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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

When you asked the initial question "why is jagat mithya", we mistakenly
assumed you and us had the same definition of mithyA. However that doesn't
seem to be true, because you go on to say:

<<In this way, the AdhAra for both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika satyam-s is
nothing but that parabrahman only hence it is called prAtibhAsika and
vyAvahArika satya not mithyA.>>

Can you please succinctly define what you mean by mithyA, so that we can
revisit your question if need be?

To us, whatever is not paramArtha satyam and paramArtha asat (alIka/tuccha)
is mithyA. So we call vyAvahArika satya and prAtibhAsika satya as mithyA.
You may ask: but doesn't vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika satya have Brahman as
AdhAra, or otherwise how would they appear to exist?

We say: Yes they do. But the AdhAra as a separate entity is not included
within our definition of mithyA - if it was, then that AdhAra - as sat, and
nothing else - is a paramArtha satya, and hence not included within what we
call mithyA (see the definition above, whatever is not paramArtha satyam...)

If you understand our position, that is sufficient for me - it's OK even if
we are in disagreement.

Where people will have a problem is when you claim Shankara is also taking
your position. The issue with that stand is that you would have to ignore
MandUkya BhAshya + prakaraNa granthAs attributed to Shankara.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 30 Mar 2016 7:19 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
> Is seeing a mirage of water in sand, perception? By your logic, just
> because one continues to see the water (even though one knows its only
> sand), the water is real. Knowing it is a mirage does not make water
> disappear, but does it's lack of disappearance preclude it's mithyAtvam?
>
> Ø   This is where shankara clarifies that this prAtibhAsika satya (pls.
> again note it is not mithyA) though different from vyAvahArika satya it has
> its base in satya!! It is because mirage would happen based on the natural
> laws and it is not ‘avidyAkalpita’ mithyA of any one particular
> individual.  For each and every one, if they see the hot sand (which is
> nothing but pancheekruta pruthvi)  from certain distance,  they would
> invariably see the water only though they know the uselessness of this
> prAbhAsika satya of ‘mirage’ water from the vyAvahArika point of view.  In
> this way, the AdhAra for both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika satyam-s is
> nothing but that parabrahman only hence it is called prAtibhAsika and
> vyAvahArika satya not mithyA.  Satyancha anrutancha satyamabhavat, yadidam
> kiMcha, tatsatyAmithyAchakshate so says taitireeya.
>
> Not true. Sunrise and sunset is always available to the eyes' perception,
> but the sun does not move in reality. Even after knowing the truth about
> the lack of reality of a sunrise or sunset, one continues to perceive it.
> So onset of jnAna does not mean one stops "seeing" mithyA vastu - it means
> that one realises that what one sees isn't real. Seeing is not proof of
> reality.
>
>
>
> Ø     Yes, this is what I was saying.  Sunrise and sunset is pratyaksha
> pramANita whereas immovability of sun is the jnana that has been gained
> from shAstra.  The shAstra jnana DOEST NOT change the pratyaksha pramANIta
> movement of sun but that jnana teaches though you are seeing the movement
> of Sun, Sun is constant and earth is moving.  Movement of Sun is the
> vishaya of pratyaksha, teaching the stability of sun is the vishaya of
> shAstra.  Likewise, after having the brahmaikatva jnana, jnAni does see the
> vikAra (nAma rUpa which is the vishaya of pratyaksha) despite  his
> realization of sAmAnya (which is the vishaya of Agama) in vikAra.  It is
> like a professional jeweler seeing the(sAmAnya)  ‘gold’ in  all the
> (vishesha-s) ornaments.    jnApakaM hi shAstraM na tu kArakaM.  shAstra
> would only explain WHAT IS there actually, it does not have the capacity to
> create anything afresh or destroy anything that already exists.  Shankara
> is very clear on this topic.
>
> JnAna arises in the mind, so it can only remove it's opposite, ajnAna, in
> the same locus where it arises - viz the mind. According to advaita, the
> world is a projection not of the mind, but of avidyA.
>
> Ø     Prabhuji, IMHO, this jagat for which brahman is the
> abhinnanimittOpadAna kAraNa (for the Nth time repeating  :-) hence cannot
> be a projection of avidyA.  avidyA is jeevAshrita whereas mAya is
> brahmAshrita and in its Shakti svarUpa mAya is abhinna from brahma.  But
> yes, for the jagat srushti, Ishwara takes jeevas’ avidyA as preraka..The
> avidyAtmaka jeeva-s should get a right platform to enjoy/suffer their
> respective karma phala.  And this platform (jagat) has been created by
> Ishwara using his Shakti and sarvajnatva.  And this vishama srushti is for
> jeeva-s created by Ishwara and it is not mere projection of avidyA.
> Shankara clarifies like this with regard to srushti : sarva vedAnteshu cha
> Ishwara hetukA eva srushtayO vyapadishyante.
>
> So the rise of jnAna in the mind which itself is a product of avidyA, does
> not destroy the world, it only destroys the notion of reality ascribed to
> the world by the mind.
>
> Ø   jnana  only destroys the notion of independent reality ascribed to
> the world by jeeva due to his ajnAna / avidyA.  And that jnana does not do
> any harm to the jagat and jnAni’s BMI because his shareera no more
> shareera, his jagat is no more independent jagat coz. The jnAni is
> ashareeri only in him there is prapancha pravilayaM in Atmaikatva rUpaM.
>
> With this I will shut up as promised :)
>
> Ø     Thanks once again for your patience & participation in this
> discussion prabhuji.  Kindly ignore my mails if you feel I am too fussy on
> this subject.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>
>
>
>