[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 08:58:47 CDT 2016
Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
Reg your observation << 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.>>,
Sorry I am not in agreement.
” nAma rUpa is satya only as Brahman “ is not a correct statement. . Only
Brahman is satya. nAma rUpa is not. Just that. That is the position with
In the pot-clay illustration on the other hand “ nAma rUpa ( of pot ) is
satya only as clay “ is the correct statement. As viewed
separate/distinct/different from clay, it is anrita. That is the position
with pariNAma vikAra.
When looking at a pot it is not correct to say “ that I am “. You are
mixingup different levels of Reality. svarUpa of pot is not Brahman.
Perhaps a correct statement would be “ I am the adhishthana of pot “ though
it is generally not stated so. Pot is mithya. It is an appearance in
Brahman. Only Brahman is satya. What this means is that pot is experienced
without having existentiality ( pAramArthika satya ).Hence the name
vyavahArika satya is assigned to its status. That is why it is not asat (
absolute nonexistence ) because asat is not experienced at all. Mithya if
always understood as “ experienced unreality” instead of mere “ unreality”
it facilitates easier comprehension.
When you say “There is no pot apart from Brahman “ you are again mixing up
different levels of Reality. Viewed from standpoint of Brahman, “ there is
no pot “ is the correct statement.
Kindly excuse me if I appear to be carrying coal to New Castle. But the
situation demands it.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list