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

[Bhaskar YR]

To the Moderators :

Kindly pardon me moderators I have written too many mails today as I am bit free at office today.  Hope this is the last one for the day.

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Jagat is mithyA nAma rUpa with Brahman as adhishthAnam. As nAma rUpa is mithyA, it is bAdhita by shruti pramANa. Therefore, by bAdha sAmAnidhikaraNyam, jagat is Brahman.

If this is your argument, I don't think anyone will argue.

Ø   What exactly is this bAdha??  bAdha, laya, nAsha some of the words used by shankara in his bhAshya while explaining the status of jagat after the dawn of jnana.  Laya does not mean annihilation of nAma/rUpAtmaka jagat which is pratyaksha pramANa gOchara.  And shAstra as a pramANa for its ‘vishaya’ is not to prove the pratyaksha pramANa as wrong.  Shabda / Agama pramANa has a different subject matter which cannot be known by any other pramANa.  And now the question is for the jnAni the bAdha of jagat nAma rUpa would bring the total disappearance of this jagat??  If the answer is no, and he would continue to see the jagat, then what is the svarUpa of this continued perception of jagat??  I think here is where shankara talks about bheda buddhi nivrutti and not bhedAkAra nivrutti of jagat.  Anyway in the bAdha of the jagat, jagat will not go anywhere, but the bAdhita jnana enlivens the jagat in its kAraNa svarUpa.   When we are playing chess, the rook is rook, bishop is bishop, knight is knight and they have its own role to play with the limited moves as per the rules in the game of chess but once the game is over all the pieces would meet the same destination and it is just wood piece only for who is not playing the chess.  We don’t say, once the game is over there is no more shape of rook, pawn etc. but though the name and shape is there we treat them as ‘wood’ only nothing else and put it in the ‘same box’.  Finally the name and form and role attributed to wood would get sublated it is wood only.



However, if you are saying that nAma rUpa is Brahman's kArya and in every kArya the kAraNa exists, and therefore nAma rUpa is verily Brahman,  that is where the difference arises.

Ø   If the nAma rUpa is not brahman’s kArya who else is??  Is there any problem if somebody say in each and every ring, bracelet, necklace there exists only gold therefore what you see as ‘ring, bangle and bracelet is nothing but gold??  I donot know how this can be denied in advaita when brahman is invariably the efficient and material cause of this kArya-jagat.



In the bhAshya for the BrahmArpaNam sloka (BG 4.24), Bhagavatpada says:

ये तु अर्पणादिषु प्रतिमायां विष्णुदृष्टिवत् ब्रह्मदृष्टिः क्षिप्यते "नामादिष्विव चेति ब्रुवते न तेषां ब्रह्मविद्या उक्ता इह विवक्षिता स्यात्", अर्पणादिविषयत्वात् ज्ञानस्य । न च *दृष्टिसम्पादनज्ञानेन मोक्षफलं प्राप्यते* ।

(Note: arpaNAdishu brahma drishTi: kshipyate nAmadishu iva cha iti chet)

Here Acharya is refuting the opponent's claim that Brahma arpaNam should be understood as upAsanAbhyAm sAmAnidhikaraNyam. He says that no Brahman drishTi in nAma rUpa (or attributing Brahman where nAma rUpa is) will give moksha. What is needed is a complete bAdha of nAma rUpa.

Ø   Here again bAdha of nAma rUpa should not be treated against pratyaksha ‘prama’.  What is negated here is svatantra astitvaM of jagat.  Shankara explains this in ArambhaNAdhikaraM of sUtra : darshayaticha “ yatra tvasya sarvaM AtmaivAbhUt (pls. note here shankara does not say sarvam mithyevabhUt instead he is saying AtmaivabhUt) tat kena kaM pashyet??  For the brahma darshi prati samastasya kriyAkArakaphala lakshaNasya vyavahArasya abhAvaM.  Does it mean jnAni stops vyavahAra itself??  Shankara answers : na cha ayaM vyavahArAbhAvO avasthA vishesha nibandhO abhidheeyate iti yuktaM vaktuM.  Hence bAdha nAma rUpa does not mean disappearance of nAma rUpa, it would continue to appear for the jnAni with sarvaikAtma buddhi.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar