[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Wed Mar 27 03:12:36 EDT 2019
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
That’s really such a comprehensive explanation about the declaration that is in question. Thanks for your time and patience prabhuji. I just read it twice or thrice just to understand and not to question the explanation. And I could able to understand the essence of your explanation, how grammatically and in the process of mOksha, jeeva is brahman / satya and jagat is mithya is correct. You clearly explained how we should take lakshyArtha in jeevo brahmaiva and primary meaning / mukhyArtha in the statement jagat mithyatva. This would be good enough to understand satya and mithya in that statement.
However, I reckon this explanation would suffice only if we accept the statement as it is. But at the same time it would not serve the purpose why this statement has to be so !! Your explanation is the result of apriory acceptance of jagat mithyatva and accordingly your both ways of interpreting the term ‘jagat’ hold good. But I am afraid not good enough to convince me why there should be prior acceptance of that statement itself. I don’t know whether I could able to convey my concern here or not. In short I am doubting the entire sentence from the siddhAnta drushti. From the siddhAnta drushti, for the jagat brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and this kArya rUpa jagat though asat ( that which changes not uniform in all the three stages) nitya and brahmAnanya in its svarUpa. The mithyatva part in jagat is not kAryAkAra (nAma rUpa) but independency (svatantra astitva) of it. Shankara is very clear with regard to this in br.up bhAshya and explains how kevala upAdhi drushti of kArya is avidyA and the same has been cognized from kAraNa drushti it is satyameva. And secondly I am not able to understand why we have to link mukti with jagat mithyatva. Though your explanation is very clear here, the main hindrance here for mOksha is avidyA / ajnAna. And this ajnAna has the locus in jeeva not in jagat. Hence avidyA lakshaNa has been explained in Geeta bhAshya like agrahaNa, anyathAgrahaNa (adhyAsa) and saMshaya. All these three lakshaNa-s centered in jeeva aspect and the whole of adhyAsa bhAshya explains how this would be the main problem of jeeva. To realize his limitlessness jeeva has to get rid of his parichinnatvaM due to upAdhi. Once he realizes this jnana he would come to know there is no bAhya lOka as such and whatever is existing, the brahman in Ota-prOta in it. Yes, there is a mithyatva part in jagat that needs to be effaced by the jnana but what is that mithyatva part in jagat?? It is like a reflection of the gold ornament in mirror not the gold ornament itself. The reflection would not serve any practical purpose but still appearing due to upAdhi called mirror. We have to say this because the gold ornament in its svarUpa drushti (i.e. gold) cannot be a mithya at the most it is anirvachaneeya. If the mithya here in the above statement jagat mithya pertains to this reflection then there is no qualms in accepting it. But jagat is its mukhyArtha is NOT the reflection it is the brahman, it is the vishesha darshana of brahman, it has upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa as brahman. It has tAdAtmya lakshaNa with its kAraNa. So, finally if the mithyatva in jagat mithya pertains to kevalOpAdhi drushti then yes jagat as svatantra vastu mithyameva. But I don’t think when tradition saying jagat mithyA it is saying to by having this point in mind!! It is saying jagat is mithya like sarpa on rajju, but my point is jagat is satya with the example of clay-pot.
Again I don’t know whether I am successful in articulating my thoughts well here. But I hope you would understand the gist of my points here.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list