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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Let me share my thoughts on these samanvaya points, fortunately not much drastic differences but some important differences  between us :-) 

1) We agree that Brahman is satyam.

>  yes 

2) We agree that jIva is Brahman.

>  Yes

3) We agree that all avidyAkalpita vastu is mithyA.

>  yes

4) Where we differ is the satyatva of the jagat that is Ishvara srishTi.

>  It is satya just because it is not jeeva parikalpita.  It is satya because this srushti is the manifestation of Shakti of parabrahman, it is satya because there is no difference between Shakti and Shakta here.  kAraNasya AtmabhUtA shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM, sA shaktiH brahmaiva ahaM shaktishaktimatOH ananyatvAt clarifies shankara.  Since this Shakti is avyakta and one with kAraNa we have to say this Shakti is in sthiti kAla of jagat too nothing but Shakta only in Shakti rUpa.  


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.

>  In your position you are attributing satyatvaM only to the antaryAmi / adhishtAnaM of the jagat (in a way you are accepting only nimitta kAraNam and anupravesham as antaryAmi but ignoring the upAdAnatvaM), whereas we are trying to convey that brahman is both upAdAna and antaryAmi as well for this jagat through kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM and abhinnanimittOpadAnakAraNayvam.  That which is adhishtAnaM is upAdAnaM as well.  For the ornament gold is the only both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa.  There cannot be any kAryAkAra if it does not have the kAraNa as its upAdAna.  I have hardly see any attention to this point from other side.  


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).

>  Don’t you think shankara explained this already by saying : satyatvAbhyupagamAt ...sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha satyatvaM.  


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?

>  kAryAkAra also brahmameva hence the manifoldness is 'vishesha darshana of that kAraNa cannot be ignored as mithyA it is (kAryAkAra) satyameva since kAryAkAra does not have any existence apart from kAraNa.  Just because we are seeing nAma rUpa we cannot say it is mithyA and have to ignore it.  Sarvasya vikAraM kAraNarUpaM satyameva.  It is not ignoring the kAryAkAra in our books it is knowing / realizing the kAraNatvaM in kAryAkAra.  And the jnAni would not ignore it he would accept it as his svarUpa.  

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

>  And we are happily seeing and talking satyaM in which you prabhuji-s see only mithyatvaM :-)  So, we have already started our talk about satyatvaM prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar