[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 16 07:17:06 CDT 2016
Praveenji - PraNAms
Beautiful. Pleasure to read your responses.
On Wed, 3/16/16, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
To: "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 6:20 AM
I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you really read my mail, since
I DID NOT
disagree with you! Your verbose reply only talks from a
where everything is brahman. You did not have to quote
several Shruti and
bhashyam sentences to prove that, since no one disagrees
question was in the context of Bhagavatpada's half a verse.
To convey what
you have conveyed, only सर्वम्
ब्रह्म एव would have sufficed. He didn't
have to bring in 3 different parts and explain the
connection between them.
Since you have pulled away from your thread, I will try to
and especially to parts where for some reason, I see you
have misquoted my
position. That is inline below please...
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Ø For all the three questions
shruti itself has the answer.
All answers are found in Shruti, but your question was
specific to the half
verse, which Bhagavatpada says is the essence of all
scriptures! That is
all I replied on.
> The world is कार्यम्/
> Ø The world is kAryaM but I don’t
think it is mithyA per se. Yes,
> world is mithyA when it is seen aloof from brahman
since it cannot have
> independent existence apart from its kAraNa, but that
is not the case in
Your words are contradictory. That is the *very definition*
of mithyA and I
don't think there is any case other than Advaita for mithyA!
अनिर्वचनीय मिथ्या, all
कार्यम् fits in. Is the pot clay? Yes. Is pot
No. Is it unreal? No. Is it both? No. Is it neither? No.
Although it is
only clay, but with name and form of a pot. So clayness of
pot is real, but
name and form is mithyA.
> 1. ब्रह्म is the
> Ø Prabhuji, don’t you get the doubt
here how kAraNa brahma can be the
> creator of kArya jagat which is mithyA??
No. स्वप्नवत्, like a dream. I am real,
but my dream that I create is
> Can we say satya brahma/kAraNa is the creator of this
mithyA jagat for
> which he is at the same time abhinna nimittOpadAna
Yes. As above. For my dream, I am
yet the dream is
मिथ्या, not truly same as me, not truly
> And if the jagat is mithyA, why shruti saying sarvaM
Because it only appears to be different, but is not really
essence. And there is a difference between appearance and
> 1. जीवः ब्रह्म एव
= कारणम् एव, न अपरः = न तु
कार्यम्. The individual
> who considers himself as a created just
like the world, is not the created.
> So the relation of the individual is that
he is one with the creator and
> therefore the
मिथ्या-जगत्. His complex of body, mind
> and senses is part of the created world,
मिथ्या प्रपञ्च, while he is
> Ø That chaitanya which is there in
the jeeva is there in jagat also
> since he is the Atman for sakala charAchara vastu.
When I say that the individual is the essence, he is
consciousness is not something that is there in him. While
the world is not
consciousness, its basis is conscious brahman which is the
> Itareya AraNyaka says brahman is there in inert things
as well as
> innerconscious ...
Don’t you think either we have to call both jeeva
& brahma are mithya (
> since both are endowed with nAma rUpa upAdhi) or both
are satyameva since
> in their svarUpa both are brahma only??
... no, since having consciousness and being consciousness
different things. The साक्षी जीव when
associated with the दृश्य BMS
complex, which is really not different from दृश्य
जगत्, considers himself
as an individual. However, when he dissociates, and knows he
is not the
worldly BMS complex, he remains as brahman. This is not true
of the world,
which includes his BMS complex. By his knowledge, the BMS
and the world do
not become the cause, they remain the effect. He himself is
After the dawn of knowledge, at the level of
व्यवहार the world still exists
> *as मिथ्या* for the ज्ञानी, but
the जीव exists as one with ब्रह्म, *not
> as मिथ्या*.
> Ø What is this jeeva that exists in
jnAni when jeeva itself is avidyA
Misquoted. There is no *in*. ज्ञानी is जीव
> And jeeva itself means identification of an indivisual
in his BMI is it
That is exactly what is denied by saying there is no
individual. I can ask
you the same thing. What is identification of an individual?
makes an individual; without identity there is no
individual, there is only
> And as you said this BMI of an individual is also part
of this mithyA
> jagat. Here you are calling one part of the jagat
(i.e. jeeva with upAdhi)
> is satya and other part (jagat outside the karaNa-s of
this jeeva) as
Misunderstood. It is exactly what I am not doing! I am
calling BMS complex
as mithyA since it is part of the world and world is mithyA.
who thought he was a kAryam is actually kAraNam, He knows
that and is no
longer an individual, but the whole.
> Moreover, jnAni would not see the jagat as mithyA he
would look at the
> jagat as his own Atman nothing else.
Shankara/shruti clarifies this at
> various places. ...Here shankara does not say sarvaM
mithyA bhavati ...
Nor is it said that nAmarUpatmakam jagat satyam bhavati
anywhere. All that
it means is that jnAni sees the world as not existing
independent of him.
> ...And he did not say manu & Aditya are part of the
... manu and Aditya are names and , so mithyA.
> jnAni would see the satyatva in everything because for
> prapancha’ is ‘vishesha’ darshana of kAraNa
svarUpa. Hence for him the
> socalled ‘bAhya lOka’ is no more bAhya and mithya,
it is satya and
> Atmameva. Sa cha bAhyalOkO nAstyasmAkaM
AtmavyatiriktaH, sarvaM hi asmAkaM
> Atmabhutameva sarvasya cha vayaM AtmabhUtaH.
There is nothing that can be
> called asatyaM, mithyaM etc. when jnAni has this bhUma
> again shankara in chAndOgya : sata eva dvaita bhedena
> na asatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti brumaH.
Having said all these, I am not at all claiming both jagat
and brahma have
> the same level of reality, what I am trying to say is
since kArya jagat is
> not abhinna from kAraNa like ring and bracelet not
different from gold,
Again, that is the very definition of mithyA. Rings and
bracelets are mere
names and forms, not having reality of their own, and
What it means that if you remove goldness from ring and
will be no ring or bracelet. If you remove ringness and
gold, gold still remains. Similarly, the world is made up of
forms, that do not exist separately from brahman and hence
and forms are not real.
> kArya is satyameva in its kAraNa svarUpa.
Neither me nor anyone so far on the thread denies this. The
is jagat is not seen as kAraNasvarUpa, due to name and form,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list