[Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya

Aurobind Padiyath aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 03:27:36 CDT 2016
Previous message: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
Next message: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I leave that for Sri Bhaskarji to reply himself.
Regards
Aurobind

On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 13:55 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes agreed. That's why we have a third ontological position called mithyA,
> to describe just that.
>
> Is that the sense of Sri Bhaskar's usage?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Venkatraghavan
> On 28 Apr 2016 9:21 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sri Venkartraghavanji,
>>
>> "What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
>> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
>> position that bhedAkAra is satyam."
>>
>> Here what we have to understand is the names and forms do not have
>> independent reality. Their reality is not different from the base reality
>> of Sat. Hence they too have Sat in them but not independent of Sat. The Sat
>> feeling what we have of the ever changing names and forms are borrowed from
>> Brahman.
>> Regards,
>> Aurobind.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu 28 Apr, 2016 13:45 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>>>
>>> AdhyAsa was defined as satyanrita mithunikaraNam by Shankara in adhyAsa
>>> bhAshya. That was the reason I used the terms. We were talking about the
>>> same thing only.
>>>
>>> "names and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one can
>>> look deep into those names and forms, what they will realise is that they
>>> are superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and Chit.
>>> This means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit"..."Hence Jagat in
>>> reality is Sat only. "
>>>
>>> I'm in complete agreement. I have said the same in the original email.
>>> This is what I said earlier today:
>>>
>>>
>>> " If the true nature of jagat is accepted as existence only, then jagat
>>> is
>>> satya. If you insist that the form+existence mixture is satya by itself,
>>> then we cannot agree."
>>>
>>> What you are saying is different from what Sri Bhaskar is saying. You
>>> agreeing that names and forms are not Satyam, is different to Sri Bhaskar's
>>> position that bhedAkAra is satyam.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:55 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>> We all have the habit of using not the right words for right
>>>> expression. This leads to confusion.
>>>>
>>>> So I wanted to bring out that. Now coming to the core difference,
>>>> Jagat as names and forms is superimposed on the Sat. Because the names
>>>> and forms are not trikAlaAbhaditham. Hence not Satyam. If one can look deep
>>>> into those names and forms, what they will realise is that they are
>>>> superimposed on the Satyam and BhAnam. In other words Sat and Chit. This
>>>> means what is the reality is That Sat and Chit. Jagat is a transactional
>>>> world which is ever changing superimposed on the Permanent Sat-Chit-Ananda.
>>>> Hence Jagat in reality is Sat only. Even though transactionaly it may
>>>> temporarily appear to be real.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Aurobind
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 13:13 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Haha, I meant figuratively sir. It is mutual superimposition -
>>>>> transposing existence from sat to anritam, and transferring parichinnatvam,
>>>>> etc from anritam to sat.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need to be an actual swan to separate the two - Viveka is
>>>>> sufficient :)
>>>>> That's why the highest group of sanyAsis are called paramahamsA -
>>>>> metaphorically!
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:34 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> Your adhyAsa of asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
>>>>>> MithunIkaraNam means mixing like milk and water.  Where as AdhyAsa is
>>>>>> superimpose.
>>>>>> In the first case the mixing do take place where as in the second
>>>>>> case the Sat is only covered temporarily. That's why we can get back Sat
>>>>>> but in the case of mithunIkaraNam, only a HansA can, if we are to belive
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:58 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sri Aurobind ji,
>>>>>>> What is the asat in your explanation? Same as my anritam. Your
>>>>>>> adhyAsa of asat on sat is my mithunikaraNam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do we differ? In what appears. I say that sat (pure existence)
>>>>>>> cannot appear, it needs a manifesting medium, the anritam, to appear. You
>>>>>>> say what appears is pure existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:19 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anritam cannot cancel sat,(AGREED ) but sat can give existence to
>>>>>>> anritam (NOT IN AGREEMENT) - allowing it to as-if exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sat cannot be but Sat. What appears is also Sat only. It is the
>>>>>>> adhyAsa of Asat on Sat. So at all times what always remains is only Sat.
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:43 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No existence of its own, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anritam cannot cancel sat, but sat can give existence to anritam -
>>>>>>>> allowing it to as-if exist.
>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 8:05 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does not this mean as if nonexistent?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then as if and the non part cancels each other in reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:29 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sri Aurobind,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Im afraid I can't agree that satyAnritam here is like tamah
>>>>>>>>> prakAsha (paraspara virodhi).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Truth and falsehood are paraspara virodhi, but here:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Satya = Existence (here not truth)
>>>>>>>>> Anritam = Appearance (here it does not mean falsehood)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MithunIkaraNam does happen "eva"- as if. Ultimately anritam
>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist, it only exists "as if". What exists is existence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 7:48 a.m., "Aurobind Padiyath" <
>>>>>>>>> aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>>>>>>>> Even though I had decided to quit this thread, your last rely
>>>>>>>>>> forced me to just make one point
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya
>>>>>>>>>> existence and
>>>>>>>>>> anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Satya Anrtham or Tamah Prakasha can never have mithiniikaranam
>>>>>>>>>> but only Eva= as if . So if it can't then what is left is only Satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:13 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
>>>>>>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Namaste Sri Bhaskar,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy there are several points of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, we differ in this: you hold bhedAkAra to be satya, as
>>>>>>>>>>> bhedAkAra.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not acceptable to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The true nature of BhedAkArA's is not its AkAra, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>> astitva (sattA).
>>>>>>>>>>> That sattA is what Shankara calls it's true nature or
>>>>>>>>>>> sadAtmAnam. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> that true nature, existence, which is  Brahman, that is satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everything else about the bhedAkAra, name, form, etc, apart from
>>>>>>>>>>> existence,
>>>>>>>>>>> is anritameva.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, this bhedAkAra which is a mithunIkaraNam of satya
>>>>>>>>>>> existence and
>>>>>>>>>>> anritam AkAra, is mithyA in my book.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the true nature of jagat is accepted as existence only, then
>>>>>>>>>>> jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>> satya. If you insist that the form+existence mixture is satya by
>>>>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>>>>> then we cannot agree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016 6:42 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Hare krishna
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > I'm happy we got 3/7 :)
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     Yes, I am happy too, at last we are standing on the
>>>>>>>>>>> common platform
>>>>>>>>>>> > J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > On 5, you said: "In your position you are attributing
>>>>>>>>>>> satyatvaM only to
>>>>>>>>>>> > the antaryAmi / adhishtAnaM of the jagat (in a way you are
>>>>>>>>>>> accepting only
>>>>>>>>>>> > nimitta kAraNam and anupravesham as antaryAmi but ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAnatvaM),"
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > I don't think that is true sir because adhishthAnam = vivarta
>>>>>>>>>>> upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNam.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   OK prabhuji, adhishTAnaM is upAdAna kAraNaM.  We will come
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> > ‘vivarta’ part of this upAdAna kAraNaM later after discussing
>>>>>>>>>>> the pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna kAraNaM of mAya.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > We are saying jagat is a kArya of Brahman and MAya.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Though you are all of a sudden introducing the mAya
>>>>>>>>>>> alongwith brahman
>>>>>>>>>>> > for the creation / existence of jagat, I am not objecting it,
>>>>>>>>>>> agreeing with
>>>>>>>>>>> > it to go forward in the spirit of samanvaya J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > The vivarta upAdAna kAraNam is Brahman and the pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>> upAdAna KAraNam is
>>>>>>>>>>> > MAya. So even in our paksha, Brahman is the upAdAna kAraNa, it
>>>>>>>>>>> just so
>>>>>>>>>>> > happens to be a vivarta upAdAna, not a pariNAmi.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     So in other words, what is changeless in jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>> vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNaM i.e. brahman  and what is changing in the jagat is
>>>>>>>>>>> pariNAMi upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNaM i.e. mAya right prabhuji??  Now the question is, does
>>>>>>>>>>> this pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAyA is a separate entity apart from
>>>>>>>>>>> vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNa i.e. brahman??  I don’t think you would accept this
>>>>>>>>>>> position, since
>>>>>>>>>>> > we both agree that what is there before creation is ekaM eva
>>>>>>>>>>> adviteeyaM
>>>>>>>>>>> > (sadeva soumya idamagraaseet, ekamevAdviteeyaM asserts
>>>>>>>>>>> shruti).  So, the
>>>>>>>>>>> > changeless part of jagat i.e. vivartOpadAna kAraNaM i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> adhishtAnaM brahma
>>>>>>>>>>> > should have some relationship with pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa of
>>>>>>>>>>> this changing
>>>>>>>>>>> > jagat if not from the adhisthAnaM point of view atleast from
>>>>>>>>>>> the pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>> > upAdAna point of view i.e. mAya point of view.  To clarify
>>>>>>>>>>> this point let
>>>>>>>>>>> > us go back to the example of ‘golden ornament’.  The changing
>>>>>>>>>>> nAma rUpa has
>>>>>>>>>>> > the pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa i.e. mAya whereas the ‘gold’ as
>>>>>>>>>>> its adhishtAnaM
>>>>>>>>>>> > / vivartOpadAna kAraNaM does not have to bother about pariNAmi
>>>>>>>>>>> kAraNam
>>>>>>>>>>> > since gold in its svarUpa will always be ‘nirlipta’
>>>>>>>>>>> nirvikAra.  So, from
>>>>>>>>>>> > the adhshtAnaM point of view, no question can be raised on the
>>>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>>>> > between vivarta and pariNAmi.  But pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. mAya has to
>>>>>>>>>>> > have some relationship with this adhishtAnam.  What exactly is
>>>>>>>>>>> this??  We
>>>>>>>>>>> > have to find the answer for this because we have started the
>>>>>>>>>>> prakriya by
>>>>>>>>>>> > accepting the one without second existence of adhishtAnaM i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> brahman.
>>>>>>>>>>> > Shankara clarifies that this pariNAmi upAdAna kAraNa ( frankly
>>>>>>>>>>> I don’t know
>>>>>>>>>>> > where exactly shankara categorically makes this distinction
>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> >  pariNAmi and vivarta to prove the jagat mithyatva, anyway let
>>>>>>>>>>> that be
>>>>>>>>>>> > aside) if at all it is there it is nothing but Shakti of the
>>>>>>>>>>> parabrahman
>>>>>>>>>>> > and there shankti is not different from Shakta.  Which I have
>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>> > yesterday as well.  So, since there is ananyatvaM between
>>>>>>>>>>> Shakti and
>>>>>>>>>>> > Shakta, the Shakti which is manifestation of manifold nAma
>>>>>>>>>>> rUpa nothing but
>>>>>>>>>>> > Shakta in its causal form.  Kindly note I am not saying this,
>>>>>>>>>>> shankara
>>>>>>>>>>> > himself clarifies in sUtra bhAshya  kAraNasya AtmabhUtA
>>>>>>>>>>> shaktiH,
>>>>>>>>>>> > shakteshcha AtmabhUtaM kAryaM.  Anyway, this will be hard to
>>>>>>>>>>> understand for
>>>>>>>>>>> > those who deny the intrinsic qualities of brahman i.e.
>>>>>>>>>>> sarvajnatvaM and
>>>>>>>>>>> > sarvashaktitvaM (sUtra bhAshya 1-1-5).
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >  On 6 -  how to explain the appearance of manifoldness in
>>>>>>>>>>> jagat , you
>>>>>>>>>>> > said:  "Don’t you think shankara explained this already by
>>>>>>>>>>> saying :
>>>>>>>>>>> > satyatvAbhyupagamAt ...sarva vyavahArANAM sarva vikArANAM cha
>>>>>>>>>>> satyatvaM."
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes, shankara did say here: "sarvam cha nAmarUpAdi
>>>>>>>>>>> sadatmanaiva" (all nAma
>>>>>>>>>>> > rUpa are satya, in their nature of the Self), however he also
>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>> > "vikArajAtam svatastu anritamaiva". He said "ata: sadAtmanA
>>>>>>>>>>> > sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam sattoanyatve cha
>>>>>>>>>>> > anritatvamiti" - all vyavahAra and all modifications are real
>>>>>>>>>>> in their
>>>>>>>>>>> > nature of the Real Self, and unreal (anritatvam) separate from
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > The way I interpret that statement is to say that the Brahman
>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>> > adhishthAnam for nAma rUpa is real (adhishthAna means vivarta
>>>>>>>>>>> upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> > kAraNa), that nAmarUpa by themselves are unreal. In other
>>>>>>>>>>> words, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> > sadasat vilakshaNam, or mithyA.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     Yes, prabhuji, Shankara already clarified his position
>>>>>>>>>>> that nAma
>>>>>>>>>>> > rUpa ‘svatastu anrutameva’ after declaring the siddhAnta :
>>>>>>>>>>> sarvaM cha
>>>>>>>>>>> > nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva so it is not negation of nAma rUpa
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves, it
>>>>>>>>>>> > is negation svatantra astitva of this nAma rUpa independently
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> > brahman.  What is mithya is svatantra astitvaM of this nAma
>>>>>>>>>>> rUpa, which you
>>>>>>>>>>> > also agreed.  Happy we are agreeing here to one more point.
>>>>>>>>>>> 4/7 shall I say
>>>>>>>>>>> > J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Your question may be why do we need to talk of modification by
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   There cannot be any talk possible about modification
>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>>> > without bringing in the adhishtAnaM !! Can we talk about gold
>>>>>>>>>>> modifications
>>>>>>>>>>> > like ring, bangle, bracelet etc. without considering the gold
>>>>>>>>>>> part in it??
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Can we separate modification from Brahman?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø  No that is what I said above.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Why is it important to look at nAma rUpa, different from
>>>>>>>>>>> Brahman?
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   nAma rUpa without brahman is like mirror reflection of gold
>>>>>>>>>>> > ornament.  There is no gold in that reflection and that gold
>>>>>>>>>>> ornament does
>>>>>>>>>>> > not serve any practical purpose.  So, it is there just for the
>>>>>>>>>>> name sake.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Our answer to that is that if it wasn't important, Shankara
>>>>>>>>>>> could have
>>>>>>>>>>> > stopped at sadAtmanA sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha
>>>>>>>>>>> satyatvam - he
>>>>>>>>>>> > needn't have added sattoanyatve cha anritatvam.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Shankara talks about avidyAkalpita nAma rUpa of jeeva to
>>>>>>>>>>> > differentiate it from brahma mAnasa pratyaya of this jagat.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence he
>>>>>>>>>>> > reiterates ‘svatantra jagat’ is asarvaM and abrahmaM, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> only in the
>>>>>>>>>>> > vision of ajnAni-s whereas for the jnAni there exists nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> but brahman
>>>>>>>>>>> > hence for him : “sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva”.  It is
>>>>>>>>>>> not avidyA
>>>>>>>>>>> > bheda drushti, parichinna drushti.  It is avidyA rahita
>>>>>>>>>>> paripUrNa drushti
>>>>>>>>>>> > or sama darshitvaM.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Hence, in my opinion, AchArya's addition to the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>> line is
>>>>>>>>>>> > crucial.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > >Yes, prabhuji, the post popular understanding about the jagat
>>>>>>>>>>> is from
>>>>>>>>>>> > aviveki-s, ajnAni-s, for them shankara suggesting what you see
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> > prapancha apart from you does not exist it is anrutameva.
>>>>>>>>>>> Realize that
>>>>>>>>>>> > what is there outside of you and what is there inside of you
>>>>>>>>>>> is only
>>>>>>>>>>> > brahman and nothing else. Rishi vAmadeva realized it when he
>>>>>>>>>>> was in his
>>>>>>>>>>> > mother’s garbha, bhakta prahllAda realized it and shown the
>>>>>>>>>>> hari in the
>>>>>>>>>>> > pillar to his father.  And more importantly this is the way of
>>>>>>>>>>> teaching of
>>>>>>>>>>> > shAstra. It starts from manifoldness of jagat, brings in the
>>>>>>>>>>> kAryakAraNa
>>>>>>>>>>> > ananyatvaM and finally establishes the brahmaikatvaM.  From
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> > methodology only, in my opinion we can effectively do the
>>>>>>>>>>> shAstra vAkya
>>>>>>>>>>> > samanvaya with regard to brahmaikatva jnana.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > So in the spirit of samanvayA:
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > 1)       Brahman is nimitta kAraNam and vivarta upAdAna
>>>>>>>>>>> kAraNam of jagat.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Yes, agreed prabhuji J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > 2)       nAma rUpa in their essential nature are satya, but
>>>>>>>>>>> apart from
>>>>>>>>>>> > that are anritam.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø   Very nicely said prabhuji agreed again J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > 3)      We call that mithyA, and you by ignoring the anritam
>>>>>>>>>>> part and
>>>>>>>>>>> > looking only at the satyA part are calling jagat satyam.
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Ø     We are not ignoring the jagat mithyatva as I have been
>>>>>>>>>>> clarifying
>>>>>>>>>>> > several times.  What you look at mithyA is not mithya for us.
>>>>>>>>>>> As per our
>>>>>>>>>>> > book of vedAnta what is mithyA is jeeva kalpita jagat/samsara
>>>>>>>>>>> for which
>>>>>>>>>>> > pariNAmi nityatvaM of mAya is adhishtAnaM.  In short,
>>>>>>>>>>> according to us,
>>>>>>>>>>> > bhedAkAra is not mithyA, bheda buddhi in bhedAkAra is mithya.
>>>>>>>>>>> A subtle but
>>>>>>>>>>> > very significant difference indeed J
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> > Bhaskar
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For assistance, contact:
>>>>>>>>>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aurobind
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Aurobind
>>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Aurobind
>>
> --

Aurobind
Previous message: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
Next message: [Advaita-l] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!?? - Samanvaya
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list