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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Agreed - Here nAma rUpa is satya only as Brahman, viewed
separate/distinct/different from it, it is anrita.

So when looking at a pot, if we say "that I am", then we are saying that
the svarUpa of the pot is Brahman, and that I am. When looking at a pot,
and saying there is a pot, that is mithyA. There is no pot apart from
Brahman, viewing it as different is giving it an independent existence and
such an entity is mithyA.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 27 Apr 2016 1:48 p.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>
>
>
> Reg your observation  << 1) Brahman is nimitta kAraNam and vivarta
> upAdAna kAraNam of jagat.
>
> 2) nAma rUpa in their essential nature are satya, but apart from that are
> anritam. We call that mithyA, and you by ignoring the anritam part and
> looking only at the satyA part are calling jagat satyam. >>,
>
>
>
> I must confess I did not understand  “nAma rUpa in their essential nature
> are satya, but apart from that are
> anritam.”.  However I will just state my understanding for your info. You
> may dispose it off as you deem fit.
>
>
>
> In vivarta vikAra, kAraNa alone is satya and kArya is not. It is just
> that. Period. There is no scope for any samanvaya with any other view. It
> is not correct to say kArya is satya in or as its kAraNa swarupa. Rope is
> real. Rope- serpent is not real. It is not that rope-serpent is real in or
> as rope swarupa.
>
>
>
> Just my understanding and for your info. As I said earlier please feel
> free to ignore it if you are not in agreement.
>
>
>
> Pranams and Regards
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>