[Advaita-l] Brahma satyam jagan mithya - in Gaudapada Kārikā
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 02:16:02 EST 2017
2017-02-22 12:30 GMT+05:30 H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>:
> Reg << I think SSS tried to show Jagat is real as Brahman. But
> it is not right. >>,
> You are not correct. Sri SSS has not stated so anywhere. He has always
> maintained Jagat is mithya.
I could be wrong but Sri SSS thinks Adhyaasa is a misunderstanding in
the mind only but not produced by Moola Avidyaa like Shaankarottara
Daarshanikas. Therefore he thinks after misunderstanding is removed
the Jagat will continue. There is no Prapancha Upashamana. This means
Jagat is real.
> 2017-02-22 12:25 GMT+05:30 Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>:
>> Very correct. I think SSS tried to show Jagat is real as Brahman. But
>> it is not right. If we say Jagat is Satya as Brahman we are agreeing
>> with Sri Vaishnavas and Dvaitis. What is special about Advaita? It is
>> JaganMithyaatva only. The Diversity filled world is unreal. When you
>> think about Jagat you can think only about Diversity filled world. The
>> Sruti says that is unreal. Like when you are looking at Pot you may
>> look at Mud only but you are also looking at Name and Form of Pot. You
>> cannot look at only Mud in Pot without looking at Pot and the shape of
>> Pot. It is not possible. If you want to look at and experience only
>> Mud in the Pot you must break the Pot completely and make it into Mud.
>> Similarly if you want to say Jagat is Brahman and real the World must
>> completely be destroyed. You cannot say that without destroying World.
>> This is Prapancha Upashamana. After Prapancha Upashamana Brahman
>> remains. In this way we can say Jagat is Brahman but not otherwise.
>> 2017-02-22 11:34 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Namaste
>> >> This is the same argument of Jagat is Brahman VS Jagat is Mithya we
>> >> had in this forum. Sri Bhaskar has spent lot of energy in saying Jagat
>> >> is Brahman. Jagat as Brahman is real.
>> > The equation Jagat is Brahman is admissible only as 'bādhāyām
>> > sāmānādhikaraṇyam' where jagat, only when held unreal, is the same
>> > Brahman,
>> > the substratum. Shankara has taught this in the BGB 4.24:
>> > ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
>> > ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ २४ ॥
>> > भाष्यम्
>> > ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति
>> > पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं
>> > पश्यति ;
>> > तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । ‘ब्रह्म
>> > अर्पणम्’
>> > इति असमस्ते पदे । यत् अर्पणबुद्ध्या गृह्यते लोके तत् अस्य ब्रह्मविदः
>> > ब्रह्मैव इत्यर्थः । ब्रह्म हविः तथा यत् हविर्बुद्ध्या गृह्यमाणं तत्
>> > ब्रह्मैव
>> > अस्य । तथा ‘ब्रह्माग्नौ’ इति समस्तं पदम् । अग्निरपि ब्रह्मैव यत्र हूयते
>> > ब्रह्मणा कर्त्रा, ब्रह्मैव कर्तेत्यर्थः । यत् तेन हुतं हवनक्रिया तत्
>> > ब्रह्मैव । यत् तेन गन्तव्यं फलं तदपि ब्रह्मैव ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव
>> > कर्म ब्रह्मकर्म तस्मिन् समाधिः यस्य सः ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिः तेन
>> > ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ब्रह्मैव गन्तव्यम् ॥
>> > That which was wrongly seen as silver, is none other than the shell. The
>> > abhāva of rajata in śukti is what is spoken of as 'silver is shell'.
>> > Thus,
>> > the abhāva of jagat is alone seen in Brahman. Then alone the statement
>> > 'jagat is Brahman' is correct. The definition of mithyātva as 'the
>> > pratiyogi
>> > of traikālika niṣedha in the locus' is what is applicable here.
>> > regards
>> > vs
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list