[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
agnimile at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 10:35:29 CDT 2016
Namaste Sri Praveen,
Your points are valid - seen on its own, it is confusing. The context was
that my post was made as a response to Bhaskarji's quotation of Chandogya
सर्वं च नामरूपादि सदात्मनैव सत्यं विकारजातम्, स्वतस्त्वनृतमेव, ‘वाचारम्भणं
विकारो नामधेयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) इत्युक्तत्वात् । तथा जीवोऽपीति ।
यक्षानुरूपो हि बलिरिति न्यायप्रसिद्धिः । अतः सदात्मना सर्वव्यवहाराणां
सर्वविकाराणां च सत्यत्वं सतोऽन्यत्वे च अनृतत्वमिति न कश्चिद्दोषः
तार्किकैरिहानुवक्तुं शक्यः, यथा इतरेतरविरुद्धद्वैतवादाः
स्वबुद्धिविकल्पमात्रा अतत्त्वनिष्ठा इति शक्यं वक्तुम् ||
I was trying to use language that was consistent with the ideas of the
Bhashya - that is nAmarUpa - in its essence as Sat - is satyam -
modifcation on its own, is unreal. If that has inadvertently caused
confusion, I apologise.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > 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. .
> > 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.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list