[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Mar 15 05:33:54 CDT 2016
Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji,
I agree on both counts - but if you accept both the propositions made by
AchArya, what is the question?
I believe brahma satyam, jaganmithyA, jIvo brahmaiva nApara: is a complete
teaching within itself. So let us consider only those 3 statements for the
purpose of this discussion.
That Brahman is satyam is established, by the first statement in the triad.
Now coming to the second, jagat is nAma rUpa with Brahman as its vivarta
upAdAna kAraNam. By saying jaganmithyA, the intention is to convey that
nAma rUpa is mithyA.
This leads to the third statement, where the sublation of nAma rUpa by
jnAna, to reveal oneself as the jagat kAraNam Brahman, is being enjoined by
In the second statement, by only saying jagat is Brahman (without saying
the nAma rUpa component of jagat is mithyA) how is the sublation of mithyA
nAma rUpa by jnAnam possible? How are we conveying the idea that Brahman is
the vivarta upAdAnam, not pariNAma?
So without jaganmithyA, we are left with aham brahmaasmi upAsana, not aham
On 15 Mar 2016 7:09 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> The knowledge that Brahman is the only satyam has been given in many
> places in the Veda (सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं, सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म, सदेव सोम्य
> इदमग्रासीत् एकमेवाद्वितीयं), and the natural follow-up question to this
> statement is - If Brahman is the only reality, how to explain this
> multiplicity that is manifest in front of me?
> Ø I think this has been clarified by vAchArambhaNa shruti of chAndOgya
> and corresponding shankara’s bhAshya. The shruti which says brahma is the
> only adviteeya satya also clarifying that brahman is the abhinna
> nimittOpadAna kAraNa of this jagat, and from this satya both satya and
> anrutaM have been originated. (satyanchAnrutancha satyamabhavat, yadidaM
> kiMcha, sarvaM khalvidaM brahma etc.) the multiplicity will be sublated
> (not annihilated) with the samyak jnana i.e. seeing the kAraNa svarUpa in
> kArya prapancha and knowing kArya does not have an independent existence
> apart from its kAraNa svarUpa. Mrudviveka darshinaam ghatAdi shabda buddhiH
> clarifies shankara in chAndOgya.
> Shruti explicitly denies this and says that whatever multiplicity is there
> is not real (मृत्यो: स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति, एकधैवनुद्रश्टव्यं,
> नेह नानास्ति किंचन). So if Brahman is the only truth, and there is no
> multiplicity, it follows that whatever is seen is only mithyA nAma rUpa (
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं).
> Ø As I said earlier, nAma rUpa is kevala vAchAraMbhana and anrutaM eva
> when it is identified independently, but same nAma rUpa in their kAraNa
> rUpa satyam eva na anrutaM. sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM
> vikArajAtaM svatastu anrutameva clarifies shankara in chAndOgya.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list