[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 04:15:47 CDT 2016
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
Can you please confirm that your argument boils down to this:
Jagat is mithyA nAma rUpa with Brahman as adhishthAnam. As nAma rUpa is
mithyA, it is bAdhita by shruti pramANa. Therefore, by bAdha
sAmAnidhikaraNyam, jagat is Brahman.
If this is your argument, I don't think anyone will argue.
However, if you are saying that nAma rUpa is Brahman's kArya and in every
kArya the kAraNa exists, and therefore nAma rUpa is verily Brahman, that
is where the difference arises.
In the bhAshya for the BrahmArpaNam sloka (BG 4.24), Bhagavatpada says:
ये तु अर्पणादिषु प्रतिमायां विष्णुदृष्टिवत् ब्रह्मदृष्टिः क्षिप्यते
"नामादिष्विव चेति ब्रुवते न तेषां ब्रह्मविद्या उक्ता इह विवक्षिता स्यात्",
अर्पणादिविषयत्वात् ज्ञानस्य । न च *दृष्टिसम्पादनज्ञानेन मोक्षफलं प्राप्यते*
(Note: arpaNAdishu brahma drishTi: kshipyate nAmadishu iva cha iti chet)
Here Acharya is refuting the opponent's claim that Brahma arpaNam should be
understood as upAsanAbhyAm sAmAnidhikaraNyam. He says that no Brahman
drishTi in nAma rUpa (or attributing Brahman where nAma rUpa is) will give
moksha. What is needed is a complete bAdha of nAma rUpa.
Please see his bhAshyam of the first two words of the sloka:
ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति
पश्यति, *तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं
पश्यति*; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति ।
On 21 Mar 2016 6:42 a.m., "Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Ranjit prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> Even this is my understanding. Clay-pot, gold-ornament is analogy given
> for cause-effect relation. Since the effect is non different from the
> cause, the effect should be discarded as they are not permanent.
> > The contention here is not about equalizing the kAraNa brahman and
> kArya jagat on the ground of 'same' reality. As I have been saying and
> still reinterating that kArya is not different from kAraNaM in its svarUpa
> BUT in kAraNa there is no kArya bedha (neha nAnAsti kiMchana). It may be
> noted that we are not talking about brahman's svagata bheda by attributing
> nAma rUpa to brahman. Ofcourse there is no disagreement that jagat is
> vyaktAvyakta and not satyasya satya like brahman. But the contention is
> aimed more towards jagat as kArya for which brahman is abhinna
> nimittOpadAna kAraNam. From this point of view, shruti clarifies the jagat
> svarUpa. Before the srushti, the jagat remained subject only (avyAkruta,
> avyakta) to one word and thought only i.e. Atman (AtmAmeva idamagra Asit,
> ekamevAdviteeyaM). And now, after creation, jagat is available for many
> words and thoughts and also is available to one and only word and thought
> i.e. Atman. Even if you see the nAma rUpa bhedAkAra in jagat, what is
> there in its sadrUpa is brahman only nothing else. This has been clearly
> stated by shankara in sUtra bhAshya, even the forms (nAma rUpa) are indeed
> of the nature of cause because there cannot be an effect coming into
> existence without cause and if it (effect) is not the nature of the cause.
> Shankara, again in bruhadAraNyaka clarifies further : parameshwara himself
> in the form of avyAkruta jagat.
> Here the nondual cause is ever permanent and never the effect. Further the
> cause is nondual but the effects are many. This is the analogy.
> > From the kArya - kAraNa ananyatvaM it has been clarified that like
> cause, effect too trikAla abhAditaM by shankara.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> 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