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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Aurobind,

"What is that you want to establish? I presume that all of us want to
establish that the Upanishadic statement "SarvaM Brahma" is the final
destination ."

I think you have raised an important point. From my perspective, the
tAtparya of shruti is neither the satyatvam of Brahman or mithyAtvam of
jagat (both are important, but not the tAtparya), but the aikya of jIva and
Brahman - therefore, like Sri Praveen, who made the same point a few days
ago, jIvo brahmaiva nAparah is the most important of three statements in
the slokArdha.

When that is taken as the tAtparya, the question becomes who is jIva and
what is Brahman, and how to reconcile with the unity of the jIva with a
homogenous, infinite Brahman, when all the jIva perceives is finitude and
heterogeneity. To answer this we have jagat mithyA. Anyway, no point going
through covered ground.

Let me try to attempt a samanvaya of the two views that were discussed thus
far.

1) We agree that Brahman is satyam.
2) We agree that jIva is Brahman.
3) We agree that all avidyAkalpita vastu is mithyA.
4) Where we differ is the satyatva of the jagat that is Ishvara srishTi.
5) Here we say that the adhishthAnam of jagat is Brahman and you say the
svarUpa of jagat is Brahman. So we both agree that there is a satya
component to jagat.
6) The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of manifoldness
in jagat. We say that the appearance of manifoldness is mithyA, and you say
that the jnAni sees the manifoldness too, but he disregards that
manifoldness (pashyann api na pashyati).
7) Ultimately, the manifoldness in jagat is ignored. If it is to be
ignored, what difference does it make whether we call it mithyA and ignore
it, or you ignore it saying that the manifoldness is satyam in its kAraNa
form as part of samyak drishTi?

As you say, we have tirelessly debated mithyA, why don't we discuss satyam
for a change.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Aurobind Padiyath <
aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:

