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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Chandramouli ji,

I was using the statement "nAma rUpa is satya as Brahman" in the bAdha
mode. After bAdha, nAma rUpa is revealed to have not existed in any period
of time in the locus of its appearance, viz., Brahman. However, it
continues to appear even after bAdha.

By svarUpa of pot, I mean it's essence. Every aspect of the appearance of
the pot adhyAsa, is anritam, with Brahman as the real entity "supporting"
the pot. I do not know the technical meaning of svarUpa.

If I'm mixing up reference points, I apologise.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 27 Apr 2016 2:58 p.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 vivarta vikAra.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>