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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Haha, I meant figuratively sir. It is mutual superimposition - transposing
existence from sat to anritam, and transferring parichinnatvam, etc from
anritam to sat.

You don't need to be an actual swan to separate the two - Viveka is
sufficient :)
That's why the highest group of sanyAsis are called paramahamsA -
metaphorically!

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 28 Apr 2016 8:34 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>
> "
> Your adhyAsa of asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
> MithunIkaraNam means mixing like milk and water.  Where as AdhyAsa is
> superimpose.
> In the first case the mixing do take place where as in the second case the
> Sat is only covered temporarily. That's why we can get back Sat but in the
> case of mithunIkaraNam, only a HansA can, if we are to belive that.
>
> Regards,
> Aurobind
>
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:58 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>> What is the asat in your explanation? Same as my anritam. Your adhyAsa of
>> asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
>>
>> Where do we differ? In what appears. I say that sat (pure existence)
>> cannot appear, it needs a manifesting medium, the anritam, to appear. You
>> say what appears is pure existence.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:19 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>
>> Anritam cannot cancel sat,(AGREED ) but sat can give existence to anritam
>> (NOT IN AGREEMENT) - allowing it to as-if exist.
>>
>> Sat cannot be but Sat. What appears is also Sat only. It is the adhyAsa
>> of Asat on Sat. So at all times what always remains is only Sat.
>> Regards,
>> Aurobind
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:43 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No existence of its own, yes.
>>>
>>> Anritam cannot cancel sat, but sat can give existence to anritam -
>>> allowing it to as-if exist.
>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:05 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>
>>> Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood).
>>>
>>> Does not this mean as if nonexistent?
>>>
>>> Then as if and the non part cancels each other in reality.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:29 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Aurobind
>>
>> --
>
> Aurobind
>