[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Yes, I agree.

On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 14:08 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good, as you didn't have any comments on the rest of our correspondence,
> I'm assuming we are in agreement. If that's correct, that's very good news
> indeed.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 28 Apr 2016 9:27 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I leave that for Sri Bhaskarji to reply himself.
> Regards
> Aurobind
>
>
> On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 13:55 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes agreed. That's why we have a third ontological position called
>> mithyA, to describe just that.
>>
>> Is that the sense of Sri Bhaskar's usage?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 28 Apr 2016 9:21 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Venkartraghavanji,
>>>
>>> "What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
>>> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
>>> position that bhedAkAra is satyam."
>>>
>>> Here what we have to understand is the names and forms do not have
>>> independent reality. Their reality is not different from the base reality
>>> of Sat. Hence they too have Sat in them but not independent of Sat. The Sat
>>> feeling what we have of the ever changing names and forms are borrowed from
>>> Brahman.
>>> Regards,
>>> Aurobind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 13:45 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>>>>
>>>> AdhyAsa was defined as satyanrita mithunikaraNam by Shankara in adhyAsa
>>>> bhAshya. That was the reason I used the terms. We were talking about the
>>>> same thing only.
>>>>
>>>> "names and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one
>>>> can look deep into those names and forms, what they will realise is that
>>>> they are superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and
>>>> Chit. This means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit"..."Hence Jagat
>>>> in reality is Sat only. "
>>>>
>>>> I'm in complete agreement. I have said the same in the original email.
>>>> This is what I said earlier today:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> " If the true nature of jagat is accepted as existence only, then jagat
>>>> is
>>>> satya. If you insist that the form+existence mixture is satya by itself,
>>>> then we cannot agree."
>>>>
>>>> What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
>>>> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
>>>> position that bhedAkAra is satyam.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:55 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>> We all have the habit of using not the right words for right
>>>>> expression. This leads to confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I wanted to bring out that. Now coming to the core difference,
>>>>> Jagat as names and forms is superimposed on the Sat. Because the names
>>>>> and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one can look deep
>>>>> into those names and forms, what they will realise is that they are
>>>>> superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and Chit. This
>>>>> means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit. Jagat is a transactional
>>>>> world which is ever changing superimposed on the Permanent Sat-Chit-Ananda.
>>>>> Hence Jagat in reality is Sat only. Even though transactionaly it may
>>>>> temporarily appear to be real.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:13 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Haha, I meant figuratively sir. It is mutual superimposition -
>>>>>> transposing existence from sat to anritam, and transferring parichinnatvam,
>>>>>> etc from anritam to sat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need to be an actual swan to separate the two - Viveka is
>>>>>> sufficient :)
>>>>>> That's why the highest group of sanyAsis are called paramahamsA -
>>>>>> metaphorically!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:34 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> Your adhyAsa of asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
>>>>>>> MithunIkaraNam means mixing like milk and water.  Where as AdhyAsa
>>>>>>> is superimpose.
>>>>>>> In the first case the mixing do take place where as in the second
>>>>>>> case the Sat is only covered temporarily. That's why we can get back Sat
>>>>>>> but in the case of mithunIkaraNam, only a HansA can, if we are to belive
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:58 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>>>>>>>> What is the asat in your explanation? Same as my anritam. Your
>>>>>>>> adhyAsa of asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where do we differ? In what appears. I say that sat (pure
>>>>>>>> existence) cannot appear, it needs a manifesting medium, the anritam, to
>>>>>>>> appear. You say what appears is pure existence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:19 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anritam cannot cancel sat,(AGREED ) but sat can give existence to
>>>>>>>> anritam (NOT IN AGREEMENT) - allowing it to as-if exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sat cannot be but Sat. What appears is also Sat only. It is the
>>>>>>>> adhyAsa of Asat on Sat. So at all times what always remains is only Sat.
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:43 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No existence of its own, yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anritam cannot cancel sat, but sat can give existence to anritam -
>>>>>>>>> allowing it to as-if exist.
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:05 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does not this mean as if nonexistent?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then as if and the non part cancels each other in reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:29 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sri Aurobind,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Im afraid I can't agree that satyAnritam here is like tamah
>>>>>>>>>> prakAsha (paraspara virodhi).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Truth and falsehood are paraspara virodhi, but here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Satya = Existence (here not truth)
>>>>>>>>>> Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MithunIkaraNam does happen "eva"- as if. Ultimately anritam
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist, it only exists "as if". What exists is existence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 7:48 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>>>>> Even though I had decided to quit this thread, your last rely
>>>>>>>>>>> forced me to just make one point
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya
>>>>>>>>>>> existence and
>>>>>>>>>>> anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Satya Anrtham or Tamah Prakasha can never have mithiniikaranam
>>>>>>>>>>> but only Eva= as if . So if it can't then what is left is only Satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:13 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
>>>>>>>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Bhaskar,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy there are several points of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we differ in this: you hold bhedAkAra to be satya, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> bhedAkAra.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not acceptable to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The true nature of BhedAkArA's is not its AkAra, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> astitva (sattA).
>>>>>>>>>>>> That sattA is what Shankara calls it's true nature or
>>>>>>>>>>>> sadAtmAnam. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that true nature, existence, which is  Brahman, that is satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything else about the bhedAkAra, name, form, etc, apart
>>>>>>>>>>>> from existence,
>>>>>>>>>>>> is anritameva.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya
>>>>>>>>>>>> existence and
>>>>>>>>>>>> anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the true nature of jagat is accepted as existence only, then
>>>>>>>>>>>> jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>>> satya. If you insist that the form+existence mixture is satya
>>>>>>>>>>>> by itself,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then we cannot agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 6:42 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hare krishna
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I'm happy we got 3/7 :)
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     Yes, I am happy too, at last we are standing on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> common platform
>>>>>>>>>>>> > J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAnatvaM),"
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > I don't think that is true sir because adhishthAnam = vivarta
>>>>>>>>>>>> upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNam.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   OK prabhuji, adhishTAnaM is upAdAna kAraNaM.  We will
>>>>>>>>>>>> come to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > ‘vivarta’ part of this upAdAna kAraNaM later after discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>> the pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna kAraNaM of mAya.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > We are saying jagat is a kArya of Brahman and MAya.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Though you are all of a sudden introducing the mAya
>>>>>>>>>>>> alongwith brahman
>>>>>>>>>>>> > for the creation / existence of jagat, I am not objecting it,
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreeing with
>>>>>>>>>>>> > it to go forward in the spirit of samanvaya J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     So in other words, what is changeless in jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>>> vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNaM i.e. brahman  and what is changing in the jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>>> pariNAMi upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNaM i.e. mAya right prabhuji??  Now the question is, does
>>>>>>>>>>>> this pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAyA is a separate entity apart from
>>>>>>>>>>>> vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNa i.e. brahman??  I don’t think you would accept this
>>>>>>>>>>>> position, since
>>>>>>>>>>>> > we both agree that what is there before creation is ekaM eva
>>>>>>>>>>>> adviteeyaM
>>>>>>>>>>>> > (sadeva soumya idamagraaseet, ekamevAdviteeyaM asserts
>>>>>>>>>>>> shruti).  So, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > changeless part of jagat i.e. vivartOpadAna kAraNaM i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>> adhishtAnaM brahma
>>>>>>>>>>>> > should have some relationship with pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this changing
>>>>>>>>>>>> > jagat if not from the adhisthAnaM point of view atleast from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna point of view i.e. mAya point of view.  To clarify
>>>>>>>>>>>> this point let
>>>>>>>>>>>> > us go back to the example of ‘golden ornament’.  The changing
>>>>>>>>>>>> nAma rUpa has
>>>>>>>>>>>> > the pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAya whereas the ‘gold’ as
>>>>>>>>>>>> its adhishtAnaM
>>>>>>>>>>>> > / vivartOpadAna kAraNaM does not have to bother about
>>>>>>>>>>>> pariNAmi kAraNam
>>>>>>>>>>>> > since gold in its svarUpa will always be ‘nirlipta’
>>>>>>>>>>>> nirvikAra.  So, from
>>>>>>>>>>>> > the adhshtAnaM point of view, no question can be raised on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>> > between vivarta and pariNAmi.  But pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. mAya has to
>>>>>>>>>>>> > have some relationship with this adhishtAnam.  What exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>> is this??  We
>>>>>>>>>>>> > have to find the answer for this because we have started the
>>>>>>>>>>>> prakriya by
>>>>>>>>>>>> > accepting the one without second existence of adhishtAnaM
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. brahman.
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Shankara clarifies that this pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa (
>>>>>>>>>>>> frankly I don’t know
>>>>>>>>>>>> > where exactly shankara categorically makes this distinction
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> >  pariNAmi and vivarta to prove the jagat mithyatva, anyway
>>>>>>>>>>>> let that be
>>>>>>>>>>>> > aside) if at all it is there it is nothing but Shakti of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> parabrahman
>>>>>>>>>>>> > and there shankti is not different from Shakta.  Which I have
>>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>>> > yesterday as well.  So, since there is ananyatvaM between
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shakti and
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Shakta, the Shakti which is manifestation of manifold nAma
>>>>>>>>>>>> rUpa nothing but
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Shakta in its causal form.  Kindly note I am not saying this,
>>>>>>>>>>>> shankara
>>>>>>>>>>>> > himself clarifies in sUtra bhAshya  kAraNasya AtmabhUtA
>>>>>>>>>>>> shaktiH,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Anyway, this will be hard to
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand for
>>>>>>>>>>>> > those who deny the intrinsic qualities of brahman i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>> sarvajnatvaM and
>>>>>>>>>>>> > sarvashaktitvaM (sUtra bhAshya 1-1-5).
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >  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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     Yes, prabhuji, Shankara already clarified his position
>>>>>>>>>>>> that nAma
>>>>>>>>>>>> > rUpa ‘svatastu anrutameva’ after declaring the siddhAnta :
>>>>>>>>>>>> sarvaM cha
>>>>>>>>>>>> > nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva so it is not negation of nAma rUpa
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> > is negation svatantra astitva of this nAma rUpa independently
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> > brahman.  What is mithya is svatantra astitvaM of this nAma
>>>>>>>>>>>> rUpa, which you
>>>>>>>>>>>> > also agreed.  Happy we are agreeing here to one more point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4/7 shall I say
>>>>>>>>>>>> > J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Your question may be why do we need to talk of modification
>>>>>>>>>>>> by themselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   There cannot be any talk possible about modification
>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>>> > without bringing in the adhishtAnaM !! Can we talk about gold
>>>>>>>>>>>> modifications
>>>>>>>>>>>> > like ring, bangle, bracelet etc. without considering the gold
>>>>>>>>>>>> part in it??
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Can we separate modification from Brahman?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø  No that is what I said above.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Why is it important to look at nAma rUpa, different from
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brahman?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   nAma rUpa without brahman is like mirror reflection of
>>>>>>>>>>>> gold
>>>>>>>>>>>> > ornament.  There is no gold in that reflection and that gold
>>>>>>>>>>>> ornament does
>>>>>>>>>>>> > not serve any practical purpose.  So, it is there just for
>>>>>>>>>>>> the name sake.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Shankara talks about avidyAkalpita nAma rUpa of jeeva to
>>>>>>>>>>>> > differentiate it from brahma mAnasa pratyaya of this jagat.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hence he
>>>>>>>>>>>> > reiterates ‘svatantra jagat’ is asarvaM and abrahmaM, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> only in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > vision of ajnAni-s whereas for the jnAni there exists nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>> but brahman
>>>>>>>>>>>> > hence for him : “sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva”.  It is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not avidyA
>>>>>>>>>>>> > bheda drushti, parichinna drushti.  It is avidyA rahita
>>>>>>>>>>>> paripUrNa drushti
>>>>>>>>>>>> > or sama darshitvaM.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hence, in my opinion, AchArya's addition to the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> line is
>>>>>>>>>>>> > crucial.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > >Yes, prabhuji, the post popular understanding about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> jagat is from
>>>>>>>>>>>> > aviveki-s, ajnAni-s, for them shankara suggesting what you
>>>>>>>>>>>> see the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > prapancha apart from you does not exist it is anrutameva.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Realize that
>>>>>>>>>>>> > what is there outside of you and what is there inside of you
>>>>>>>>>>>> is only
>>>>>>>>>>>> > brahman and nothing else. Rishi vAmadeva realized it when he
>>>>>>>>>>>> was in his
>>>>>>>>>>>> > mother’s garbha, bhakta prahllAda realized it and shown the
>>>>>>>>>>>> hari in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> > pillar to his father.  And more importantly this is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>> of teaching of
>>>>>>>>>>>> > shAstra. It starts from manifoldness of jagat, brings in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kAryakAraNa
>>>>>>>>>>>> > ananyatvaM and finally establishes the brahmaikatvaM.  From
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> > methodology only, in my opinion we can effectively do the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shAstra vAkya
>>>>>>>>>>>> > samanvaya with regard to brahmaikatva jnana.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > So in the spirit of samanvayA:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 1)       Brahman is nimitta kAraNam and vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>>> kAraNam of jagat.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Yes, agreed prabhuji J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 2)       nAma rUpa in their essential nature are satya, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> apart from
>>>>>>>>>>>> > that are anritam.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Very nicely said prabhuji agreed again J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > 3)      We call that mithyA, and you by ignoring the anritam
>>>>>>>>>>>> part and
>>>>>>>>>>>> > looking only at the satyA part are calling jagat satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     We are not ignoring the jagat mithyatva as I have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying
>>>>>>>>>>>> > several times.  What you look at mithyA is not mithya for
>>>>>>>>>>>> us.  As per our
>>>>>>>>>>>> > book of vedAnta what is mithyA is jeeva kalpita jagat/samsara
>>>>>>>>>>>> for which
>>>>>>>>>>>> > pariNAmi nityatvaM of mAya is adhishtAnaM.  In short,
>>>>>>>>>>>> according to us,
>>>>>>>>>>>> > bhedAkAra is not mithyA, bheda buddhi in bhedAkAra is
>>>>>>>>>>>> mithya.  A subtle but
>>>>>>>>>>>> > very significant difference indeed J
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Bhaskar
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For assistance, contact:
>>>>>>>>>>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Aurobind
>>>
>> --
>
> Aurobind
>
> --

Aurobind