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

[Aurobind Padiyath]

One thing that is often forgotten is that there is Only and Only Brahman
 (Atma va idam agraAseed)
Also it is Ekam Sarvagatham SuSukhshmam. So there cannot be two. Ekam eva
Adviteeya.

Now comes to the two terms Brahman and Jagat. Since there cannot be two
both need to be One.
So why the two names? While one is every thing, there is no everything in
reality but in appearance. For whom the two? For the one who knows there is
this Jagat which appears as real to him and also heard about 'a Brahman'
which is everything. But unable to understand the implication of what he
has heard. So he cannot reconcile to the Shastra Vakhya 'Sarvam khaluedham
Brahma'. So the JnAni who imparts the Veda vakhya tatparya to him brings in
a terminology called Mithya/Maya/Avidya for his condition which he accepts
but not without a pinch of salt. The Guru/jnAni uses other explanations of
the Shruti based on the level of his mental clarity called Chttasudhi. Each
of these explanations are called prakriyas or methodology. They in
themselves are not the perfect answer but indicative ones to take the level
of the questioning from gross level to subtlest level from where the
student travels inward to find the Truth in Himself. (Avrtta chakshu,
Amrtatwam ichan"
It is in this process the term Mithya is used to explain his apparent
reality of the jagat. He is being told that the Jagat is MithyA meaning
that which is real and unreal. So he asks how can the same be both at the
same time. So the example of snake on the rope is introduced to tell that
even though at all the three times of past, present and future the reality
is only rope. But your feeling that it was a snake was a Mithya jnana,
which is seeing untruth in the truth. Or unreal on real. This is the same
with Jagat and Brahman. One sees the reality of snake (Jagat ) on the rope
(Brahman) which is all that was there all the time. So when you saw the
snake (jagat), that what was all the time that what you were seeing
was/is/will be the reality of Brahman. In this situation we can say Brahman
and the "apparent Jagat(MithyA Jagat)" both are only Satyam .

Sankaracharya uses the term Jagat Atman in Brhadaranyaka in his bhashyam.
>From the truth point there is ONLY ONE what one sees as also in multitude
is nothing but THAT. The ChAndOgya 7th chapter proclaims this by saying
"Yatra na anya pashyati. ..........

Aurobind

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:07 Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः सीतारामार्यपुत्रः), <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Namaste Sri Bhaskar
>
> There is a lot of confusion because of this Sabdajaala you have
> created below and I am getting trapped in it. But I have one question.
> After Samyak Jnana will the Jnani see Brahman and Jagat both because
> Jagat is also Satya? If he is seeing both there will not be Advaita
> but Dvaita because there will be two Satyas Brahman and Jagat.
> Therefore it is correct to say after Samyak Jnana there will be not
> two things Brahman and Jagat but only Brahman.
>
> You may say Jagat and Brahman are same. There are not two. If they are
> same we are fighting for names. If you agree there is only One thing
> after Jnana you can call it as Brahman or Jagat it will not matter.
> But you must agree that One thing will not have Parts and Bheda.
> Because that is not Advaita. It is One Homogeneous quantity. Call it
> Brahman or what you want.
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > Sri Bhaskar cannot be correct because Question 2 and 3 are contradicting
> each other. If Answer for Question 2 is yes answer for Question 3 will have
> to be No only.
> > If the Mattur scholar is saying yes for Question 2 he is saying yes
> keeping in mind all points in Prasthana Traya Bhashya. Then why will he go
> into deep analysis for question 3 again? If answer for question 2 is No
> answer to question 3 will have to be yes only. Because nothing can be both
> Satya and Mithya.
> >
> >>  it appears to be so since the questions have been raised without
> explaining its proper context.  Answer for the Q # 2 is,  brahma satya
> jagan mithya is according to prasthAna traya bhAshya, is YES only I too
> would have said that if it is asked without mentioning the context of it.
> Likewise, answer for the Q # 3 is obviously 'NO' i.e. jagat satyatva is not
> on par with brahman hence it is mithyA only, again I too would have said
> the same thing since here again context is not clear .  But what is the
> jagat we are talking about here??  Is it the jagat for which brahman is the
> efficient and material cause??  Or is this jagat which is kevala buddhi
> parikalpita of the individual jeeva??  And again the main context of this
> discussion is if the jeeva (jeeva itself is upAdhi parichinna jnana, there
> is no entity that can be called jeeva without upAdhi) is brahman why not
> jagat??  Because for this jada jagat brahman is the both upAdAna and
> nimitta kAraNa and jagat as kArya donot have any independent existence
> apart from kAraNa at any point of time.  Can we see an ornament without
> gold in it??  Can we see a pot without clay??  It is in this sense, it has
> been argued that jagat in its causal form nothing but brahman.  So, IMHO,
> these questions and answers to that would be correct only on the general
> parlance but completely out of context.
> >
> >
> > Problem in Sri Bhaskar's mind is he is thinking Mithya is totally false
> like rabbit's horns totally Asat.
> >
> >>  It is not me who is saying mithyA is like hare's horn OTOH this
> mithyAtva has been attributed to nAmarUpAtmaka jagat from the point of view
> of the samyak jnAni by some prabhuji-s in this list.  I am just saying
> after paramArtha jnana, what remains is satyaM and ONLY satyaM and that
> satyatva darshanaM would lead the jnAni to realize that ornament is nothing
> but gold and there exists nothing apart from gold.  sarvaM brahma mayaM or
> sarvaM khalvidaM brahman.
> >
> >
> > But nobody said Jagat is like that. It is not Sat and not Asat. That is
> why it is Mithya. This is the most difficult part to understand in Advaita.
> >
> >>  It may kindly be noted that that which is already decided as 'mithyA'
> cannot be anirvachaneeya (tattvAnyatvAbhyAM or sat or asat).  The person
> who has already realized that there is no sarpa on the rajju and his sarpa
> jnana in place of rajju jnana was mithyAjnAna cannot have the samshaya
> jnana whether it is sarpa or rajju at the same time.  Moreover, mithyAjnAna
> and jneya vastu of this mithyAjnAna is jeeva parikalpita or jeeva mAnasa
> pratyaya which is avidyA kalpita whereas that cannot be explained as tat or
> atatvA  (tattvAnyatva nirUpaNasya ashakyatvAt) pertains to avyakta / mAyA
> that which is before srushti and after pralaya exists in kAraNa as kAraNa
> rUpa and that exists and appears (vyakta rUpa) in sthiti kAla.  avyaktA hi
> sA mAyA, avyaktAdeeni bhUtAni vyakta madhyAni, avyakta nidhanAnyeva etc.
> clarifies geetAchArya.   All these things need to be explained with the
> sUtra bhAshya vAkya in mind, i.e. :  ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasya
> kAraNAtmatvaM NA TU KAARANASYA KAARYAATMATVAM.  The ornament in its nAma &
> rUpa gold only but in gold there is no vyavahAra / vikAra of nAma rUpa.
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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