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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

2016-03-22 13:42 GMT-04:00 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> In all our discussions on whether or not the world is ultimately Brahman,
> we should not forget this declaration of Sri Gaudapadacharya:
>
> प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः ।
> मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७ ॥ 1.17
> 17 If the phenomenal universe were real, then certainly it would disappear.
> The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (maya);
> Non—duality alone is the Supreme Reality.
>
> Bhashya:
>
> प्रपञ्चनिवृत्त्या चेत्प्रतिबुध्यते, अनिवृत्ते प्रपञ्चे कथमद्वैतमिति, उच्यते
> । सत्यमेवं स्यात्प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत ; रज्ज्वां सर्प इव कल्पितत्वान्न तु स
> विद्यते । विद्यमानश्चेत् निवर्तेत, न संशयः । न हि रज्ज्वां भ्रान्तिबुद्ध्या
> कल्पितः सर्पो विद्यमानः सन्विवेकतो निवृत्तः ; न च माया मायाविना प्रयुक्ता
> तद्दर्शिनां चक्षुर्बन्धापगमे विद्यमाना सती निवृत्ता ; तथेदं प्रपञ्चाख्यं
> मायामात्रं द्वैतम् ; रज्जुवन्मायाविवच्च अद्वैतं परमार्थतः ; तस्मान्न
> कश्चित्प्रपञ्चः प्रवृत्तो निवृत्तो वास्तीत्यभिप्रायः ॥
> The gist is: To say that 'by negating the world, the Advaitic Brahman is
> known' is also a teaching aid; really speaking there is no world at all to
> be negated. It is not that the world exists, which is negated. The world
> does not exist at all in the first place for it to be negated.
> This is what is stated as:
> न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
> न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥ 2.32
>

>
Isn't the second definition of mithyA contradicts above position?

Mithya is defined as pratipanna-upAdhau-traikAlika-niShedha-pratiyogitvaM

(Mithya is that which never existed in the locus it is perceived)

So, what is being negated is existence world at the locus where it appears,
i.e Brahman as adhisTAna.

/sv