[Advaita-l] Why is jagat mithya?

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatesh prabhuji
Hare Krishna

You can await more authentic answer from Sri Praveen prabhuji.  Here is my 
bit, since little free time at office:-) :

How is Brahman so difficult to understand? You may say Brahman cannot
be described because Yato Vaco Nivartante. 

>  shAstra explains this to adhyAtma jignAsu-s.  It is shruti vAkya.  And 
it also says that which you point out as brahman & that which you do 
upAsana as brahman is NOT brahman (itareya shruti) :-)) So, it is not any 
human being's disparate assertion.  It is shruti siddhAnta that brahman is 
avA~ngmAnasagOchara.

This is true for Nirguna Brahma but Saguna Brahma is easy to understand. 

>  So be it prabhuji..As I told you earlier, if you are comfortable with 
saguNOpAsa, please continue your sAdhana in that direction. I think nobody 
is disputing this sAdhana mArga.

That is why Sruti is saying Sahasra Sirsha and all that to explain Saguna 
Brahman. 

>  Infact shankara says in geeta bhAshya 13.13 ( the verse similar to 
purusha sUkta sahasra sheersha purusha) is adhyArOpita and 13.14 is 
apavAda.  sarvendriya vivarjitaM, sarvendriya guNAbhAsaM is the ultimate 
reality of upanishad brahman.  Again I am not saying this shankara 
bhagavatpAda declaring this.

Even a child can understand if you say God is everywhere. The approach of 
Mayavada is more difficult to understand because you are asking a student 
to go against his natural feeling.

>  I dont think so, samskAra & adhikara would be the deciding factor here. 
 


If there is a pot in front of the student. You can explain using Sruti
why it is Mithya. But another way is you can explain that Pot is Sat
only. That Sat is the same everywhere. It is appearing in different
names and forms. Now it is appearing as Pot. There it is appearing as
Table. Etc. Not necessary to use Mayavada at all.

>  In your above explanation itself both mAyAvAda & brahma vAda are there. 
 Kindly think it over. 

The Sadhana effort is needed to see the same Sat in different names and 
forms.

> Yes, that sAdhana cannot be the 'same' for different adhikAri-s.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar