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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Yes agreed. That's why we have a third ontological position called mithyA,
to describe just that.

Is that the sense of Sri Bhaskar's usage?

Regards
Venkatraghavan
On 28 Apr 2016 9:21 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Venkartraghavanji,
>
> "What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
> position that bhedAkAra is satyam."
>
> Here what we have to understand is the names and forms do not have
> independent reality. Their reality is not different from the base reality
> of Sat. Hence they too have Sat in them but not independent of Sat. The Sat
> feeling what we have of the ever changing names and forms are borrowed from
> Brahman.
> Regards,
> Aurobind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 13:45 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>>
>> AdhyAsa was defined as satyanrita mithunikaraNam by Shankara in adhyAsa
>> bhAshya. That was the reason I used the terms. We were talking about the
>> same thing only.
>>
>> "names and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one can
>> look deep into those names and forms, what they will realise is that they
>> are superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and Chit.
>> This means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit"..."Hence Jagat in
>> reality is Sat only. "
>>
>> I'm in complete agreement. I have said the same in the original email.
>> This is what I said earlier today:
>>
>>
>> " 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."
>>
>> What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
>> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
>> position that bhedAkAra is satyam.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:55 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>> We all have the habit of using not the right words for right expression.
>>> This leads to confusion.
>>>
>>> So I wanted to bring out that. Now coming to the core difference,
>>> Jagat as names and forms is superimposed on the Sat. Because the names
>>> and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one can look deep
>>> into those names and forms, what they will realise is that they are
>>> superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and Chit. This
>>> means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit. Jagat is a transactional
>>> world which is ever changing superimposed on the Permanent Sat-Chit-Ananda.
>>> Hence Jagat in reality is Sat only. Even though transactionaly it may
>>> temporarily appear to be real.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:13 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>> --
>
> Aurobind
>