[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Mar 26 04:17:53 EDT 2019

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

We have discussed this many times in the past, and we know each other's positions well also.

Ø    Oh yes, sometimes you know, when you are free to contemplate on these things, sharing thoughts (though not necessarily should comply with others ) would be beneficial.

In the statement jIvo brahmaiva nApara:, the term jIva is referring to the upalakshya chaitanya, with mind or avidyA as the upalakshaNa.  The term jagat in the statement jaganmithyA, refers to the sthUla sUkshma kAraNa prapancha, which again, is the upalakshaNa for chaitanya.

In both cases, the upalakshaNa is mithyA, and the upalakshya is satya.

Ø     Thanks for clarifying it.  So in the statement jeevO brahmaiva na aparaH, only upalakshya Chaitanya to be considered by ignoring the upalakshaNa.  Likewise in the jagan mithya statement, upalakshya Chaitanya to be ignored and upalakshaNa like sthUlAdi prapancha to be considered to declare it as mithyA.  When both these (jeeva and jagat) have both lakshya and lakshaNa aspects and satyatvaM is already attributed to brahman in the very first statement (brahma satya) why this partiality in jeeva-jagat analyzation and concluding  that only jeeva is satyaM ( brahma = satya, jeeva = brahman hence jeeva is satya) and jagat is mithyA??  Why we should not consider upalakshya in both jeeva and jagat and declare satya or why we should not consider upalakshaNa aspect in both jeeva and jagat and say mithyA??  Is this because ‘chaitanya’ part in jeeva more vivid and muted in jagat??  Just curious to know.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list