[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Mar 22 22:43:54 CDT 2016
The below mail addressed to Sri Praveen bhat prabhuji has not appeared in the group stating the reason : mail size is big. Hence deleting some portion and resending it. If already received pls. ignore it.
praNAms Sri Praveen Bhat prabhuji
You are right, but again mixing up from the pAramArthika angle. What is denied is jagat = brahman, because jagat = nAmarUpa and nAmarUpa is not = brahman, but nAmarUpa = mithyA.
Ø Prabhuji, let me make it clear. As per my understanding, for the jeeva, this jagat is vyavahArika satya wherein jeeva ( all normal jeeva-s, with normally operating senses) does the vyavahAra. And this vyavahArika jagat is uniform to one and all, as I said earlier, if you use the computer in front of you to write mails, I too use the ‘computer’ to write my mails. I don’t use apple and oranges to write my mails. You and me would see the same ‘stone’ ‘table’ etc. since these objects would carry the vyAvahArika satyatvaM in that. And so, first from the vyavahArika point of view this jagat which is available for cognition and transaction is not mithyA but satya hence called vyAvahArika satya.
Ø Now coming to the pAramArthika angle, which you say I am mixing with vyavahAra but you are segregating it to make this jagat mithyA ☺ what is this pAramArthika satya of this vyAkruta jagat?? That is the question needs to be addressed to know whether this vyAkruta jagat is mithyA or satya is it not?? Because very purpose of this thread is to contemplate on jagat mithyatva in the context of brahma satya and jeeva too brahma. And to know the pAramArthika satyatva or otherwise of this jagat, the pramANa is shruti And AcharyOpadesha on shruti and yukti based on shruti and anubhava. vyAvahArika jagat is pratyaksha pramANa gOchara whereas for this vyAkruta jagat kAraNa is apratyaksha hence need the Agama pramANa to determine the jagat kAraNatva to know the jagat satyatva or mithyatva. If the Agama categorically at every place declared that this jagat is mithyA and brahmameva satya we need not have to take this touble to determining the nature of jagat. But shruti is not saying that categorically instead it is talking about creation ( I will come to kArika na nirOdhO nachOtpattiH etc. afterwards) and for the creation brahma is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and through kArya kAraNa prakriya AchArya telling us kArya is nothing but kAraNa in vyAkruta rUpa because of the ananyatvaM between kArya and kAraNa hence this prapancha has the brahma svabhAva but brahma does not have prapancha in him (brahmasvabhAvO hi prapanchaH na prapancha svabhAvaM brahma, kAryasya kAraNAtmatvaM na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM etc. Yukti for this is based on anubhava, what is this anubhava sammata yukti?? pramANa is pratyaksha gOchara whereas brahma nirvisheshatva is agama pramANa siddha. We are realizing this brahma nirvisheshatvaM and svarUpam of ours through the shabda And we are not using this pramANa for proving the jagat as mithyA, jagat mithyatva is not the subject matter of shruti when the jagat is pratyaksha pramANa siddha. So shruti does not go anything against pramANantara siddha jagat./ OTOH shruti pointing its finger towards this jagat and saying what you see as nAma rUpa is nothing but brahman and this nAma rUpa donot have any existence of its own apart from that. sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, tajjalAn iti shAnta upAseeta is this pAramArtika satya of jagat or is this vyAvahArika satya or mithyA ?? choice is yours according to your understanding. For me jagat and its nAma rUpa sadrupameva satyaM, if it is perceived aloof from its adhishtAnaM anrutameva. Thinking that jagat is different from brahman is avidyA drushti which is the root cause of ahaMkAra, mamakAra whereas jnAni’s drushti is samyak drushti for him there exists nothing apart from That. And it is for this reason for the jnAni, from the pAramArthika drushti there is a tAdatmya lakshaNa saMbandha between kArya & kAraNa. I am not saying this, shankara bhagavatpAda says this : brahma vAdinaH kathaM iti chet?? Na tasya tAdAtmyalakshaNasaMbdOpapatteH. To make it more clear from the pAramArthika drushti of the samyak jnAni it has been said : sa cha bAhyalOkO mAstyasmAkaM Atma vyatiriktaH sarvaM hi AsmAkaM AtmabhUtameva sarvasya cha vayaM AtmabhUtaH. The point to be noted here is from the paramArtha drushti this jagat does not become mithyA but it is Atmameva na Atma vyatiriktaH. Hence shankara elsewhere clearly says there is nothing that can be called ‘mithya’ paramArthically ‘sarvaM Atma meva’. The point to be noted here is, after realizing the brahman, even though there exists pratyaksha pramANita kArya jagat jnAni realizes that brahman is avyavahArya, nirvikAri and nirvishesha through shruti pramANa for which again brahman is the subject matter not the jagat or its mithyatva.
