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

[Ravi Kiran]

Nice samanvaya ...

just 1 addition below :

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

3a) Any vyavahAra involving avidyAkalpita vastu is mithyA also and never it
is paramArtham  (doesn't matter who does such vyavahAra! :)


> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>