[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
Thank you for your lucid observations.
A small follow-up question.

 jagat is kAryam and Brahman is kAraNam, and applying
karyakAraNa-ananyatva-nyAya, jagat is non-separate from its adhiSThAnam
viz., brahman.  Like even a pot is clay being always non-separate from its
substratum, can we make the statement jagat is (kAraNa-dRShtyA) brahman?
(Since jagan-mithyAtvam and (kAryasya) jagatah kAraNa-ananyatvaM mean the
same. )

Also one more point is that jIva and brahman do not enjoy an
adhiSTheya-adhiSThAna sambandha like pot and clay. Whereas jagat and
Brahman enjoy such a relation. Therefore while it is true that all that
exists is Brahman (moxam ekam varjayitvA sarvam anRtam), and both the
statements 'jIva is Brahman' and 'jagat is Brahman' are tenable in the
pAramArthika sense, still, we can never say jIva is  mithyA whereas we can
definitely say jagat is mithyA , unlike the jIva.



Om
Raghav




On Tue 26 Mar, 2019, 4:43 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar ji,
>
> You had asked:
>
> "When both these (jeeva and jagat) have both lakshya and lakshaNa aspects
> and satyatvaM is already attributed to brahman in the very first statement
> (brahma satya) why this partiality in jeeva-jagat analyzation and
> concluding  that only jeeva is satyaM ( brahma = satya, jeeva = brahman
> hence jeeva is satya) and jagat is mithyA??  Why we should not consider
> upalakshya in both jeeva and jagat and declare satya or why we should not
> consider upalakshaNa aspect in both jeeva and jagat and say mithyA??"
>
> There are two reasons. The first is grammatical, and the second is related
> to the process of moksha.
>
> As you know, to arrive at any sentence meaning, we need to understand the
> word meaning first. And in understanding any word, the first word-meaning
> considered is the word's primary meaning, mukhyArtha.
>
> However, when the primary meaning of the words constituting the sentence
> leads to an illogical connotation (anvaya anupapatti),  impeding the rise
> of sentence meaning, or if the intended meaning of the sentence is lost
> (tAtparya anupapatti), one resorts to lakshaNA and takes the lakshyArtha -
> the secondary or implied meaning of the words. The lakshyArtha may only be
> taken if taking the mukhyArtha is problematic.
>
> In the sentence jIvo brahmaiva nApara:, if we take primary meaning of the
> word jIva, the sentence meaning conveying oneness of the jIva with Brahman
> would be rendered logically impossible. Further the tAtparya of the
> sentence to convey abheda of jIva with shuddha chaitanya - which is the
> parama tAtparya of all shruti and the knowledge
> of which is the cause of moksha - would be lost.
>
> Hence by necessity, we discard the primary meaning of the word jIva and
> take the lakshyArtha - which is shuddha chaitanya.
>
> In the case of the sentence jaganmithyA, the jagat, whose mithyAtva is
> intended to be conveyed in the sentence, is the primary meaning of the word
> 'jagat'. There is no anvaya anupapatti and tAtparya anupapatti by taking
> the primary meaning. Thus, there is no need to discard the primary meaning
> of the word jagat and take up the secondary meaning.
>
> Thus we have grammatically valid reasons for taking the jIva to be the same
> as chaitanya, whereas the world is taken in its primary sense - to be the
> world that we interact with daily.
>
> Coming to the second reason. As you know, moksha in advaita is through
> jnAna. Such a jnAna should be capable of removing the cause of samsAra for
> it to be capable of leading to moksha. The cause of samsAra is ignorance of
> the self - not knowing who one is really. That ignorance leads to the
> imagined division of the self into an "I" and "it/they". The "I" is the
> jIva, in the primary sense, and the "it" is the jagat, in the primary
> sense.
>
> For ignorance, the cause of samsAra, to be removed by knowledge, knowledge
> and ignorance must have the same object. The ignorance we are talking about
> has only Brahman as its object - and nothing else. There is nothing else
> other than Brahman to objectify. So, knowledge too must only have Brahman
> as its object. It cannot have any other thing apart from Brahman as its
> object, for it to be capable of removing ignorance. Thus, the knowledge of
> "I" the jIva, where "I"/ the jIva contains any aspect of avidyA within it,
> will be incapable of removing ignorance and conferring moksha. Hence, it is
> said that in the jIva brahma analysis, jIva is stripped of every aspect of
> ignorance. But how to do that?
>
> Merely wishing something away does not mean that it ceases to exist.
> If ignorance
> is real, how can one strip away ignorance from the jIva? The jIva is
> everyday faced with the world which constantly reminds him of his ignorance
> and limitation. So as long as the world is real, it limits the jIva, and
> this limitation is real, and oneness with Brahman is impossible.
>
> Here is where jaganmithyAtva comes in. If the world is unreal, the
> limitation of the jIva is unreal. Hence it is taught that ignorance, and
> its projection, the world, do not exist. There is no multiplicity here
> whatsoever, says the shruti. Like the appearance of the non-existent silver
> in the shell and the dream world within the dream, it is proven that the
> entire world is a mere appearance in Brahman.
>
> Until this unreality of the world is understood, the removal of limitation
> and ignorance from the jIva is impossible.
>
> Therefore, the establishment of the mithyAtva of the world is a necessary
> pre-condition for the establishment in oneness, which is the cause of
> moksha. It is no surprise therefore that AchAryas in the advaita tradition
> have taken great pains in establishing the mithyAtva of the world, prior to
> arriving at jIva brahma aikya.
>
> It is for this reason that the very first sentence of the advaita siddhi is
> this - तत्र अद्वैतसिद्धेर्द्वैतमिथ्यात्वसिद्धिपूर्वकत्वात् द्वैतमिथ्यात्मेव
> प्रथममुपपादनीयम् ।
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>