping between reference points here. There is no srishTi from the
point of view of Brahman, paramarthically (sorry for colloquial usage!).
If you stick to paramArtha, there is no adhyAsa to explain at all as only
Brahman exists. So this question of samskAra to explain adhyAsa presupposes
a vyavahAra reference point already. When you switch references to
vyavahAra, you have anAdi srishTi.

<Well, one could argue -- there indeed is a similarity between blueness and
sky. Both are seen to exist in the same spatial extent, you do not see one
is under or over coverage on the other. Both are seen as co-located. Both
are beyond one's reach, etc.>

There is nothing about blue independently that is similar to sky
independently. Blueness doesn't exclusively occur in the sky, nor is it
clear why blueness is beyond reach either - I play holi with blue colour, I
paint my house wall blue. The collocation of blue in sky in this instance
causes adhyAsa of the attribution of blueness to sky, but collocation is
not a property of either blue or sky independently.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list