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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Aurobind,

Im afraid I can't agree that satyAnritam here is like tamah prakAsha
(paraspara virodhi).

Truth and falsehood are paraspara virodhi, but here:

Satya = Existence (here not truth)
Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood)

MithunIkaraNam does happen "eva"- as if. Ultimately anritam doesn't exist,
it only exists "as if". What exists is existence.

Regards
Venkatraghavan
On 28 Apr 2016 7:48 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>