[Advaita-l] Why is jagat mithya?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> How is Brahman so difficult to understand?

Due to mithyA. :)

You may say Brahman cannot
> be described because Yato Vaco Nivartante.

So does shruti.

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

To you, maybe, To some others, not quite. To each his own. There are
umpteen number of people who have no reasoning for Ishvara, but have
for advaita vedAnta! This may not be a very sAmpradAyika approach but
it suits them nonetheless. Just like saguNa argument with no place for
nirguNa is also not sAmpradAyika way. So while you want mithyA
argument to go, and only saguNa to remain as brahman, they want your
saguNa argument to go and mithyA to remain. Their goal is the same
nirguNa brahman that you have been writing about all the while. You
cannot impose your easy understanding of whatever upon them, having
absolutely no idea what their problems are. The advaita AchAryAs
understand their problems. Unfortunately, you don't seem to find that
easy to understand.

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

No one denies that, but the same shruti doesn't stop with that one point.

Even a
> child can understand if you say God is everywhere.

And only a child remains satisfied with such argument. Despite your
view, children do grow up to be more inquisitive and take their quest
beyond God is everywhere into details of what it means.

The approach of
> Mayavada is more difficult to understand because you are asking a
> student to go against his natural feeling.

Again, to you, maybe. As Bhaskarji said if you find what is naturally
easy for you to do, you should carry on your sAdhanA with it. Advaita
Vedanta has a very important place for saguNopAsana. Why should that
be a hindrance to others finding mAyAvAda easy? You don't, others do,
period.

>
> 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.

Bboth ways are there and sampradAyA uses both; there is no problem
anywhere, except in your putting one view at a high point of
comparison to others. neti neti doesn't stop with neti neti.
sampradAyA teaches neti neti, and also iti to be beyond.

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.

That appearance of names and forms is exactly what mAyAvAda is, you
seem to have completely put it out of perspective. You think it to be
something it is not. Its like saying I see the sun rising but since
its not really rising, one should never say that the sun is rising.
Its a pointless argument.

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

And that sAdhanA is not necessarily chanting sarvam khalvidam brahma
till the rise of j~nAna to the denial of everything else.

gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */