[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 2 05:33:35 CDT 2016
Chandramouli ji - PraNAms
Just quick answer - Just reached States and I have to take a class at Chinmaya mission in couple of hours.
Yes world is vivarta - since Brahman cannot undergo pariNAma - anantatvat.
However even gold transforming involves vivarta only - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - Gold remains as gold when ring, bangle etc form - It is transformation-less transformation.
Ring becoming bangle is pariNAma - in this case we are not taking about gold - one form transforms into another by pariNAma. This applies also for jagat when tree transforms into table and chair, etc. Ontological status of gold and ornaments are different - hence vivarta. The ontological status of ring, bangle etc are same hence one transforming into other is pariNAma only.
The sad vidya starts with the proposition - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - This is not possible for pariNAma and possible only if the forms with names are only vivarta.
Vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam is the essential statement to show that world is mithyaa.
I have to go.
On Sat, 4/2/16, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
To: "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, April 2, 2016, 3:34 AM
I agree with the ideas in both your mails.
The examples of pot/clay or ornament/gold may
not exactly apply to the world/Brahman in all respects, but
that is the nature of all examples I suppose. Their utility
is limited to justifying something particular through one
aspect of the drishtAnta.
I will let Sadaji confirm, but I think he will
agree with you Chandramouliji when you say the world is a
vivarta of Brahman.
On 2 Apr 2016 8:09 a.m.,
"H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Sri Sadananda Ji,
Reg << Jagat is Brahman only – but
only as apparent Brahman since
Brahman by definition cannot appear – anantatvaat – just
as ring is gold only.
But one cannot say really say ring = gold, since that limits
the gold – and
also we cannot really say all ornaments = gold; as it
negates the independent
existence of gold without being ornaments. One can only say
gold appears as
There are other statements also in your post
conveying similar meanings.
<< We cannot really say between
Jagat and Brahman,
but can say that with tongue in cheek just as we say –
between ring and gold.
Are ring and bangle the same or different – they are same
from the point of
adhiShTaanam even though from that reference there is no
ring even – as there
are no being in Me. Are they different- they are different
only when we want to
differentiate ring from bangle from neckless. The problems
of ring, bangle and
neckless do not belong to gold – na cha aham teshu
avasthitaH. Hence for Rings,
Bangles etc – six-fold problems – asti – jaayate etc
and these problems do not
belong to gold. Hence if question is raised - are ornaments
the same as gold
–or is jagat same as Brahman – yes indeed – since
Brahman is anantam. >>.
I must confess I am constrained to differ.
Gold-ornament relationship is one of pariNAma
whereas Brahman-jagat relationship in one of vivarta.The two
should never in my
opinion be considered at par while analyzing mithytva of
jagat. The same mixup
showsup in the following.
Quote << Are ornaments different from
indeed, as they are only at the transactional level, since
the attributes of
ornaments do not belong to Brahman – na cha aham teshu
avasthitaH. Gold can
declare that all ornaments are in Me but really there are no
ornaments in Me;
look at my glory. Gold can exists as ornaments as well; and
that is its
vibhuuti- and gold can exist without being
In Brahman-ornament relationship which is one
of vivarta Brahman is “modified”
into ornament without losing its svarupa of Brahman. In
other words Brahman
continues to exist in its own svarupa even as it is
“modified” (appearance only
) as ornament. This is not so in the gold-ornament
relationship which is one of
pariNAma. Here Gold loses its unmanifest svarupa when
modified as manifest
ornament. Gold is no longer available in its unmanifest
This is exactly what I had
explained in detail in my response to the post by Sri Anand
Ji. I am
reproducing it here for clarifying my position.
Quote << Most often it is not
recognized that in the statement “mAyA as its
material cause “, mAyA is the unmanifest (अव्यक्त avyakta) form of the
material cause while jagat is the
manifest (व्यक्त vyakta) effect
(कार्य kArya). Since we are used
anything unknown to the known (manifest), perhaps
jaganmithyA" is more meaningful than "brahma
However it is very
useful in understanding the applicability of the wellknown
concerning the pot-clay relationship << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM
vikAro nAmadheyaM mRttiketyeva
satyam ). This is an illustration for
pariNAmikAraNa. Here मृत्तिक (mRttika) refers to the
in the pot-clay example. This statement can be extended upto
<< वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मायैव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM
vikAro nAmadheyaM mAyaiva satyam)
to explain the pariNAmikAraNa mAyA-jagat relationship.
mAyA is the ultimate pariNAmikAraNa for the jagat and is
unmanifest while jagat
is manifest. This is the limit to which the Upanishadic
statement quoted can be
However it is very often
stretched further and misunderstood to
be applicable to the Brahman-jagat relationship also by
<< वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मैव सत्यम् >> (vAcArambhaNaM
vikAro nAmadheyaM brahmaiva satyam).
This stretching is not permissible since mAyA and Brahman
relate to two
different levels of Reality and mAyA is vivarta in Brahman
and not a pariNAma
of Brahman. In fact I believe this is one of the basic
the Chandogya statement quoted above that is responsible for
the wrong notion
about the relationship between Brahman and jagat as far as
Reality is concerned
and is also quoted in support of such wrong
notion. >>. Unquote.
Please read it with the following correction
For << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मायैव सत्यम् >. Please read << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं माया इत्येवसत्यम् >>( vAcArambhaNaM
vikAro nAmadheyaM mAyA ityeva satyam).
For << वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मैव सत्यम् >> please
<< वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्मइत्येव सत्यम् >>( vAcArambhaNaM vikAro
nAmadheyaM brahma ityeva satyam). >>.
Pranams and Regards
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list