[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 16 07:17:06 CDT 2016

Praveenji - PraNAms

Beautiful. Pleasure to read your responses. 

Hari Om!

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
 Namaste Bhaskarji,
 I'm sorry but I'm not sure if you really read my mail, since
 disagree with you! Your verbose reply only talks from a
 Paramarthika angle,
 where everything is brahman. You did not have to quote
 several Shruti and
 bhashyam sentences to prove that, since no one disagrees
 there. Your
 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
 reply briefly
 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
 > Advaita,
 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
 कारणम्/ सत्यम्.
 > 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
 khalvidaM brahma,
 Because it only appears to be different, but is not really
 different in
 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
 सत्य्-अधिष्ठान of
 मिथ्या-जगत्. His complex of body, mind
 >    and senses is part of the created world,
 मिथ्या प्रपञ्च, while he is
 >    not.
 > 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
 are two
 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
 the cause.
 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
 > kalpita??
 Misquoted. There is no *in*. ज्ञानी is जीव
 is ब्रह्म.
 > And jeeva itself means identification of an indivisual
 in his BMI is it
 > not??
 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?
 The identity
 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
 > mithyA.
 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.
 The individual
 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
 mithyA prapancha.
 ... manu and Aditya are names and , so mithyA.
 > jnAni would see the satyatva in everything because for
 him ‘kArya
 > 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
 drushti clarifies
 > 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
 therefore mithyA!
 What it means that if you remove goldness from ring and
 bracelet, there
 will be no ring or bracelet. If you remove ringness and
 braceletness from
 gold, gold still remains. Similarly, the world is made up of
 names and
 forms, that do not exist separately from brahman and hence
 mithyA. Names
 and forms are not real.
 > kArya is satyameva in its kAraNa svarUpa.
 Neither me nor anyone so far on the thread denies this. The
 whole problem
 is jagat is not seen as kAraNasvarUpa, due to name and form,
 and therefore,
 mithyA. :)
 Kind rgds,
 --Praveen R. Bhat
 /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this
 is known!
 [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
 Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
 To unsubscribe or change your options:
 For assistance, contact:
 listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list