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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Since it is known to both of us that the mail content has been repetitive,
I'll keep this mail brief and summarize.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

Ø   According to my understanding ( you can call me untraditional I don’t
mind since I am used to that tag already

Just because you're used to it, it doesn't behoove me to tag you.


 or is this vyAvahArika satya or mithyA ??

vyAvahArika satya = mithyA!!! You seem to have a different definition for
mithyA than sadasadbhyAmanirvachanIyA mithyA, if at all any! That is what
jagat is.



For a simple logical statement such as "one thing that has a substratum is
different from another thing that is in its inherent nature the as that
substratum", you expect a bhAShya statement!



Ø   Do you think mere logical statement enough without the aid of shruti /

AcharyOpadesha to prove the substratum of jeeva – jada J

Bhaskarji, sometimes it surprises me that you don’t even read what I write!
Else why would you imagine ideas of your own and superimpose on what I
write?! My statement questions the need for proof of difference between a
thing (jagat) that has a substratum and that whose inherent nature (jIva)
is the same as the substratum”. That is means “proof of substratum of jIva”
is clearly your imagination. I shall stop here unless we have some new
points to discuss, especially since you been negating mithyA tag for jagat
by having a different understanding of mithyA than vyAvahArika satya! It
would help, if at all we revisit this chapter, for you to specifically say
what is it that you think the word mithyA means, before you reject its
application to jagat outright.

To close, I will just sum up by saying that you are treating all kinds of
samAnAdhikaraNyam as one and the same thing. If that were so, all that
shruti and Bhashyakara had to do is to say that all that is there is
brahman and not categorize them so elaborately, especially as dRshyam and
draShTA. Then again, what is the need to renounce anything if everything is
indeed satyam.


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