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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji, Chandramouliji,

I too feel dragged backed into the discussion again. :)

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:28 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Ditto. I also had trouble understanding Venkatraghavanji's statement.
"nAmarUpa is satya only as brahman" makes no sense to me. Since, nAmarUpa
is satya only as vyAvahArika satyam. nAmarUpa itself means a separate
perception, because brahman cannot be perceived. And nAmarUpa = jagat.
There is no jagat without nAmarUpa.


> ” 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.
>
>
Very well said.


> 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


True. Venkatraghavanji, I'm surprised that you have mixed up adhiShThAna
and svarUpa here after particularly differentiating them well in your first
mail listing samanvaya.


> Kindly excuse me if I appear to be carrying coal to New Castle. But the
> situation demands it.


Not true. The internet access here was down since over a day and I played
some catch up of mails a while back. An earlier response I read seems to
have rejected samanvaya on the grounds claiming that we are focusing on
mithyA while they are focusing on satya. So consider the coal already
carried. :) With the hope that it doesn't add more fuel, I am going to make
the following statement: there is a term mithyAvAdi used towards us who
support the view that jagat is mithyA. I know that dvaitis use this term
for us, but I don't know who in our own sampradAya uses it for us! If some
people do, I would like to tag them as dvaitis as well. :) Anyway, our
tAtparya, as Venkatraghavanji rightly said is only in the jIvabrahmaikya,
which is mokshakAraka.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen