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

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sat Mar 19 17:55:16 CDT 2016

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
[advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> The jagat in advaita vedAnta is mithya why??

​Because, shruti says neti, neti and ekamevAdvitIyam.

> brahma satya jaganmithya jeevo brahmaiva na paraH famouns saying goes in
> advaita though same order of statement cannot be found anywhere in
> prasthAna traya bhAshya of shankara.

​There is no need to find such words in bhAShyam. bhAShym is not
shabda-pramANA; it's validity comes from logic. And no independent logic
can prove mithyAtva of jagat.
You need shruti to prove jagat mithyA or anumAna backed by/based on shruti.​

​That was provided above.
I think that's enough even if the mentioned shloka is found to be modern

> I always wonder when the jeeva has been identified as brahman why jagat is
> barred from this status that too when advaita readily accepts that for the
> jagat,  brahman is the both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa??

​chaitanyam in it's jIvatva-state can't be identified with brahman. So,
jagat in it's jagattva-state can't be identified with brahman too.​

​I mean both can't be identified with brahman in the condition/form they
are know/famous.
So, jIva's case is similar to jagat.
This is the solution you need.

Another thing,
Being upAdAna doesn't ensure oneness with jagat. Because upAdAna-kAraNa is
of two types: pariNAmi and vivartta. vivarttopAdAna can't be identified
with kArya, at least that will not be pramA. That condition is called
illusion. If that oneness is acceptable, we don't have any problem.

Well argument may go like this :  since jeeva is chaitanya it is acceptable
> that jeeva in its svarUpa brahman only nothing else because brahman is the
> akhanda chaitanya whereas jagat is jada (inert) anAtma hence jagat is not
> brahman it is mithya only.

​See the difference of answer above.

> Is
> ​(does) ​
> this mean that there exists a thing that can be called as ‘anAtma’ in
>  ‘jada’ svarUpa??

​anAtma, but anAtmatvam.
Yes, it exists. But, that existence is not pAramArthika. It's

> How can this jada jagat can
> (x) ​
> exist aloof from brahman
​You mean independent of brahman? No, it doesn't exist in that way, since
brahman is the existence shining as existence of jagat.

> to bifurcate brahman is Chaitanya and jagat is jada and this jada is not
> brahman but only mithyA??


> And contrarily,  we elevate upAdhirahita jeeva as brahman since upadhi
> rahita jeeva is in his svarUpa brahman only ??

​Your words appear to show that you are very much disturbed/in hurry.
If you know that since 'upAdhirahita jIva is brahman', then where comes the
talk of elevation?
We are telling what is truth. We are not elevating because of partiality!!

> whereas we are not ready to accept jagat in its svarUpa brahman only

​My friend! We are not independent in such places. We follow shruti-s and

​We have shruti-s which support oneness of jIva-brahman, and other which
proclaim mithyAtva of jagat. What can we do?

​The problem with most people is that they don't understand that advaita
can't be proved with the help of logic only. You need shruti for this.
There is no other way.

when we see the same jagat beyond its nAma rUpa, still we argue that jagat
> is mithya only.

​BTW, what is this 'jagat beyond nAma-rUpa'?
I think that you follow bhAShya-s. You must be aware that there is nothing
called jagat apart from nAma-rUpa. If you don't, then I must stop here.

> We are not ready to accept that once the extra attributes removed from
> jeeva and jagat   what remains is brahman only is it not??

​No, you are missing sommething.
Although jIva has satya-mithyA both; jagat is not so. Hence, we don't find
anything after shunning mithyA which can be identified with brahman.

>  So the equation is
> (a) upAdhi + brahman = jeeva,
> (b) nAma / rUpa + brahman = jagat

​No, nAma and rUpa = jagat.​

​There is no brahman which is part of jagat.
Consciousness is not experienced in jagat(anything which is not brahman or
jIva)​. So, there is no need to insert it there.
If you want to add brahman to nAma and rUpa, then it must be added as
adhiShThAna; not as a svarUpa(part) of jagat.
While in the case of jIva, brahman(chaitanya) is part of svarUpa too.

So, your equations are not correct. They are contributing to confusion.

(c) jeeva - upAdhi = brahman and
> (d) jagat - nAma/rUpa = brahman

​No, jagat -nAma and rUpa = ​

or jagat - nAma and rUpa = nothing(no svarUpa of jagat is left)
both are correct​.

There is a difference in being adhiShThAna and becoming jagat(or part of


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list