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

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Sri Venkatraghavanji,
Even though I had decided to quit this thread, your last rely forced me to
just make one point

"Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya existence and
anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book."

Satya Anrtham or Tamah Prakasha can never have mithiniikaranam but only
Eva= as if . So if it can't then what is left is only Satyam.

Regards,
Aurobind

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:13 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Bhaskar,
>
> I'm happy there are several points of agreement.
>
> However, we differ in this: you hold bhedAkAra to be satya, as bhedAkAra.
> That is not acceptable to me.
>
> The true nature of BhedAkArA's is not its AkAra, but it's astitva (sattA).
> That sattA is what Shankara calls it's true nature or sadAtmAnam. It is
> that true nature, existence, which is  Brahman, that is satyam.
>
> Everything else about the bhedAkAra, name, form, etc, apart from existence,
> is anritameva.
>
> Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya existence and
> anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book.
>
> If the true nature of jagat is accepted as existence only, then jagat is
> satya. If you insist that the form+existence mixture is satya by itself,
> then we cannot agree.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 28 Apr 2016 6:42 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
> >
> > Hare krishna
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm happy we got 3/7 :)
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     Yes, I am happy too, at last we are standing on the common platform
> > J
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5, you said: "In your position you are attributing satyatvaM only to
> > the antaryAmi / adhishtAnaM of the jagat (in a way you are accepting only
> > nimitta kAraNam and anupravesham as antaryAmi but ignoring the
> > upAdAnatvaM),"
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think that is true sir because adhishthAnam = vivarta upAdAna
> > kAraNam.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   OK prabhuji, adhishTAnaM is upAdAna kAraNaM.  We will come to the
> > ‘vivarta’ part of this upAdAna kAraNaM later after discussing the
> pariNAmi
> > upAdAna kAraNaM of mAya.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > We are saying jagat is a kArya of Brahman and MAya.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   Though you are all of a sudden introducing the mAya alongwith brahman
> > for the creation / existence of jagat, I am not objecting it, agreeing
> with
> > it to go forward in the spirit of samanvaya J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The vivarta upAdAna kAraNam is Brahman and the pariNAmi upAdAna KAraNam
> is
> > MAya. So even in our paksha, Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNa, it just so
> > happens to be a vivarta upAdAna, not a pariNAmi.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     So in other words, what is changeless in jagat is vivarta upAdAna
> > kAraNaM i.e. brahman  and what is changing in the jagat is pariNAMi
> upAdAna
> > kAraNaM i.e. mAya right prabhuji??  Now the question is, does this
> pariNAmi
> > upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAyA is a separate entity apart from vivarta upAdAna
> > kAraNa i.e. brahman??  I don’t think you would accept this position,
> since
> > we both agree that what is there before creation is ekaM eva adviteeyaM
> > (sadeva soumya idamagraaseet, ekamevAdviteeyaM asserts shruti).  So, the
> > changeless part of jagat i.e. vivartOpadAna kAraNaM i.e. adhishtAnaM
> brahma
> > should have some relationship with pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa of this
> changing
> > jagat if not from the adhisthAnaM point of view atleast from the pariNAmi
> > upAdAna point of view i.e. mAya point of view.  To clarify this point let
> > us go back to the example of ‘golden ornament’.  The changing nAma rUpa
> has
> > the pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAya whereas the ‘gold’ as its
> adhishtAnaM
> > / vivartOpadAna kAraNaM does not have to bother about pariNAmi kAraNam
> > since gold in its svarUpa will always be ‘nirlipta’ nirvikAra.  So, from
> > the adhshtAnaM point of view, no question can be raised on the
> relationship
> > between vivarta and pariNAmi.  But pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAya has
> to
> > have some relationship with this adhishtAnam.  What exactly is this??  We
> > have to find the answer for this because we have started the prakriya by
> > accepting the one without second existence of adhishtAnaM i.e. brahman.
> > Shankara clarifies that this pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa ( frankly I don’t
> know
> > where exactly shankara categorically makes this distinction between
> >  pariNAmi and vivarta to prove the jagat mithyatva, anyway let that be
> > aside) if at all it is there it is nothing but Shakti of the parabrahman
> > and there shankti is not different from Shakta.  Which I have said
> > yesterday as well.  So, since there is ananyatvaM between Shakti and
> > Shakta, the Shakti which is manifestation of manifold nAma rUpa nothing
> but
> > Shakta in its causal form.  Kindly note I am not saying this, shankara
> > himself clarifies in sUtra bhAshya  kAraNasya AtmabhUtA shaktiH,
> > shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Anyway, this will be hard to understand
> for
> > those who deny the intrinsic qualities of brahman i.e. sarvajnatvaM and
> > sarvashaktitvaM (sUtra bhAshya 1-1-5).
> >
> >
> >
> >  On 6 -  how to explain the appearance of manifoldness in jagat , you
> > said:  "Don’t you think shankara explained this already by saying :
> > satyatvAbhyupagamAt ...sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha satyatvaM."
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, shankara did say here: "sarvam cha nAmarUpAdi sadatmanaiva" (all
> nAma
> > rUpa are satya, in their nature of the Self), however he also said
> > "vikArajAtam svatastu anritamaiva". He said "ata: sadAtmanA
> > sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam sattoanyatve cha
> > anritatvamiti" - all vyavahAra and all modifications are real in their
> > nature of the Real Self, and unreal (anritatvam) separate from it.
> >
> >
> >
> > The way I interpret that statement is to say that the Brahman as the
> > adhishthAnam for nAma rUpa is real (adhishthAna means vivarta upAdAna
> > kAraNa), that nAmarUpa by themselves are unreal. In other words, it is
> > sadasat vilakshaNam, or mithyA.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     Yes, prabhuji, Shankara already clarified his position that nAma
> > rUpa ‘svatastu anrutameva’ after declaring the siddhAnta : sarvaM cha
> > nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva so it is not negation of nAma rUpa themselves, it
> > is negation svatantra astitva of this nAma rUpa independently from
> > brahman.  What is mithya is svatantra astitvaM of this nAma rUpa, which
> you
> > also agreed.  Happy we are agreeing here to one more point. 4/7 shall I
> say
> > J
> >
> >
> >
> > Your question may be why do we need to talk of modification by
> themselves?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   There cannot be any talk possible about modification themselves
> > without bringing in the adhishtAnaM !! Can we talk about gold
> modifications
> > like ring, bangle, bracelet etc. without considering the gold part in
> it??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we separate modification from Brahman?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø  No that is what I said above.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why is it important to look at nAma rUpa, different from Brahman?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   nAma rUpa without brahman is like mirror reflection of gold
> > ornament.  There is no gold in that reflection and that gold ornament
> does
> > not serve any practical purpose.  So, it is there just for the name sake.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Our answer to that is that if it wasn't important, Shankara could have
> > stopped at sadAtmanA sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam - he
> > needn't have added sattoanyatve cha anritatvam.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   Shankara talks about avidyAkalpita nAma rUpa of jeeva to
> > differentiate it from brahma mAnasa pratyaya of this jagat.  Hence he
> > reiterates ‘svatantra jagat’ is asarvaM and abrahmaM, it is only in the
> > vision of ajnAni-s whereas for the jnAni there exists nothing but brahman
> > hence for him : “sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva”.  It is not avidyA
> > bheda drushti, parichinna drushti.  It is avidyA rahita paripUrNa drushti
> > or sama darshitvaM.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hence, in my opinion, AchArya's addition to the end of the line is
> > crucial.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Yes, prabhuji, the post popular understanding about the jagat is from
> > aviveki-s, ajnAni-s, for them shankara suggesting what you see the
> > prapancha apart from you does not exist it is anrutameva.  Realize that
> > what is there outside of you and what is there inside of you is only
> > brahman and nothing else. Rishi vAmadeva realized it when he was in his
> > mother’s garbha, bhakta prahllAda realized it and shown the hari in the
> > pillar to his father.  And more importantly this is the way of teaching
> of
> > shAstra. It starts from manifoldness of jagat, brings in the kAryakAraNa
> > ananyatvaM and finally establishes the brahmaikatvaM.  From this
> > methodology only, in my opinion we can effectively do the shAstra vAkya
> > samanvaya with regard to brahmaikatva jnana.
> >
> >
> >
> > So in the spirit of samanvayA:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1)       Brahman is nimitta kAraNam and vivarta upAdAna kAraNam of jagat.
> >
> > Ø   Yes, agreed prabhuji J
> >
> >
> >
> > 2)       nAma rUpa in their essential nature are satya, but apart from
> > that are anritam.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø   Very nicely said prabhuji agreed again J
> >
> >
> >
> > 3)      We call that mithyA, and you by ignoring the anritam part and
> > looking only at the satyA part are calling jagat satyam.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     We are not ignoring the jagat mithyatva as I have been clarifying
> > several times.  What you look at mithyA is not mithya for us.  As per our
> > book of vedAnta what is mithyA is jeeva kalpita jagat/samsara for which
> > pariNAmi nityatvaM of mAya is adhishtAnaM.  In short, according to us,
> > bhedAkAra is not mithyA, bheda buddhi in bhedAkAra is mithya.  A subtle
> but
> > very significant difference indeed J
> >
> >
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> >
> > Bhaskar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
-- 

Aurobind