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

[Venkateswaran N E]

Swamiji, thanks for your lucid and to the point explanations.
Some questions which lingered in me even after reading other posts got clarified from yours.

Warm Regards
Venkateswaran N E

> On 20-Mar-2016, at 4:25 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
> [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
>> The jagat in advaita vedAnta is mithya why??
> 
> ​Because, shruti says neti, neti and ekamevAdvitIyam.
> ​
> 
> 
>> brahma satya jaganmithya jeevo brahmaiva na paraH famouns saying goes in
>> advaita though same order of statement cannot be found anywhere in
>> prasthAna traya bhAshya of shankara.
> 
> ​There is no need to find such words in bhAShyam. bhAShym is not
> shabda-pramANA; it's validity comes from logic. And no independent logic
> can prove mithyAtva of jagat.
> You need shruti to prove jagat mithyA or anumAna backed by/based on shruti.​
> 
> ​That was provided above.
> I think that's enough even if the mentioned shloka is found to be modern
> creation.
> ​
> 
>> I always wonder when the jeeva has been identified as brahman why jagat is
>> barred from this status that too when advaita readily accepts that for the
>> jagat,  brahman is the both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa??
> 
> ​chaitanyam in it's jIvatva-state can't be identified with brahman. So,
> jagat in it's jagattva-state can't be identified with brahman too.​
> 
> ​I mean both can't be identified with brahman in the condition/form they
> are know/famous.
> So, jIva's case is similar to jagat.
> This is the solution you need.
> 
> Another thing,
> Being upAdAna doesn't ensure oneness with jagat. Because upAdAna-kAraNa is
> of two types: pariNAmi and vivartta. vivarttopAdAna can't be identified
> with kArya, at least that will not be pramA. That condition is called
> illusion. If that oneness is acceptable, we don't have any problem.
> 
> Well argument may go like this :  since jeeva is chaitanya it is acceptable
>> that jeeva in its svarUpa brahman only nothing else because brahman is the
>> akhanda chaitanya whereas jagat is jada (inert) anAtma hence jagat is not
>> brahman it is mithya only.
> 
> ​See the difference of answer above.
> ​
> 
> 
>> Is
>> ​(does) ​
>> this mean that there exists a thing that can be called as ‘anAtma’ in
>> ‘jada’ svarUpa??
> ​Not​
> 
> ​anAtma, but anAtmatvam.
> Yes, it exists. But, that existence is not pAramArthika. It's
> vyAvahArika-sattA.
> ​
> 
>> How can this jada jagat can
>> (x) ​
>> exist aloof from brahman
> ​You mean independent of brahman? No, it doesn't exist in that way, since
> brahman is the existence shining as existence of jagat.
> ​
> 
> 
>> to bifurcate brahman is Chaitanya and jagat is jada and this jada is not
>> brahman but only mithyA??
> 
> ​Solved?
> ​
> 
> 
>> And contrarily,  we elevate upAdhirahita jeeva as brahman since upadhi
>> rahita jeeva is in his svarUpa brahman only ??
> 
> ​Your words appear to show that you are very much disturbed/in hurry.
> If you know that since 'upAdhirahita jIva is brahman', then where comes the
> talk of elevation?
> We are telling what is truth. We are not elevating because of partiality!!
> ​
> 
> 
>> whereas we are not ready to accept jagat in its svarUpa brahman only
> 
> ​My friend! We are not independent in such places. We follow shruti-s and
> mImAMsA.​
> 
> ​We have shruti-s which support oneness of jIva-brahman, and other which
> proclaim mithyAtva of jagat. What can we do?
> 
> ​The problem with most people is that they don't understand that advaita
> can't be proved with the help of logic only. You need shruti for this.
> There is no other way.
> 
> when we see the same jagat beyond its nAma rUpa, still we argue that jagat
>> is mithya only.
> 
> ​BTW, what is this 'jagat beyond nAma-rUpa'?
> I think that you follow bhAShya-s. You must be aware that there is nothing
> called jagat apart from nAma-rUpa. If you don't, then I must stop here.
> ​
> 
> 
>> We are not ready to accept that once the extra attributes removed from
>> jeeva and jagat   what remains is brahman only is it not??
> 
> ​No, you are missing sommething.
> Although jIva has satya-mithyA both; jagat is not so. Hence, we don't find
> anything after shunning mithyA which can be identified with brahman.
> ​
> 
> 
>> So the equation is
>> 
>> (a) upAdhi + brahman = jeeva,
>> 
>> (b) nAma / rUpa + brahman = jagat
> 
> ​No, nAma and rUpa = jagat.​
> 
> ​There is no brahman which is part of jagat.
> Consciousness is not experienced in jagat(anything which is not brahman or
> jIva)​. So, there is no need to insert it there.
> If you want to add brahman to nAma and rUpa, then it must be added as
> adhiShThAna; not as a svarUpa(part) of jagat.
> While in the case of jIva, brahman(chaitanya) is part of svarUpa too.
> 
> So, your equations are not correct. They are contributing to confusion.
> 
> 
> (c) jeeva - upAdhi = brahman and
>> 
>> (d) jagat - nAma/rUpa = brahman
> 
> ​No, jagat -nAma and rUpa = ​
> 
> ​adhiShThAna
> or jagat - nAma and rUpa = nothing(no svarUpa of jagat is left)
> both are correct​.
> 
> There is a difference in being adhiShThAna and becoming jagat(or part of
> it).
> 
> 
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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