[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 10:25:30 CDT 2016
If two parties discuss that one thing is or
is not X, that X has to be defined and agreed between two parties. Else I
will be saying that jagat is X, where X means A and you will be saying
jagat is not X, where X means B. This is exactly what we have been doing
thus far. :)
Yes, concur with this view ...this is exactly the reason why this thread
ran into so many posts, where there was none required :)
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Bhaskarji,
> Thanks for noticing my mail(s) written to someone else and also choosing to
> reply to the same though not to the ones written directly to you, where we
> went in repeated loops. :)
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> > IMHO, it is those who are throwing the baby with the bath water in the
> > zeal of proving the brahma nirvisheshatva and asserting the jagat
> > :-)
> Sure you can have your opinion, just as I can have mine. :) I have no zeal
> to prove anything, I just follow what is already proven. Moreover, there
> cannot be any proof to anyone who does not have the same, or even a
> definition for a word he uses. If two parties discuss that one thing is or
> is not X, that X has to be defined and agreed between two parties. Else I
> will be saying that jagat is X, where X means A and you will be saying
> jagat is not X, where X means B. This is exactly what we have been doing
> thus far. :) In other words, discussion is possible on mithyA between us
> only when you have a definition for mithyA, the status of which you have
> been refusing to jagat. I have already given the definition I used.
> > what exactly is this neti neti?? Does this neti neti asking us to throw
> > away the jagat for which brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa??
> If you understand that negating the satyatva of nAmarUpa means throwing
> away jagat, then the answer to your question is yes. I repeat,
> > Neti neti should end in realizing that there is nothing that exists Atma
> > vyatirikta. Neti neti ityasya kOrthaH?? Na hi etasmAt brahmaNO
> > vyatiriktamasti ityarthaH, clarifies shankara in sUtra bhAshya. In the
> > Neti neti negation iti refers to jeeva mAnasa pratyaya mithyA jagat due
> > his anyathAgrahaNa ajnAna / avidyA and that which is jneya (jagat) for
> > this mithyA jnana of jeeva is not brahma, neti neti. And brahman
> > is not prapancha coz. Neha nAnAsti kiMchana...To protect this brahma
> > nirvisheshatva, nirvikAratva there is no need to throw away the brahma
> > kArya for which brahman is the only adhishtAnaM as well as upAdAnaM.
> brahmakAryatvaM is itself mithyA, where is the need to protect that!
> Jagat is pratyaksha pramANita whereas brahman's nirvisheshatva,
> > niravayavatva, nirguNatva etc. is Agama siddha.
> I have no clue why you say this, as if I dispute it!
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list