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

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Mon Mar 21 05:59:42 CDT 2016

praNAms Sri Praveen Bhat prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I am afraid whether I am drowning myself once again in the vicious circle of debate on this topic ☺

I'm sorry, but the entire mixup seems to be very nicely built over loose usage of adhiShThAna and svarUpa as can be seen below...

Ø     adhishtAnaM, svarUpaM, antaryAmitvaM etc. would invariably denote brahman only nothing else, atleast in my opinion.  Going back to mrud-ghata, mruttike is adhishtAnaM which is also antaryAmi svarUpa and again which is also upAdAna to the ghata.  IMHO the question of difference does not arise when it has been said that for the jagat brahman is the ‘abhinna’ nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  If you want to see the kAraNa differently from adhishtAnaM and considering it as svarUpa then you have to explain me in mrud-ghata, which is upAdAna, which is svarUpa and which is adhishtAnaM.  Then only it will be clear for me.  When the shruti says tat srushtvA, tadevAnuprAvishat (after creating the jagat he entered into it) it is not clear whether he entered into it as its svarUpa or its adhishtAnaM ??  And when it has been clearly said that yadidaM kiMcha tatsarvamabhavat, there is no room for us to differentiate the adhishtAnaM of jagat from its svarUpa.  In the mrudghata example, the effect (ghata) is completely filled only with its upAdAna i.e. mrittike hence there is no ghata apart from mritteke.  In that sense, we can say that brahman entered into the world (for which again he is the only un-deviated ahinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) in such a way that mruttike has entered into the ghata.  With this I would like to clarify what I am trying to say below :

Ø    Nobody saying nAma & rUpa is one with gold but what we are saying is nAma rUpa (ornaments) donot exist apart from its kAraNa (gold).

Ø    Yes, it is because of the simple fact there is no svagata bheda in brahman, there is no ghata rUpa in mrittike and mrittiketyeva satyaM and it is one and only at the beginning.  Sadeva soumya idam agra Asit, ekamevAdviteeyaM.
This is markedly different from your earlier statement

Ø     Not really, it is nothing but saying the same thing in different way.  In the first sentence it has been implied that there is no nAma rUpa vishesha in brahman.  And in the second sentence the nAma rUpa vishesha donot have independent existence apart from brahman hence nAma rUpa of ghata is mrittike only nothing else.

"the socalled nAma rUpa is nothing but gold only i.e. satyameva."

Ø     Both statements meant to denote that nAma rUpa (kAryAkAra) in its svarUpa (mrittike) nothing but kAraNa.  And in that sense, the ‘socalled’ vikAra i.e. nAma rUpa is satyameva in its sadrUpa and not only this nAma rUpa, the ‘socalled’ vyavahAra which is taking place in this nAma rUpAtmaka jagat satyameva because of the fact that kArya is having the tAdAtmya saMbandha with kAraNa clarifies shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

Once again, nAmarUpa *having* brahman as its adhiShThAna or kAraNa and nAmarUpa *being* brahman are two different things. You seem to treat them as same! The former applies to jagat and the latter to jIva.

Ø     I wonder these are only the statements from your side without any bhAshya base.  Would you please clarify me where exactly shankara differentiates the adhishtAnaM from svarUpa and says that jagat has brahman as adhishtAnaM whereas jeeva has brahman as his svarUpa.  On the other hand it has been clearly satated by shruti and shankara that jagat is ‘tajjalaan’ ( that which exists in vyaktAvyakta rUpa in trikAlaM).  And once you remove the adhiShTAnaM from nAma rUpa there exists nothing, it is something similar to once you remove the mruttike from ghata there exists nothing.  And again, from this view point the second statement needs to be understood :  sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM svatastu anrutameva.  In this scenario I am not able to see the difference between adhishtAnaM and svarUpam that which one aspect of brahman (jeeva through svarUpa) as satya and another aspect (jagat through its adhishtAnaM) as mithyA.  Do you mean to say jagat does not have anything as its svarUpa to make it adhishTAnAdhArita mithyA !!??

Hope I have made my point clear if not convincing to everyone.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list