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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> <<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?"
>
Isn't is saying "you know what, there never was a snake at all" is same as
negation? It seems you are holding negation process which happens during
realization in vyavahAra is different from denying snake/world from
pAramArtha point of view. But it is not correct, we do not have two
negations.



> Tell me something - if you knew something does not exist do you need to
> negate it's existence after knowing so?
>
Same here, if you know something does not exist, don't you use negation
sentence when somebody ask you for teaching aid?



> <<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.
>
>
> The sense in which you are clarifying now, it seems your position "no need
for negation" is equivalent to "no need for (further) negation (after
realization)". This is not correct according to quoted bhAShya ;

//Quote

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.

//End Quote

Please note the denial of negation in the *first place* here. My reply
was based on this denial.

/sv