[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu May 5 05:16:49 CDT 2016
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Sorry, after a week gap looking at the mails today.
Your statement that "I am not holding bhedAkAra as bhedAkAra in itself is satya, I am saying it is satya because for the kAryAkAra, Atma is kAraNa" is the very definition of a mithyA vastu according to me - it is not by itself real, but it is real depending on Atma (sat).
Ø And why shankara treat ‘kAryAkAra’ too satya is because ‘kAryAkAra’ as such not only depend on Atma (sat) but it (kAryAkAra) has its upAdAna as ‘satyaM’ only. It is because of this Sri SSS and Sri Shankara says there is no mithyA / anAtma at all and everything (sarvaM) is brahmameva.
The key sentence in your email is"akAra does not deviate from its astitva, and even when you are looking at it satyameva"
Lets break this into two parts: "AkAra does not deviate from its astitva" and "hence when you are looking at it satyameva"
Ø Ok prabhuji, as per your wish we shall bifurcate this sentence and look at the possible ‘samanvaya’ ☺
1) "AkAra does not deviate from its astitva" - AkAra never has one AkAra (form), it is constantly changing.
Ø Agreed prabhuji ☺
2) So when you say that AkAra and its astitva never deviate, what is the "it" that you are talking about?
Ø Here in this example ‘it’ is gold which is unchanging and akAra is golden ring, bangle etc. which is again changing ☺
There is no one unchanging bit about AkAra that you can point to and say that "that" and astitva do not deviate. For example - take the birth, growth, old age, death, cremation of a body - at no one point is that body constant, it is constantly changing. Cells are constantly being born, they die, new ones come up, they die etc. So it is not the same body because it comprises different cells from previously. After the cremation of the body, the smoke has astitva, the ashes have astitva. But the AkAra of the smoke and the body are not the same.
Ø Again agreed prabhuji ☺ the pancheekruta shareera is constantly changing and despite all those changes of a person over a period of time, we are identifying that person as that person only not someone else. The boy devadatta, the youth devadatta, the middle aged devadatta, the aged devadatta the accountant devadatta, the fat devadatta, sleeping devadatta, father devadatta, intelligent devadatta and after death of devadatta mortal remains of devadatta etc. So astitva (existence) of devadatta invariably presents in all these vagaries of devadatta. And most importantly these constantly changing body of devadatta does not have a separate existence apart from ‘devadatta’. Hope you agree with it. With this we look at the second part of my statement.
2) "hence what you are looking at it[sic] satyameva"
Therefore there is no one AkAra that has astitva. The only thing in the body example that has unbroken astitva, is astitva itself - that is, sat is an independent principle that pervades the ever-changing AkArAs.
Ø Here comes the problem in interpretation between you and me prabhuji ☺ Shruti saying this independent principle that pervades the ever changing AkAra-s (like gold pervades the ever changing ornaments) And these akArA-s donot have an independent existence apart from that all pervading ekamevAdviteeya principle and this principle is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa of this akAra hence when this akAra was / is / will be in some form or otherwise (vyAkruta or avyAkruta) can never ever deviate from its principle. Kindly recall shankara’s quote from sUtra bhAshya : Just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect, the world, never deviates from existence in all the three periods (of creation, sustenance and dissolution). And existence is only one. So for this reason also THE EFFECT IS NONE OTHER THAN THE CAUSE. Here point needs to be understood (atleast according to me) is since the effect (kAryAkAra) has the kAraNa as upAdAna at any point of time this kAryA is nothing but kAraNa only, it is kAryAkAra in sthiti kAla, it is in avyakta rUpa before its creation and destruction. And it is because of this reason only shankara particularly talks about kAryAkAra (the names and forms) and clarifies ‘kAraNasya Atma bhUta eva’ and tasmAt kAraNAt kAryaM paramArthatO ananyatvaM. And it is because of this reason only I said earlier : This vikAra needs to be seen from its kAraNa drushti, if the ornaments are not gold, ornaments cannot have the shape of ornament. The mithyA part here is looking at the ornament which is separate from gold and what is satya in kAryAkAra is kAraNa only which does not have an independent existence apart from kAraNam. So, kAryAkAra for me is ‘vishesha darshana’ of kAraNa ONLY and it is not mithyA for me. Shankara clarifies this too. And Sri SSS in his article emphasizes this by saying there is no mithyAvastu for the jnAni.
So when you say that "when you are looking at it satymeva", the "it" that is satyameva (i.e does not change) is that independent principle, sat, not the AkAra (that keeps changing).
> Can we able to perceive the ‘akAra-less existence of satya in this jagat??
No, we can never perceive AkAra-less existence. As I told Sri Aurobind, pure existence needs a medium for it to be perceived.
Ø So, prabhuji shall I hope that you are agreeing that there is existence of existence in akAra in sthiti kAla??
But does the lack of perception of pure existence mean that it doesn't exist? No, we cannot say that. Shruti pramANa, which is stronger than pratyaksha, emphatically says "satyam jnAnam anantam brahma" and in the same breath says its beyond indriyas - "yato vAco nivartante, aprApya manasA saha". So whether we can perceive brahman or not, it exists. It alone truly exists.
Ø Shankara says this existence (pAramArthika satyaM) has to be there in indriyavEdya as well if it is not there it was not available for vyavahAra. Na hi nirAtmakaM kiMchit bhUtaM vyavahArAya avakalpate.
Also, I have never said that shAstra pramANa destroys bAhyAkAra - I have only said it destroys the notion of the AkAra's satyatva and reinforces the notion that the astitva is the only satya.
Ø Slightly different way saying is, jnana does not destroy the bAhyAkAra but it reveals the satya of this bAhyAkAra which was prior to jnana wrongly conceived as abrahma and asarvaM. Shankara again says this clearly : pUrvaM avidyayA asarva Aseet punaH vidyayA avidyApanaye sarvO bhavati. And in this samyak drushti, for the jnAni sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha satyatvaM.
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.
> If you could show me the existence of this jagat without name and form then I would accept your position prabhuji ☺
Pure existence is not perceptible, so I can never show you pure existence, without the medium of name and form.
Ø Very beautifully said prabhuji. I am completely in agreement with you.
However, that name and form by itself has no existence, only sat does. Such a name and form that is real because of sat, and unreal on its own is categorised as mithyA.
Ø Again agreed as said earlier ☺
Anyway, with that I rest my case. Thank you for the discussion - it took many twists and turns, but I'm happy that there was some form of agreement in the end.
Ø Yes, prabhuji, happy to note that after lot of exchanges somehow we are holding our hands each other and moving forward in the ‘same’ direction ☺
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list