[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 08:47:17 CDT 2016
Please see my answers in-line:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Ø What exactly is this bAdha?? bAdha, laya, nAsha some of the words
> used by shankara in his bhAshya while explaining the status of jagat after
> the dawn of jnana. Laya does not mean annihilation of nAma/rUpAtmaka jagat
> which is pratyaksha pramANa gOchara.
Bhagavatpada himself explains what he mains by bAdha in BSB 2.1.14:
स्वाभाविकस्य शारीरात्मत्वस्य बाधकं सम्पद्यते, रज्ज्वादिबुद्धय इव
सर्पादिबुद्धीनाम् ; बाधिते च शारीरात्मत्वे तदाश्रयः समस्तः स्वाभाविको
व्यवहारो बाधितो भवति
The (knowledge) of the identity of Brahman and the individual self,
sublates the independent existence of the embodied soul, just as the idea
of the rope does away with the idea of the snake (for which the rope had
been mistaken). And if the notion of the independent existence of the
embodied soul has to be set aside, then the opinion of the entire
phenomenal world--which is based on the embodied soul--having an
independent existence is likewise to be set aside.
Therefore, bAdha according to AchArya is the negation of the false notion
that the world has any independent existence.
> And shAstra as a pramANa for its ‘vishaya’ is not to prove the pratyaksha
> pramANa as wrong. Shabda / Agama pramANa has a different subject matter
> which cannot be known by any other pramANa.
Undoubtedly, but that is not the subject matter of the discussion.
> And now the question is for the jnAni the bAdha of jagat nAma rUpa would
> bring the total disappearance of this jagat?? If the answer is no, and
> he would continue to see the jagat, then what is the svarUpa of this
> continued perception of jagat??
> The pUrva pakshi had a similar question in the bhAshya of the same sUtra.
He asked: नन्वेकत्वैकान्ताभ्युपगमे नानात्वाभावात्प्रत्यक्षादीनि लौकिकानि
प्रमाणानि व्याहन्येरन्, निर्विषयत्वात्, स्थाण्वादिष्विव पुरुषादिज्ञानानि - To
translate: "if the unity (of Brahman and Atma) is accepted, then the usual
pramANAs such as pratyaksha etc become invalid because the absence of
manifoldness would deprive them (the pramANas) of their objects; for
example, the notion of a man imagined where a post is standing becomes
invalid after the post is correctly perceived".
To this objection, AchArya replies: यावद्धि न
- that is, " for as long as a person has not understood the true knowledge
of the unity of the Atma with Brahman, until then world of effects which
comprise pramAna, prameya, results of actions, etc is not considered
untrue." Elsewhere, AchArya has said vedAnta is the antya pramANam (शास्त्रं
तु अन्त्यंप्रमाणम्, BGB 2.18). The implication of these statements is that
for a jnAni, there is no pramEya, no pramANA - including pratyaksham*. So
it is not right to then say that the jnAni sees the world using pratyaksha
pramANam. For him, post bAdha, there is no world.
> Anyway in the bAdha of the jagat, jagat will not go anywhere, but the
> bAdhita jnana enlivens the jagat in its kAraNa svarUpa.
This has been addressed several times in this thread, but to reiterate,
brahman as the kAraNa svarUptvam of jagat can only be accepted if there is
a jagat in the first place. And a jagat can only be accepted, if there is
creation in the first place. What Shankara and GaudapAda have argued is
that srishTi is not real.
> Ø If the nAma rUpa is not brahman’s kArya who else is??
It is no one's kAryam, as there is no satya jagat. Brahman is totally
asamsargi . To explain the last quarter of the sloka of BG 9.04,
BhagavatpAda says: न च अहं तेषु भूतेषु अवस्थितः, मूर्तवत् संश्लेषाभावेन
आकाशस्यापि अन्तरतमो हि अहम् । न हि असंसर्गि वस्तु क्वचित् आधेयभावेन
> Is there any problem if somebody say in each and every ring, bracelet,
> necklace there exists only gold therefore what you see as ‘ring, bangle and
> bracelet is nothing but gold?? I donot know how this can be denied in
> advaita when brahman is invariably the efficient and material cause of this
> No problem if you say that - but to therefore take that as evidence on the
satyatvam of a kArya jagat is the problem.
> Ø Here again bAdha of nAma rUpa should not be treated against
> pratyaksha ‘prama’.
There can be no pratyaksha pramA of a mithyA vastu.
> What is negated here is svatantra astitvaM of jagat.
> Does it mean jnAni stops vyavahAra itself?? Shankara answers : na cha
> ayaM vyavahArAbhAvO avasthA vishesha nibandhO abhidheeyate iti yuktaM
> vaktuM. Hence bAdha nAma rUpa does not mean disappearance of nAma rUpa, it
> would continue to appear for the jnAni with sarvaikAtma buddhi.
Yes, but the jnAni is very aware that he is (only apparently) engaged in a
mithyA vyavahAra with a mithyA prapancha (guNA: guNeSHu vartante).
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list