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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Problem with bhAskar is that he consider bhAShya-vAkyam pramANa in the
sense Agama-s are. And, that's why svAmI satchidAnandendea jI appears to
put his force behind following only bhAShyam.
While sampradAya is of view that any logical position is acceptable, even
if it was never said by your AchArya.

Second, he is continuously neglecting shruti-s and logics presented.

Third, he is not propounding his view clearly. And, I seriously doubt that
he can ever do that. If he is willing, let him start a new thread for that.
We will be concentrating on supporting mithyAtva of jagat in this thread.
The new thread will be dedicated to support/deny bhAskar's position.

The way people here write is different from Sanskrit writings. Consider
bhAShyam, there bhAShyakAra will do pratiGYA, propound the hetu in a word
or two and then explain(if needed).

While here we are getting long stories combined with neglect of shruti and
logic.

These are the problems which I'm facing. That's why I'm not able to reply.

Again, if I write to one person, other persons interrupt and ask
questions(because they found some difficulty there). It's good. But, the OP
gets engaged in that too and forgets the original thing.
That makes this business tiresome.

I thank V Subrahmanian Ji for bringing shruti and bhAShyam tirelessly. It
takes time to find those.

bhAskar ! You may try to represent my views with shruti and logic in your
words, according to your understanding. I will try to clear my position.
Then we will take your position and examine it in future posts here or in
new thread.

The requisite is - don't ask for bhAShyam for everything. We are examining
correctness of views according to shruti and bhAShyam. bhAShyam is just an
explanation of words and it's meanings, nothing more. It is not pramANa in
the sense shruti is. shruti is pramANa in the sense it is aGYAtaGYApikA
while bhAShyam is good in the sense that it comprises logic.

If you could collect hetu-s given to support our view and refute yours
separately, that will be helpful for you.

Be precise if you want some result from discussion.

I will be precisely replying to each sentence. You must check old posts and
fill the gaps of understanding with information provided in new posts. That
will help you track our views and thinking pattern.

I think many of points presented here are helpful for any conversation.


*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji,
>
> << jagat and its satyatvaM are the subject matter of pratyaksha pramANa>>
>
> Let us keep this to only pAramArtha drishTi. 3 reasons why this statement
> is inapplicable in pAramArtha:
>
> 1) shAstram tu antyam pramANam says AchArya. He says that no pramANa,
> pramEya, pramAtr bhedA is possible in Brahman. jnAni loses his pramANA
> status, perception loses its pramANA status and jagat loses its pramEya
> status after the onset of jnAna. That is how brahmaivedam amrutam purastAt,
> should be understood.
>
> 2) Even in vyavahAra, the adhishThAna of nAma rUpa can never be available
> for perception, by your own logic. How is the anadhigatatvam of shruti
> preserved if perception reveals Brahman as adhishThAnam? If it did, one
> doesn't need shruti at all. So one has to conclude that what is available
> for perception is only the mithyA component of jagat, never it's
> adhishThAna.
>
> 3) Which brings me to the 3rd point. Considering  perception of nAma rUpa
> as *perception* is valid only in vyavahAra - ie so long as they are not
> understood as mithyA.  Once nAma rUpa is understood as mithyA, no pramA can
> be generated for a mithyA vastu. The very definition of pramA is
> abAdhitArtha vastu vishayaka jnAnam pramA. So if nAma rUpa is sublated, you
> cannot call it's jnAnam pramA, and you cannot call the means of generating
> that jnAnam pramANA.
>
> So by 2 (anadhigatatvam), adhishThAna cannot be perceived, and by 3, nAma
> rUpa perception is not perception at all.
>
> By 1, AchArya himself relegates all pramANA prameya pramAtr vyavahAra only
> until the generation of brahma jnAnam.
>
> With this I am going to stop and let you consider whatever you have read -
> over 100 emails have been exchanged on the subject. If after reading all of
> them you still feel your position is justified, I'm not sure there is much
> further to say. All the best.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 23 Mar 2016 4:34 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
> >
> > hare Krishna
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore, bAdha according to AchArya is the negation of the false notion
> > that the world has any independent existence.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     Beautiful prabhuji.  This is what shankara clearly said in
> > chAndOgya.  And the independent existence of kArya jagat is not possible
> > and independent existence of jagat is kevala avidyAkalpita from the
> result
> > of which jeeva gets the ahaMkAra, mamakAra (notions that he is kartru,
> > bhOktru etc.) whereas in reality kAryAkArOpi kAraNasya AtmabhUta eva,
> > anAtmabhUtasya anArabhyatvAt clarifies shankara.  Interestingly shankara
> > talking about kAryAkAra i.e. nAma rUpa and clarifying that KAraNasya
> > Atmabhutameva not mithyA as popularly understood.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Undoubtedly, but that is not the subject matter of the discussion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ø     I had to bring this point because the subject matter of this thread
> > is ‘jagat’ mithyatvaM and jagat and its satyatvaM are the subject matter
> of
> > pratyaksha pramANa.  Since brahma as the kAraNa of this jagat is
> > apratyaksha unlike in mrud-ghata (where mrittike in ghata rUpa pratyasha
> > pramANita) we have rely on shruti pramANa to know that jagat kAraNatvaM
> > which is avyavahArya, nirvishesha in its very nature.  Now the question
> is
> > are we dependent on shruti pramANa to know/realize the sva-svarUpa of
> ours
> > or are we using the shruti pramANa to prove prama of pratyaksha pramANa
> is
> > wrong??  From two different pramANa-s we are knowing the two prama-s.
> I.e.
> > through pratyaksha pramANa this jagat and through shabda pramANa
> > nirvishesha, ateendriya brahman.  Or the other way asking the question
> is :
> > is the one-ness of brahman determined by pratyaksha pramANa or shAstra
> > pramANa?? It is impossible to realize the one-ness of brahman through
> > pratyaksha pramANa because what is pratyaksha is jagat and NOT the
> > nirvishesha brahman.  So, the one-ness of the brahman (ekatvaM) is not at
> > all the subject matter of pratyaksha pramANam. The ekatvaM needs to be
> > known by pramANAntara (different pramANa) i.e. shabda that which is again
> > should not go against ‘subject matter’ of another pramANa i.e.
> > pratyaksha.   As you know one pramANa will never contradict other
> pramANa.
> > And now the important question is :  why at all the names and forms of
> this
> > multifarious jagat to be declared as mithya (when it is pratyaksha
> pramANa
> > siddha ) to realize the Agama pramANita ekatvaM of brahman??  edam sarvaM
> > yadayamAtma, bramaivedaM amrutaM purastAt etc. are the clear-cut
> > declaration of shruti, can this shruti statements to be swept aside just
> to
> > prove the jagat mithyatva and brahman satyatva??  I donot think this is
> an
> > appropriate approach to the shruti yukti and anubhava to realize the
> > nirvishesha brahman.  For that matter even for the Agama it is impossible
> > to convey an unknown (apratyaksha) thing without taking the shelter under
> > words & objects of the world says shankara somewhere.  If we are
> tenacious
> > to prove the jagat mithyatva then that which has been being conveyed by
> > this mithA prapancha by Agama too become mithyA only not satya.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>