[Advaita-l] Why is jagat mithya?
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 23:10:32 CST 2012
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hari Om, Venkateshji,
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is the focus of Sruti? Brahman or non Brahman?
> The focus of the shruti is both, brahman and non-brahman because
> without knowing the latter's relation to former, the former is just
> impossible to achieve.
> In Advaita books
>> the focus is more on non Brahman and showing it is Mithya. Why not
>> focus on Brahman because it is the One and Only Sat? Because it is
>> Nirguna it is difficult to focus on it. It is easier to say what is
>> not Brahman. Yato Vaco Nivartante Sruti is prohibiting from describing
>> Brahman. Is this correct reason? We negate everything and what is
>> left is Brahman.
> The advaita vedanta books, fortunately, do not sit on their high
> pedestal of brahmatattva or paramArthikA and ask you to join there,
> leaving your entire belief rooted in this jagat. How much ever you say
> that world is brahman, a laukika will never be able to bridge the
> disconnect, unless you do what advaita vedanta books instead do, which
> is to hold the hand of the one completely covered in aj~nAna that this
> world is a reality to take him to that which is the substratum of the
> world. In other words, a good teacher comes down to the level of the
> student and takes him above and into the beyond. Such teaching
> understands the natural tendencies and difficulties of the student.
How is Brahman so difficult to understand? You may say Brahman cannot
be described because Yato Vaco Nivartante. This is true for Nirguna
Brahma but Saguna Brahma is easy to understand. That is why Sruti is
saying Sahasra Sirsha and all that to explain Saguna Brahman. Even a
child can understand if you say God is everywhere. The approach of
Mayavada is more difficult to understand because you are asking a
student to go against his natural feeling.
If there is a pot in front of the student. You can explain using Sruti
why it is Mithya. But another way is you can explain that Pot is Sat
only. That Sat is the same everywhere. It is appearing in different
names and forms. Now it is appearing as Pot. There it is appearing as
Table. Etc. Not necessary to use Mayavada at all.
The Sadhana effort is needed to see the same Sat in different names and forms.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list