[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः सीतारामार्यपुत्रः)
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 26 06:37:03 CDT 2016
Namaste Sri Bhaskar
There is a lot of confusion because of this Sabdajaala you have
created below and I am getting trapped in it. But I have one question.
After Samyak Jnana will the Jnani see Brahman and Jagat both because
Jagat is also Satya? If he is seeing both there will not be Advaita
but Dvaita because there will be two Satyas Brahman and Jagat.
Therefore it is correct to say after Samyak Jnana there will be not
two things Brahman and Jagat but only Brahman.
You may say Jagat and Brahman are same. There are not two. If they are
same we are fighting for names. If you agree there is only One thing
after Jnana you can call it as Brahman or Jagat it will not matter.
But you must agree that One thing will not have Parts and Bheda.
Because that is not Advaita. It is One Homogeneous quantity. Call it
Brahman or what you want.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Hare Krishna
> Sri Bhaskar cannot be correct because Question 2 and 3 are contradicting each other. If Answer for Question 2 is yes answer for Question 3 will have to be No only.
> If the Mattur scholar is saying yes for Question 2 he is saying yes keeping in mind all points in Prasthana Traya Bhashya. Then why will he go into deep analysis for question 3 again? If answer for question 2 is No answer to question 3 will have to be yes only. Because nothing can be both Satya and Mithya.
>> it appears to be so since the questions have been raised without explaining its proper context. Answer for the Q # 2 is, brahma satya jagan mithya is according to prasthAna traya bhAshya, is YES only I too would have said that if it is asked without mentioning the context of it. Likewise, answer for the Q # 3 is obviously 'NO' i.e. jagat satyatva is not on par with brahman hence it is mithyA only, again I too would have said the same thing since here again context is not clear . But what is the jagat we are talking about here?? Is it the jagat for which brahman is the efficient and material cause?? Or is this jagat which is kevala buddhi parikalpita of the individual jeeva?? And again the main context of this discussion is if the jeeva (jeeva itself is upAdhi parichinna jnana, there is no entity that can be called jeeva without upAdhi) is brahman why not jagat?? Because for this jada jagat brahman is the both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa and jagat as kArya donot have any independent existence apart from kAraNa at any point of time. Can we see an ornament without gold in it?? Can we see a pot without clay?? It is in this sense, it has been argued that jagat in its causal form nothing but brahman. So, IMHO, these questions and answers to that would be correct only on the general parlance but completely out of context.
> Problem in Sri Bhaskar's mind is he is thinking Mithya is totally false like rabbit's horns totally Asat.
>> It is not me who is saying mithyA is like hare's horn OTOH this mithyAtva has been attributed to nAmarUpAtmaka jagat from the point of view of the samyak jnAni by some prabhuji-s in this list. I am just saying after paramArtha jnana, what remains is satyaM and ONLY satyaM and that satyatva darshanaM would lead the jnAni to realize that ornament is nothing but gold and there exists nothing apart from gold. sarvaM brahma mayaM or sarvaM khalvidaM brahman.
> But nobody said Jagat is like that. It is not Sat and not Asat. That is why it is Mithya. This is the most difficult part to understand in Advaita.
>> It may kindly be noted that that which is already decided as 'mithyA' cannot be anirvachaneeya (tattvAnyatvAbhyAM or sat or asat). The person who has already realized that there is no sarpa on the rajju and his sarpa jnana in place of rajju jnana was mithyAjnAna cannot have the samshaya jnana whether it is sarpa or rajju at the same time. Moreover, mithyAjnAna and jneya vastu of this mithyAjnAna is jeeva parikalpita or jeeva mAnasa pratyaya which is avidyA kalpita whereas that cannot be explained as tat or atatvA (tattvAnyatva nirUpaNasya ashakyatvAt) pertains to avyakta / mAyA that which is before srushti and after pralaya exists in kAraNa as kAraNa rUpa and that exists and appears (vyakta rUpa) in sthiti kAla. avyaktA hi sA mAyA, avyaktAdeeni bhUtAni vyakta madhyAni, avyakta nidhanAnyeva etc. clarifies geetAchArya. All these things need to be explained with the sUtra bhAshya vAkya in mind, i.e. : ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayOH kAryasya kAraNAtmatvaM NA TU KAARANASYA KAARYAATMATVAM. The ornament in its nAma & rUpa gold only but in gold there is no vyavahAra / vikAra of nAma rUpa.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list