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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Srinath,

<<Negation of world already happened? When? >>

Negation is part of the very process of jnAnam by which one transcends from
vyavahAra to paramArtha. If one knows the adhishThAna, one has negated the
adyastha automatically.

<<It implies from your explanation that such negation must have happened in
vyavhAra before arriving into pAramArtha.>>
Yes.

<<If that is the case, you may have to violate Shankara in many places.>>
No, because the examples you quote don't deal with jnAnam  at all. They
describe the general misconceptions that plague vyavahAra.
JnAnam can only happen in vyavahAra, not pAramArtha.

<<So, the negation must be from pAramArtha only.>>
No. No mithyA vastu exists in pAramArtha to negate.

<<If you say this negation did not happen in the first place then the
perceived "snake" remains snake itself and never ever get corrected. >>
Please read what I wrote correctly. I said there was *no need*  for
negation as the vastu was not existing really - *I did not say that the
negation did not take place*. Negation takes place and once truth is known
about the negated vastu, one realises negation did not *need to happen*.

<<In other words, perceived "snake" remains abhAdita and hence you may have
to call it real!>>

This does not follow. First snake was seen. Then right perception of rope
has happened which has negated the mithyA snake. Once that has been
negated, one realises that there never was a snake to necessitate
"negation". GaudapAda and Shankara are standing at this place and saying,
"you know what, there never was a snake at all! Why did we worry about
negating it?"

Tell me something - if you knew something does not exist do you need to
negate it's existence after knowing so?

<<The very reason you characterized "snake" appearance as mithya is because
you reasoned it on the ground that if it is real it should not be sublated
(along with other half  part if it is asat it should not be perceived). The
very fact that you can sublate such mithya vastu, now denying the negation
itself is a vyabhichAra at best.>>

Please understand what is said before building arguments from thin air.
This entire edifice is based on you misunderstanding "no need for negation"
with "no negation". I suggest you argue on the basis of what was actually
said and not on the basis of something you have imagined.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan