[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 08:15:16 CDT 2016
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> I am afraid whether I am drowning myself once again in the vicious circle
> of debate on this topic J
That is a choice for which you are the best judge... kartum shakyam akartum
> I'm sorry, but the entire mixup seems to be very nicely built over loose
> usage of adhiShThAna and svarUpa as can be seen below...
> Ø adhishtAnaM, svarUpaM, antaryAmitvaM etc. would invariably denote
> brahman only nothing else, atleast in my opinion.
You are right, but again mixing up from the pAramArthika angle. Nobody here
is talking about the vastu/ brahman, are we? We are all talking of what is
seen in vyAvahAra as jagat. That is not talking of brahman. "jIva is
brahman in svarUpa, while jagat has adhiShThAna of brahman" is being read
by you as both are invariable denoting brahman! Who denied that for you to
make that statement is really not clear. What that statement means and as I
said on more occasions than one that "the status of jIva, meaning that
which is svarUpatA brahman, is not comparable to status of jagat, that
which has adhiShThAna as brahma". Why? Because the former is nothing but
satyavastu brahman, while the latter is mithyA, nAmarUpAtmaka. What is
accepted is jIva = brahman. The truth of both being brahman is not being
denied. What is denied is jagat = brahman, because jagat = nAmarUpa and
nAmarUpa is not = brahman, but nAmarUpa = mithyA.
All your follow on argument is with the assumption that we are denying
adhiShThAna = svarUpa = brahman. That is not the argument at all as
> Ø Nobody saying nAma & rUpa is one with gold but what we are saying is
> nAma rUpa (ornaments) donot exist apart from its kAraNa (gold).
> Ø ...
> This is markedly different from your earlier statement
> Ø Not really, it is nothing but saying the same thing in different
> way. In the first sentence it has been implied that there is no nAma rUpa
> vishesha in brahman. And in the second sentence the nAma rUpa vishesha
> donot have independent existence apart from brahman hence nAma rUpa of
> ghata is mrittike only nothing else.
Please compare your statements:
1) "Nobody saying nAma & rUpa is one with gold"
2) "nAma rUpa of ghata is mrittike only"
... are they really not contradictory?! Your "saying same thing in a
different way" logic seems to be that:
a) ghaTa is mRttikA eva
b) and ghaTa is nothing but nAmarUpa
c) so nAmarUpa = mRttikA.
IMO, point c is incorrect. The conclusion drawn in the traditional teaching
is that nAmarUpa is mithyA, ghATatvam is mithyA, ghaTa is really not there,
mRttikA eva satyam. So nAmarUpa of ghaTa is not mRttikA.
> Once again, nAmarUpa *having* brahman as its adhiShThAna or kAraNa and
> nAmarUpa *being* brahman are two different things. You seem to treat them
> as same! The former applies to jagat and the latter to jIva.
> Ø I wonder these are only the statements from your side without any
> bhAshya base.
For a simple logical statement such as "one thing that has a substratum is
different from another thing that is in its inherent nature the as that
substratum", you expect a bhAShya statement! Where is your bhAShya base to
show otherwise? All your statements show that the substratum of one thing
is the same as substratum of another which is its inherent nature. That
solves a problem that neither you nor anyone replying to you has, since no
one disagrees on it.
> Would you please clarify me where exactly shankara differentiates the
> adhishtAnaM from svarUpa
Could you please point out where I even said something close to such a
> and says that jagat has brahman as adhishtAnaM whereas jeeva has brahman
> as his svarUpa.
do you disagree that this is said at all?! Anyway, here's a quotation:
Bhashyakara says under Katha mantra 1.3.13 यच्छेद्वाङ्मनसी... so:
एवं पुरुषे आत्मनि सर्वं प्रविलाप्य ***नामरूपकर्मत्रयं
यन्मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं* क्रियाकारकफललक्षणं स्वात्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानेन
मरीच्युदकरज्जुसर्पगगनमलानीव मरीचिरज्जुगगनस्वरूपदर्शनेनैव स्वस्थः प्रशान्तः
Please note the words. nAmarUpakarmatrayaM is mithyAj~nAnavijRmbhitaM,
there is pravilApana needed to be done in one's own self which is brahman,
the svarUpa, which is adhiShThAna. There would be no pravilApana needed if
the nAmarUpakarmatraya was svarUpataH brahma.
Here's one directly from the Upanishad: Mundaka 3.2.8 says यथा नद्यः
स्यन्दमानाः समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय । तथा
विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् ॥ nAmarUpe vihAya
and nAmarUpAt vimuktaH both tell that nAmarUpa are mithyA. Bhashyakara says
under Mundaka 2.2.12 that nAmarUpa avabhAsamAnam, meaning that there is an
appearance and that appearance is mithyA.
> On the other hand it has been clearly satated by shruti and shankara that
> jagat is ‘tajjalaan’ ( that which exists in vyaktAvyakta rUpa in
> trikAlaM). And once you remove the adhiShTAnaM from nAma rUpa there exists
which proves that nAmarUpa is mithyA, it doesn't prove that nAmarUpa is
> it is something similar to once you remove the mruttike from ghata there
> exists nothing.
which also proves that nAmarUpa of ghaTa is mithyA.
> And again, from this view point the second statement needs to be
> understood : sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM
> svatastu anrutameva.
Thanks for quoting on my behalf too, what do you understand by svataH tu
anRtam eva? That is exactly what mithyA means. sarvaM nAmarUpAdi svataH
anRtam = mithyA eva.
> In this scenario I am not able to see the difference between adhishtAnaM
> and svarUpam that which one aspect of brahman (jeeva through svarUpa) as
> satya and another aspect (jagat through its adhishtAnaM) as mithyA. Do you
> mean to say jagat does not have anything as its svarUpa to make it
> adhishTAnAdhArita mithyA !!??
Yes, I mean to say that the jagat is nAmarUpa and nAmarUpa is not svarUpa,
it is mithyA. It has adhiShThAna of satyabrahma but nAmarUpa is not
svarUpataH brahma, while jIva is svarUpataH brahma.
> Hope I have made my point clear if not convincing to everyone.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list