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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms

mithyaa by definition is anirvacaneeyam - mithyaa means sat asat vilakshaNam - it is not asat since it is experienced and it is not sat since it is not trikaala abhaaditam. Only Brahman fulfills the definition of trikaala abhaaditam. 

Whatever experienced is mithyaa only - Shankara says -dRisyatvaat - since it is experienced. Brahman which is sat is trikaala abhaaditam and  is never experienced (anantatvat). Vandyaa putraH which is asat is also never experienced.

There is no naama ruupa in or on Brahman - anantatvaat.

If there is jagat it has to be in Brahman only and it provides - only apparent support for the apparent naama ruupa. 

The contradiction is not understanding the ontological status of Brahman in relation to the jagat. 

Only from the Vyaavahaarika point, one can make any statements regarding world and Brahman too - that jagat is naama ruupa and Brahman is adhiShTaanam etc. Swayam prakaayam is also a description of Brahman from vyaavahaarika point only. From Brahman point, Brahman cannot and need not know itself too. 

Jnaani being in vyavahaara can have cognitive understanding of aham brahmaasmi while experiencing the world which he now understands as only naama ruupatmikam with adhishTaanam of Brahman. We figuratively call this vision as paaramaarthikam, since from Brahman point there is no paaramaarthika also - na vaak gacchati na manaH, etc. Even vedanta is also only at vyaavahaarika satyam pointing to the paaramaarthika satyam through lakshana vaakyaas. 

Confusion occurs if one switches reference states. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3/22/16, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 
 
 Namaste Sri Bhaskar
 ji,
 
 
 On
 Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
 wrote:
 >
 > How can
 something that is already proved/determined as ‘mithyA’
 be
 > ‘anirvachaneeya’ at the same
 time?? Just curious to know your thoughts on
 > it.
 >
 >
 mithyA is anirvachanIya -
 if shruti says that it is so, that is the
 "proof/determination" - what more can
 we say?
 
 Regards,
 Venkatraghavan
 _______________________________________________
 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