> Pranams Venkatraghavanji,
> What is that you want to establish?
> I presume that all of us want to establish that the Upanishadic statement
> "SarvaM Brahma" is the final destination . So by insisting that the  Jagat
> is Mithya this is not going to happen. The moment we approach that route
> there will be prakriyas which is called dravida pranayamam. When the
> straight utterance of "Tat Tvam Asi" is employed by the Upanishad, why
> should we lean upon the MithyA word?
> Regards
> Aurobind
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:51 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sri Aurobind,
>>
>> Agreed. Everything is Brahman - however there is a difference between the
>> experience of a jnAni and his understanding. He experiences the world just
>> like an ajnAni, but he knows that what he is experiencing, the experience
>> and himself as the experiencer, are the same Brahman.
>>
>> What is being said here is that his experience of the world as "idam
>> jagat" has two components - the "idam", which is satya Brahman and "jagat",
>> which is mithyA adhyAsa. Similarly his "aham" comprises of two components -
>> satya Brahman and mithyA ahamkAra. He knows that the Brahman component of
>> aham is the same as the idam component of jagat. So he can easily say
>> "mayyeva sakalam jatam, mayi sarvam prathishthitam, mayi sarvam layam yAti,
>> tadbrahmAdvayamasmyaham"
>>
>> The ajnAni sees this not as comprising of two parts, but as  one "idam
>> jagat", which is different from his ahamkAra.
>>
>> Seeing jagat as just jagat is mithyA, just like viewing aham as a limited
>> ahamkAra is mithyA. These are just two different names and forms given to
>> Brahman.
>>
>> I am wondering if we should request Bhaskarji to post his final comments
>> on this topic so that we can move on to discuss other things. If people
>> want to respond to this mail or have more to say, then I am being
>> presumptuous and of course please carry-on.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 27 Apr 2016 4:57 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Both the jnAni and others are seeing exactly everything the same way it
>>> is
>>> existing. Only difference is that the jnAni knows everything is brahman
>>> only where as for others they do not know that.
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:23 Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > praNAms
>>> > Hare krishna
>>> >
>>> > Will Jnani see ornaments and gold both or gold only?
>>> >
>>> > >  jnAni will  see the golden ornament...does it mean to say jnAni
>>> would
>>> > see the vikAra in brahman??  No, it is just because the gold is
>>> OtaprOta in
>>> > all the ornaments irrespective of its size and shape.
>>> >
>>> > If he sees both there will be Dvaita because there is ornament with
>>> Nama
>>> > Rupa and gold.
>>> >
>>> > >  jnAni would realize that there is no separate existence for this
>>> > ornament apart from gold but in gold there is no shapes of ornaments.
>>> The
>>> > effect is not different from the cause, but the cause is different
>>> from the
>>> > effect.
>>> >
>>> > He must see gold only. Similarly for Jnani there is only Brahman. He
>>> > cannot see Nama Rupa Jagat.
>>> >
>>> > >  Yes, he would see gold only in kAryAkAra, it is because of this for
>>> the
>>> > jnAni kAryAkAra and related vyavahAra too satyameva from its sadrUpa.
>>> The
>>> > effect (nAma rUpa) is available for transactions, i.e. for example
>>> from the
>>> > gold ornaments created like ring, bangle, necklace, bracelet etc. it
>>> has
>>> > its own shape,  design, size and usage as well.  And later on these
>>> > ornaments can be melted and we can make a different ornament from that
>>> > melted gold.  Now tell me at what time these ornaments existed apart
>>> from
>>> > gold??  Before the creation of ornaments, after melting of ornaments
>>> and
>>> > when the ornaments existing in different shape and size, all these
>>> trishu
>>> > kAleshu these ornaments donot have existence apart from gold.  But
>>> here key
>>> > point is gold is not created (shankara in chAndOgya bhAshya calls this
>>> as
>>> > mrut sAmAnya which is invariably existing in mrutpinda and mrudghata)
>>> it is
>>> > neither big nor small, nor bracelet nor ring and mere gold
>>> (mrutsAmAnya) is
>>> > not available for any type of vyavahAra, hence mere gold (nirvishesha
>>> > brahman) is vyavahArAteeta but when the same gold in kAryAkAra
>>> available
>>> > for the vyavahAra in its sadrUpa.  Hence in shruti it has been clearly
>>> said
>>> > : Before its creation when the forms and names were not yet
>>> distinguished,
>>> > the jagat was available only for one expression and understanding viz.
>>> > Atman, NOW, (i.e. after creation) at the time of stithikAla (
>>> sustenance,
>>> > i.e. after the forms and names carved out) it is at once available NOT
>>> ONLY
>>> > for several expressions and understandings, but also for the single
>>> > expression and understanding i.e. Atman.  Hence it would be better to
>>> say
>>> > the jnAni would see at the nAma rUpa jagat as Atmameva..And it is NOT
>>> > vyavahAra abhAva jnana it is vyavahAra bAdhita samyaK jnana in which
>>> state
>>> > sravaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikAra jAtaM svatastu
>>> > anrutameva.  All the names and forms are real only with reference to
>>> their
>>> > cause, but independently by themselves (this is called parichinna
>>> drushti
>>> > of aviveki-s) they are unreal.
>>> >
>>> > It is like the snake rope example. When you have Ajnana you will see
>>> Snake
>>> > but when that Ajnana disappears you will see Rope only. You cannot see
>>> the
>>> > snake. That snake was Mithya.
>>> >
>>> > >  but as I said earlier, jagat is NOT mithya like sarpa on the rope.
>>> >
>>> > Problem with your logic is you are not understanding Brahman is cause
>>> for
>>> > Jagat but it is Vivarta Cause. Therefore when Kaarana is known there
>>> will
>>> > be no Kaarya. When rope is known there is no snake. If snake is still
>>> there
>>> > you have not understood rope.
>>> >
>>> > >  whether for the jagat brahman is vivartOpadAna kAraNa or pariNAmi
>>> > kAraNa fact remains that kArya is non different from kAraNa but kAraNa
>>> has
>>> > no effect in itself.  I have agreed that there is no nAnA in brahman (
>>> neha
>>> > nAnAsti kiMchana) but these nAnArUpa donot have existence of their own
>>> > apart from brahman.  Since for the nAnA brahman is the abhinna
>>> > nimittOpadAna kAraNa we cannot categorically declare jagat is mithya
>>> (which
>>> > is pratyaksha pramANa gOchara) and jeeva is brahman ( nAnAvidha
>>> jeeva-s too
>>> > pratyaksha).  This partiality does not make any sense when we are
>>> accepting
>>> > the kAraNatvaM of brahman to this jagat.
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> --
>>>
>>> Aurobind
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>