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

[Ravi Kiran]

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, akhanda <akhanda at vsnl.com> wrote:
>
>> Raviji, We do negate the jagat to realize the adhiSTAnam.  The original
>> question on this thread was:
>>
>>
>>    - Why is jeeva taken as Brahman and not as mithyaa?
>>    - Conversely, why is jagat taken as mithyaa and not Brahman?
>>
>> when in fact both jeeva and jagat are upaadhis or are associated with
>> upaadhis.
>>
>> My comment was that that the jeeva is an amsha of Brahman, namely it is
>> chidaabhaasa, and therefore the jeeva is both jada and chaitanya, and the
>> jeeva's chaitanya aspect can be taken as Brahman.  Jeeva's mithyaa aspect,
>> namely the body-mind complex, is in fact negated to arrive at the jeeva's
>> chaitanya aspect, the true 'I'.
>>
>> By contrast, the jagat does not have any chidaabhaasa, since it does not
>> have a sukshma shariira, and after its negation, you cannot equate it to
>> Brahman.
>>
>
> Anil-ji,  Since the jagat (all objects in this world) is also superimposed
> on Brahman, with the removal of ignorance by paramArtha brahmaikatva jnAna,
> Brahman (satya vastu) alone is revealed ..
>
>> Anil (Gidwani)
>>
>>
>> On 24-Mar-2016 12:30 PM, Ravi Kiran wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, akhanda <akhanda at vsnl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for jumping in so late in this thread.  The thread has been
>>> meandering across many, highly interesting areas.  But to come back to the
>>> original question:
>>>
>>> (a) As someone else commented earlier in this trhead, in this verse Shri
>>> Shankaraacharya is addressing the mumkshu, a jiiva. Hence he does not say
>>> that jiiva is mithyaa, even though he could, and only says jiiva is
>>> Brahman. Let us not forget for a moment, though, that there is an aspect of
>>> the jiiva that is mithyaa. Namely, the body-mind complex.
>>>
>>> (b) The jiiva also has the reflection of consciousness in his sukshma
>>> shariira.  In all of creation, it is the jiiva alone that has both the
>>> mithyaa aspect (jada, the body mind complex) and the satyam aspect (non
>>> jada, consciousness). In the inert jagat, there is no sukshma shariira,
>>> hence no chidaabhaasa, hence no reflection of consciousness. It is jada
>>> through and through.
>>>
>>> (c) As Sureswara puts it very well in his Naiskarmyasiddhi, the
>>> ahamkaara in the jiiva is both the subject (fire) and the object (fuel).
>>> The very first manifestation of adhyaasa takes place in the ahamkaara,
>>> which is found only in jiivas. Shri Shankaraacharya exhorts us to
>>> examine ourselves and discover that we call 'I' is the consciousness aspect
>>> in us,  not the false 'I mithyaa part in us.
>>>
>>> Hence the statement by Shri Shankaraacharya seems to intentionally
>>> ignore the mithyatva of the jiiva (false 'I') and focusses on the Brahmatva
>>> of the jiiva (the true 'I'). The same cannot be done for jagat, which is
>>> false through and through.
>>>
>>
>> why not?  why not we negate the jagat ( inert jagat, as you say) to
>> realize the adhiSTAna Brahman, where the jagat appears?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>
>>> My two cents.
>>>
>>> Anil (Gidwani)
>>>
>>> On 24-Mar-2016 8:19 AM,
>>> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.orgviaadvaita-l-bounces>"advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>>> via advaita-l-bounces"
>>> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.orgviaadvaita-l-bounces>@
>>> lists.advaita-vedanta.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Thus, as per the above verse, which Sri Vidyaranya is only quoting, I
>>> suppose, those who hold
>>>
>>> māyā (the world, that is its effect) to be real are 'laukika-s'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By concluding so, the author of above assertion is already under the spell
>>> of mAya, for he is seeing "difference" and posting real distinction between
>>> 'laukikAs' and not so laukikAs. This difference is not possible unless
>>> oneself is laukika himself.
>>>
>>> To come out of this problem, I guess, one need not make such distinction;
>>>
>>>
>>> vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> or make the distinction but not hold difference is undesirable.
>>>
>>>
>>> this sounds better ..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>