c) so nAmarUpa = mRttikA. IMO, point c is incorrect.
Ø ( c ) to denote that nAma rUpa of ghata etc. donot have its own existence since in reality it is mrittike only. And that is what has been said in ( a ). For the names and forms of pot the material cause is clay only nothing else. Even if you are seeing ghata and using it for storing water / things it does not deviate from its kAraNa svarUpa i.e. mruttike. There is no astitva for this ghata apart from mrittike. In that sence, vyavahAra yOgya nAma rUpa and related vyavahAra from the Atma rUpa satyameva not mithyA. Sata eva dvaitabhedena anyathAgruhyamANatvAt nA asatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti brUmaH, clarifies shankara in chAndOgya bhAshya.
The conclusion drawn in the traditional teaching is that nAmarUpa is mithyA, ghATatvam is mithyA, ghaTa is really not there, mRttikA eva satyam. So nAmarUpa of ghaTa is not mRttikA.
Ø According to my understanding ( you can call me untraditional I don’t mind since I am used to that tag already ☺ nAmarUpa in its sadrUpa satyaM, though ghatatvaM (vikAra) is not there in mrittike, ghata which is nothing but mruttike (upAdAna) satyameva, if the ghata is there it is the vishesha darshana of mrittike (kArya is the vishesha darshanaM of kAraNaM shankara in sUtra bhAshya). And to know this mruttike eva satyaM we need the nAma rUpa vyAkaraNa, without this we cannot come to know that mrittike is nAmarUpAteeta in its svarUpa. So, nAma rUpa of ghata is mruttike only it is because of the shruti siddhAnta for the ghata mrittike is the only abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNaM.
there is pravilApana needed to be done in one's own self which is brahman, the svarUpa, which is adhiShThAna. There would be no pravilApana needed if the nAmarUpakarmatraya was svarUpataH brahma.
Ø For the Prapancha pravilApaNam, prapanchOpashamanaM etc. we donot have to deny the brahman’s abhinnatvaM in kArya prapancha, brahAtmaikatvaM and negate the very existence of kArya prapancha like vainAshika-s. Anyway it is a subject matter of separate thread let us take it in separate thread along with mANdukya mantra ‘prapanchOpashamanaM. By the way in the same khata bhAshya elsewhere shankara says though brahman is vishesha rahita he is the mUlaM for this jagat !! If the jagat is mithyA and avidyA kalpita where is the question of ‘mUlaM’ ??
Bhashyakara says under Mundaka 2.2.12 that nAmarUpa avabhAsamAnam, meaning that there is an appearance and that appearance is mithyA.
Ø And to prove ananyatvaM between kArya & kAraNa same mundaka declaring brahmaivedaM vishwaM ☺ samanvaya needs to be done using shruti, yukti, anubhava without disturbing the prama of other pramANa.
Thanks for quoting on my behalf too, what do you understand by svataH tu anRtam eva? That is exactly what mithyA means. sarvaM nAmarUpAdi svataH anRtam = mithyA eva.
Ø In short, seeing the ghata as ghata is anruta whereas seeing the ghata as mrittike is satya. Please note ghata would not go anywhere here to call it anruta, thinking ghata has the independent existence apart from mrittike is anruta, knowing/realizing the mrittike in ghata even though when there is ghata is samyak darshana or Atmaikatva darshana. Please read the full bhAshya here in chAndOgya.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list