[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Apr 5 01:36:45 CDT 2016
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
1) There is no difference between jagat and Brahman. If there is no difference then jagat is simply nAma rUpa, which is mithyA. This ends up proving the opposite of Bhaskarji's contention.
> whenever I say jagat is not mithya like sarpa on rajju, we have to keep on point in mind i.e. brahmasvabhAvO hi prapanchaH na prapancha svabhAvaM brahma. Though ring and bracelet nothing but gold, gold is neither ring nor bracelet. In this sence nAma / rUpa in its sadrUpa satyameva and gold is satyasya satya of this nAmarUpAtmaka vyAkruta jagat which is in its kAraNa rUpa before the creation. kArya is kAraNa rUpa only but this is not otherway round i.e. na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM.
2) There is a difference between kArya jagat and kAraNa Brahman. If there is a difference then how is jagat Brahman?
> One of the lakshaNa-s brahman is ‘asti’ and this astitvaM has been attributed to jagat as well and for this astitvaM brahman is the material and efficient cause. Hence jagat is brahman, brahmaivedam vishvaM, sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, satyanchAnrutancha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha.
Further, if there is a real difference, and we somehow say that jagat is Brahman, this implies svagata bheda in Brahman. This option is not possible as that is shruti viruddha (neha nAnAsti kinchana) and yukti viruddha (we start off saying jagat is Brahman and end up proving jagat isn't Brahman).
Ø Kindly see above and neti neti meaning according to shankara. Effect is nothing but cause hence shankara says trishu kAleshu abAdhita.
2) There is a difference in vyavahAra but no difference in paramArtha between jagat and Brahman.
There is difference in jeeva, jagat, Ishwara thence the vyavahARa is possible pramAtru, pramANa, prameya triputi vyavahAra possible only when one sees the jagat apart from it. Katrutva bhOktrutva suits in that sense.
3) Put like this, the difference between Brahman and jagat itself is sadasat vilakshaNam.
Ø As I said earlier, to analyze something tattvAnyatvAbhyAm there should exist something at first place. And that which is already determined as mithyAcannot be scrutinized like this. The detailed discussion with regard to anirvachaneeyatvaM can be found in sUtra bhAshya 1.1.5.
4) So the next question is, is that difference mithyA or satyam?
Ø The difference between vividha (aneka) nAma rUpa AkAra in their kAraNa rUpa satya only not mithyA and when the same is seen as ‘svatantra’ mithyA only. sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM “svatastu” anrutameva.
5) To answer that question we have to go through the same 3 options, and if we reject the first 2 of the options for the same reasons as above, we have to posit a second difference that is sadasat vilakshaNa too, and so on so forth, leading to infinite regress. So the more we try to define jagat, the more it eludes description, leaving us to conclude that all we can say about jagat is that it is mithyA and leave it at that.
Ø Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I am not able to understand your conclusion here. Please elaborate if possible.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list