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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare krishna

I'm happy there are several points of agreement.

Ø   Yes, that too after a long deliberation ☺ the beauty of this mutual agreement  at the first place is  we are not childishly harping on the tags and discussing the siddhAnta to the best of our ability :-)  And in the second place, we both are thinking  that without compromising our positions we are doing the samanvaya ☺  But unfortunately your effort has been questioned by prabhuji-s in your own camp ☺  And I reckon you handled that too very well without disturbing their sentiments ☺

However, we differ in this: you hold bhedAkAra to be satya, as bhedAkAra. That is not acceptable to me.

Ø   Small clarification, I am not holding bhedAkAra as bhedAkAra   in itself is satya, I am saying it is satya because for the kAryAkAra,  Atma is kAraNa. kAryAkAra too kAraNa svarUpa.  For this I have already quoted bhAshya vAkya : kArAkArOpi kAraNasya AtmabhUta eva, anAtmabhUtasya anArabhtatvAt.



The true nature of BhedAkArA's is not its AkAra, but it's astitva (sattA).

Ø     And akAra does not deviate from its astitva (sattA) hence even when you are looking at it satyameva.  Just because gold appearing as ornament, we cannot say ornament is not gold, it is gold only when it is ornament and it is gold only when it is not in the shape of ornaments.  Devadatta is devadatta only whether he is sleeping or walking or dancing.  Even if we fold the big saree and put it in small box or when it is worn by a big woman it is saree only nothing else ☺

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.

Ø   The clincher is ‘apart from existence’, we too not party with this independent existence of bhedAkAra, in that sense bhedAkAra is mithyA only not satya ☺ Another agreement ??



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

Ø   Can we able to perceive the ‘akAra-less existence of satya in this jagat?? That is the reason why I said it is not bAhyAkAra nivrutti, it is only bAhyAkAra bheda buddhi nivrutti.  bAhyAkArabhedabuddhi nivruttireva AtmasvarUpavalambanakAraNaM says shankara in geeta bhAshya.  bAhyAkAra here is indriya vedya, pratyaksha pramANa gOchara whereas nivrutti of  bheda buddhi in bAhyAkAra is shAstra pramANita or vAkya janita jnana.  This vAkya janita jnana does not have the capacity to destroy the bAhyAkAra, it only eradicates the avidyA parikalpita pratrutvAdi parichinna jnAna about this bAhyAkAra.

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.

Ø   If you could show me the existence of this jagat without name and form then I would accept your position prabhuji ☺

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar