[Advaita-l] JAGAT MITHYATVAM IN ADVAITA - A CONCLUSION - part -1

[Ravi Kiran]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Sati Shankar <studiesggroup at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for kind attention.
> I think the core lies in,
> "He, *PrajApati,* (= brahmn) manifests in "Himself", so this universe,
> *idam sarvam*,
> percieved according to *anurUpam, pratirUpam*,to be declared " One and
> many".
>  Manifested",* idam sarvam*, is where two opposites or better say
> counterparts as pperceived  in duality, sat-asat, sat-muthyA, ... etc...
>  are the :syzygy of Conjoint principle" as *PrajApti*, thus manifested
> with  his own  multifarious *sva-bhAva,* The said conjoint principle, on
> which RigVeda has enough to support,  the way being *anurUpah*,
> *pratirUpah,*(JBU.I.27), refers to the situation where we can question
> how He when menifests in himself be, even in part a mithyA,
>

Right, there is no entity *existing* apart (anya) from ekam eva adviteeya
paramArtha vastu (Brahman), as said in Sruti,

yato vA imAni bhUtAni jAyante.. ( Tait. U)

satyam jnAnam anantam Brahma ( Tait. U)

satyasya satyaM (BU)

सलिल एको द्रष्टाद्वैतो भवति (BU),

..

Thanks


> I am not making an statement but yes this aspect has some broken link in
> the continuous history of our traditional commentaries, which needs to be
> checked and clarified.
> Regards
> Sati Shankar
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sati Shankar via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> praNAm
>>> I feel lucky having joined this group, at least I reached a place where
>>> some meaningful discussion is going on.
>>> Many of the variations which we encounter are due to semantics*, mithyA*
>>> is
>>> never an illusion nor "False" as we encounter in textbook and general
>>> texts. When I started studying, found AchArya Shankar himself has said he
>>> had been saying what has been already there and this led me go backward
>>> right to Rig Veda.and  hence started reconsidering most of the core as a
>>> facet of continuity. same applies to unity and duality also.
>>> I can not be comprehensive here is a short note:
>>> Let us consider our own tradition;
>>> In our Sanatan tradition,  whatever we perceive, the form and name it,*
>>> nAma -  rUpa*, is realised in our tradition as *vishvam ekam*, (RV.
>>> 3.54.8), the many are the One  and the One that is manifold, *vishvam
>>> satyam*, (RV. 2.24.12); the manifold truth,and *vishvam .....garbham*
>>> (RV.
>>> 10.121.7). therefore, if asked, "Is He One or many?", our tradition
>>> says,"One and many", The general principle is ,the *devah* is every where
>>> of one and the same form. (RV.8.11.8)., that is, "Even as he seems, so is
>>> he named" (RV. 5.44.6)., the way being *anurUpah*, *pratirUpah,*
>>> (JBU.I.27). So how can there be a part *satyam *and  an other* mithyA?*
>>> Here,
>>> He, *PrajApati,* manifests in "Himself", so this universe, *idam sarvam*,
>>> pecieved according to *anurUpam, pratirUpam*,to be declared " One and
>>> many". It is the semantic mis-marriage that the translation of the
>>> *NasadIya
>>> Sukta*, the Manifestation Hymn, as called the "Creation Hymn", which
>>> signifies the error interpretation and naming by the Indologists had in
>>> their minds the "Creationist presuppositions" of Christianity. Therefore,
>>> using the "God" for the  "Self. Manifested",* idam sarvam*, is like
>>> limiting Him and equally makes "theology" a term unfit to proceed for
>>> *brahma
>>> jijnAsA* of our tradition.*PrajApti*, thus manifested in Himself,* idam
>>> sarvam*,selforganizes in dharma by his own  multifarious *sva-bhAva,*
>>> such
>>> that in Him are all beings, *idam sarvam,- manas, prAnah, nAma-rUpa, *are
>>> within, as coincident; " sent by Him onto him, and born of Him into him,
>>> it
>>> is in Him that all this universe is stabilised, that is how our tradition
>>> invokes for *shAnti, ... sarve devAh shAntih, nakshatrh shAntih,
>>> vanaspatayah shantih.....aum shAntih, shAntih, shAntih..*. to keep the
>>> equilibrium  in *idam sarvam* intact, for welfare of the cosmos. Our
>>> scriptures teach,"*idam sarvam brahm*" and therefore, being a
>>> manifestation
>>> within,   *Aham brahmAsmi*  since we ,*aikik *and *samyaka *are this
>>> "*idam
>>> sarvam*", well connected in such a way that a chance deviation at any
>>> level, be it microcosm or macrocosm, does not leave unaffected within.
>>> When
>>> "idam sarvam brahmn" how can there be something called mithyA?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. In the same light,
>>
>> in that samyak jnAna or brahmAtmaikatva jnAna, is there a "jagat vishEsha
>> jnAna" also embedded?
>>
>> If so, comes the next question for discussion, whether such a jagat, is
>> sathya or mithya ?
>>
>> Or in other words,
>>
>> When we discuss jagat as sathya or jagat as mithya, is it not that
>>
>> the jnAna takes the rUpa as "jagat sathya" ( vishEsha jnAna A) in upAdhi
>> 1 and
>>
>> the jnAna takes the rUpa as "jagat mithya" ( vishEsha jnAna B) in upAdhi 2
>>
>> What is the svarUpa (source or nature) of such vishEsha jnAna ?
>>
>> Does that svarUpa jnAna (paramArtha sathya) have any place for (or has
>> anything to do with)
>> vishEsha's like jagat sathya or jagat mithya ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So is the observation by this ignorant.
>>> Regards
>>>  Sati Shankar.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > praNAms
>>> > Hare Krishna
>>> >
>>> > First of all my heartfelt praNAms to all prabhuji-s who have patiently
>>> > participated in this discussion and shared their thoughts.  After
>>> > exchanging more than 200 mails on this topic, as I promised I am
>>> writing
>>> > down my final thoughts on it.  I must say here by no means it is 'the'
>>> > conclusion in Advaita saMpradAya but shared thoughts do have the base
>>> in
>>> > shankara bhAshya and shruti.   And more importantly Sri SSS's works too
>>> > somewhere advocated this same view point.  From all these discussion,
>>> we
>>> > can flatly conclude that there is no difference of opinion on
>>> > brahmaikatvaM, satyatvaM, nirvisheshatvaM etc.,  there is no
>>> difference of
>>> > opinion on availability of this jagat in vyavahAra to each and every
>>> one,
>>> > hence jagat astitvaM has been accepted as vyavahArika satta  and again
>>> > there is no difference of opinion about jeeva svarUpa is ultimately
>>> brahman
>>> > only (jeevO brahmaiva na apara) in these discussions.  Problem starts
>>> for
>>> > us  when one party say for the jagat brahman is the only abhinna
>>> > nimittOpadAna kAraNa hence not mithyA but from its causal form satya
>>> only.
>>> > The other party says brahman is the adhishtAnam of this jagat but for
>>> the
>>> > jagat brahman is mere vivartOpadAna kAraNa and mAya is the pariNAmi
>>> > kAraNa.  Since there is no svagata bheda we cannot say jagat  is
>>> brahman
>>> > and jagat is mithyA only because it is ever changing whereas brahman is
>>> > nirvikAri and nirvishesha.  I think with regard to all these issues we
>>> have
>>> > already talked a lot and finally after some mutual agreements and
>>> > disagrements we stuck at one point. i.e. What would be the jnAni's
>>> drushti
>>> > of this jagat after realizing his adviteeya svarUpa.  Whether he look
>>> at
>>> > the jagat as mithyA or satya??  Since his drushti / realization is what
>>> > shruti and AcharyOpadesha based.  We have to see what shrtuti and
>>> > bhagavatpAda offer with regard to this.  It is true that for the
>>> ajnAni-s
>>> > like me/us it is not possible to determine what exactly is the jnAni's
>>> > hrudaya spandana, atleast from the shruti and bhAshya reference we can
>>> try
>>> > to understand what would be the perception of jnAni with regard to this
>>> > jagat.  Whether this jagat is satya or mithya.
>>> >
>>> > First of all, before quoting the shruti and bhAshyakAra, I would like
>>> to
>>> > quote couple of references from my parama guruji Sri SSS from one of
>>> his
>>> > articles published in 2014 from adhyAtma prakAsha kAryAlaya in monthly
>>> > magazine adhyAtma prakAsha and another one from his minor work 'brahma
>>> > vidyA'.  I am just reproducing the first one i.e. article in adhyAtma
>>> > prakAsha  as it is written in Kannada  :
>>> >
>>> > // quote //
>>> >
>>> > haagaadare tattvajnAnavAdamelAdarU prapanchavu mithyeyendu tOruvudO
>>> illavO
>>> > ??  Aga mAtra idu mithyeyaagi tOralu kAraNavenu??  endu yaaraadaru
>>> shankisa
>>> > bahudu.  idakke uttaravenendare, nijavaagi yaavaagalu prapanchavu
>>> > mithyavendu kaaNisuvude illa.  ekendare Atmanannu bittare
>>> prapanchavembudu
>>> > bereyaagi iruvudilla.  ajnAnigaLige avara paramAtma svarUpavu tiLiyadu.
>>> > Addarinda avaru bhinabhinnaraagiruva jeevarugaLannu alli avarugaLu
>>> > vyavaharisuttiruva prapanchavannu kaaNuttiruttaare.  Adare avaru
>>> > AtmasAkshAtkAravannu padedare " idellavu Atmane" emba shrutiya
>>> arthavannu
>>> > managANuttaare.  Aga avarige prapanchavu Atmane Agi biduvudarinda adu
>>> > paramasatyavaagi biduttade.
>>> >
>>> > Addarinda "jagattu mithyeye?? "?  emba prashnege katta kadeya uttaravu
>>> > yaavadaayitu??  adu taaniruva paramArtha rUpadalli Atmane, brahmave.
>>> > Addarinda adu nijavaagiye satyavaagide hIge nOdidare yaavadondU
>>> mithyave
>>> > alla.  ajnAnigaLige tOruttiruva brahma bhinnavaada jagattembudu illave
>>> > illa; Addarinda adannu satyavendaagali, mithyavendaagali
>>> vingadisuvudakke
>>> > kaaraNavilla.  jagattendaadaru kareyiri, brahmavendaadaru kareyiri;
>>> iruvudu
>>> > Onde Ondu adviteeyavAda paramArtha satyavu.  adakkinta bereyaagi
>>> yaavadondU
>>> > iruvade illa.
>>> >
>>> > // unquote //
>>> >
>>> > Those who can read and understand Kannada, above two paragraphs are
>>> > self-explanatory.  And those who donot know Kannada the gist of above
>>> > observation of Sri SSS is about  jnAni's perception of jagat after the
>>> > svarUpa jnana.  Sri SSS poses a question here : After realization
>>> whether
>>> > this jagat become mithyA for the jnAni??  And why this jagat would
>>> become
>>> > mithyA for the jnAni only after realization??  For this Sri SSS
>>> clarifies :
>>> > THERE IS NOTHING LIKE MITHYA PRAPANCHA AT ANY POINT OF TIME  because
>>> > prapancha (jagat) does not deviate from brahman and does not exist
>>> apart
>>> > from brahman.  Only ajnAni-s due to their parichinna jnana would see
>>> the
>>> > various jeeva-s and manifold objects and transactions.  When they
>>> realize
>>> > they would come to know that 'all this is Atman only'.  Therefore, Sri
>>> SSS
>>> > in second pyara concludes :  For the question : is this jagat
>>> mithyA??  The
>>> > ultimate answer is :  that (jagat) in its sadrUpa (paramArtha rUpa)
>>> Atman
>>> > only brahman only.  Therefore this (jagat) is REAL, FOR THAT MATTER
>>> THERE
>>> > IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE CALLED  'MITHYA'.  For the ajnAni-s this jagat
>>> would
>>> > appear bhinna from brahman (separate from brahman), that which does not
>>> > exist at all.  Therefore no need for exercise like tattvAnyatvAbhyAm
>>> for
>>> > this avidyA kalpita jagat.  Whether you call this jagat or brahman
>>> what is
>>> > there is ONLY one and that is paramArtha satya there exists nothing
>>> apart
>>> > from it.
>>> >
>>> > And Sri SSS further clarifies in brahma vidye (again a Kannada book) at
>>> > the end quotes one shruti vAkya : brahma dAshA brahma dAsA brahmaiveme
>>> > kitavAH and advises that realization of this universal truth
>>> (sarvatrika
>>> > satya) is the parama purushArtha jnana, janma sAphalya jnana.  Those
>>> who
>>> > attain this jnana is dvija Sri SSS quotes manu here.
>>> >
>>> > And in his various prakaraNa works like jeevanta vedAnta, anubhava
>>> > paryanta vedAnta, mAndUkya rahasya vivruttiH, shAnkara vedAnta,
>>> > Misconceptions about shankara vedAnta etc.  Sri SSS deals with this
>>> subject
>>> > and clarifies that sarvAtmakatvaM is what is advocated in shankara's
>>> > Advaita vedAnta and jagan mithyatvaM is not an essential criterial to
>>> > arrive this truth.
>>> >
>>> > In the next part we shall look into the shruti and shankara bhAshya (
>>> > which I have already covered in my previous mails) to this effect.
>>> >
>>> > Hari 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Sati Shankar <http://www.satishankar.com>*
>>>
>>> Global Synergetic Foundation <http://www.globalsynergetic.org/>
>>> *Social Links:*  Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/drssdutt>  Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/satishankar>  G+
>>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SatiShankar1>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Sati Shankar <http://www.satishankar.com>*
>
> Global Synergetic Foundation <http://www.globalsynergetic.org/>
> *Social Links:*  Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/drssdutt>  Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/satishankar>  G+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SatiShankar1>
>