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

[Venkatesh Murthy (वेङ्कटेशः सीतारामार्यपुत्रः)]

Namaste

There is Adhikari Bheda here also. For Ajnani the world is not Mithya.
It is Satya only. He must say Jagat Satyam only not otherwise. For a
seeker world is Mithya. It is not Sat, not Asat, not both Sat and
Asat. For a Jnani the world is not there at all. It is Asat like a
Man's horns.

Therefore when someone is asking 'how can you say World is Mithya?' we
have to ask 'Who are you?' Are you Ajnani, Seeker or Jnani. The answer
will be depending on who is asking. If Ajnani is asking we have to
agree and say 'No no, world is not Mithya but Satya only. Be happy'.
If Seeker is asking we can show him how world is Mithya. If Jnani is
asking... he will never ask at all. He knows the answer.

Otherwise there will be endless unnecessary debate for many many
centuries like with the Dvaitis.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Subbuji, Srinath ji,
>
> First of all, many thanks Subbuji for sharing the bhAshya vAkyas in this
> discussion. The mandUkya kArika and bhAshya are very relevant to this
> discussion.
>
> Coming to your question Srinath-ji:
>
> <<Isn't the second definition of mithyA contradicts above position?>>
>
> Just wanted to confirm, by 'the above position' do you mean this sentence
> in Subbuji's email: 'The world does not exist at all in the first place for
> it to be negated.'?
>
> That is, is your question that as the world need not be negated, it is not
> traikAlika nishedha pratiyogi and hence not mithyA as per the below
> definition?
>
> <<Mithya is defined as
> pratipanna-upAdhau-traikAlika-niShedha-pratiyogitvaM>>
>
> If that is the question, the answer is that GaudapAdAchArya and
> ShankarAchArya are speaking from a paramArtha standpoint. Negation of the
> world has already happened, with the realisation that there never was a
> world in all three periods of time, and consequently *no negation was
> needed*. Once a mithyA vastu has been negated, it ceases to exist in all
> three periods of time, ruling out the need to negate it - but that doesn't
> make the vastu fall outside the scope of the definition.
>
> For example, once the rope snake has been negated, we understand that there
> never was a rope snake in any period of time, and therefore there was *no
> need for negation in the first place*.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 22 Mar 2016 9:05 p.m., "Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh