[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
agnimile at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 07:00:31 CDT 2016
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I'm happy we got 3/7 :)
On 5, you said: "In your position you are attributing satyatvaM only to the
antaryAmi / adhishtAnaM of the jagat (in a way you are accepting only
nimitta kAraNam and anupravesham as antaryAmi but ignoring the
I don't think that is true sir because adhishthAnam = vivarta upAdAna
kAraNam. We are saying jagat is a kArya of Brahman and MAya. The vivarta
upAdAna kAraNam is Brahman and the pariNAmi upAdAna KAraNam is MAya. So
even in our paksha, Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNa, it just so happens to be
a vivarta upAdAna, not a pariNAmi.
On 6 - how to explain the appearance of manifoldness in jagat , you said:
"Don’t you think shankara explained this already by saying :
satyatvAbhyupagamAt ...sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha satyatvaM."
Yes, shankara did say here: "sarvam cha nAmarUpAdi sadatmanaiva" (all nAma
rUpa are satya, in their nature of the Self), however he also said
"vikArajAtam svatastu anritamaiva". He said "ata: sadAtmanA
sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam sattoanyatve cha
anritatvamiti" - all vyavahAra and all modifications are real in their
nature of the Real Self, and unreal (anritatvam) separate from it.
The way I interpret that statement is to say that the Brahman as the
adhishthAnam for nAma rUpa is real (adhishthAna means vivarta upAdAna
kAraNa), that nAmarUpa by themselves are unreal. In other words, it is
sadasat vilakshaNam, or mithyA.
Your question may be why do we need to talk of modification by themselves?
Can we separate modification from Brahman? Why is it important to look at
nAma rUpa, different from Brahman? Our answer to that is that if it wasn't
important, Shankara could have stopped at sadAtmanA sarvavyavahArANAm
sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam - he needn't have added sattoanyatve cha
anritatvam. Hence, in my opinion, AchArya's addition to the end of the line
So in the spirit of samanvayA:
1) Brahman is nimitta kAraNam and vivarta upAdAna kAraNam of jagat.
2) nAma rUpa in their essential nature are satya, but apart from that are
anritam. We call that mithyA, and you by ignoring the anritam part and
looking only at the satyA part are calling jagat satyam.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> Let me share my thoughts on these samanvaya points, fortunately not much
> drastic differences but some important differences between us :-)
> 1) We agree that Brahman is satyam.
> > yes
> 2) We agree that jIva is Brahman.
> > Yes
> 3) We agree that all avidyAkalpita vastu is mithyA.
> > yes
> 4) Where we differ is the satyatva of the jagat that is Ishvara srishTi.
> > It is satya just because it is not jeeva parikalpita. It is satya
> because this srushti is the manifestation of Shakti of parabrahman, it is
> satya because there is no difference between Shakti and Shakta here.
> kAraNasya AtmabhUtA shaktiH shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM, sA shaktiH
> brahmaiva ahaM shaktishaktimatOH ananyatvAt clarifies shankara. Since this
> Shakti is avyakta and one with kAraNa we have to say this Shakti is in
> sthiti kAla of jagat too nothing but Shakta only in Shakti rUpa.
> 5) Here we say that the adhishthAnam of jagat is Brahman and you say the
> svarUpa of jagat is Brahman. So we both agree that there is a satya
> component to jagat.
> > In your position you are attributing satyatvaM only to the antaryAmi /
> adhishtAnaM of the jagat (in a way you are accepting only nimitta kAraNam
> and anupravesham as antaryAmi but ignoring the upAdAnatvaM), whereas we are
> trying to convey that brahman is both upAdAna and antaryAmi as well for
> this jagat through kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM and
> abhinnanimittOpadAnakAraNayvam. That which is adhishtAnaM is upAdAnaM as
> well. For the ornament gold is the only both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa.
> There cannot be any kAryAkAra if it does not have the kAraNa as its
> upAdAna. I have hardly see any attention to this point from other side.
> 6) The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of manifoldness
> in jagat. We say that the appearance of manifoldness is mithyA, and you say
> that the jnAni sees the manifoldness too, but he disregards that
> manifoldness (pashyann api na pashyati).
> > Don’t you think shankara explained this already by saying :
> satyatvAbhyupagamAt ...sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha satyatvaM.
> 7) Ultimately, the manifoldness in jagat is ignored. If it is to be
> ignored, what difference does it make whether we call it mithyA and ignore
> it, or you ignore it saying that the manifoldness is satyam in its kAraNa
> form as part of samyak drishTi?
> > kAryAkAra also brahmameva hence the manifoldness is 'vishesha darshana
> of that kAraNa cannot be ignored as mithyA it is (kAryAkAra) satyameva
> since kAryAkAra does not have any existence apart from kAraNa. Just
> because we are seeing nAma rUpa we cannot say it is mithyA and have to
> ignore it. Sarvasya vikAraM kAraNarUpaM satyameva. It is not ignoring the
> kAryAkAra in our books it is knowing / realizing the kAraNatvaM in
> kAryAkAra. And the jnAni would not ignore it he would accept it as his
> As you say, we have tirelessly debated mithyA, why don't we discuss satyam
> for a change.
> > And we are happily seeing and talking satyaM in which you prabhuji-s
> see only mithyatvaM :-) So, we have already started our talk about
> satyatvaM prabhuji.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list