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

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Hari Om!

You have correctly explained the details. I think the confusion was on
Mithyathvam of the perceived Jagat, where those who were holding on to that
belief, were refuting the Jagat has also the adhistanam, which is also
nothing but Brahman in essence. As per them the Jagat is nothing but
Mithya.
Hope this clarifies that.

Hari Om!

Aurobind
On 29 Mar 2016 20:25, "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> There seems to be endless mails on this topic. Looking at one of the
> latest, I get the impression that confusion persists in some quarters.
> Example of rope/snake is different from the mirage waters - one is jiiva
> sRishTi and the other is Iswara sRishti. or praatibhaasika adhyaasa and
> vyaavahaarika adhyaasa or different names have been provided.
>
> I concur with Venkatraghavanji.
>
> The BMI and the world - are ontologically of the same order of reality -
> similar to sun rise and sun set. Hence as long as BMI are there, perception
> of the world will be there - whether one is jnaani or not.
>
> Jnaani is one who recognizes the apparent reality to the BMI and the world
> that is perceived or experienced - that realization comes only when one
> understands cognitively that the absolute real is that which is changeless
> - nirvikaaraH and hence nithyaH. This understanding takes place in the mind
> only.
>
> Low of conservation demands that if something is changing there has to be
> changeless entity which is the substratum or adhishtaanam for the changing
> entity. - Krishna calls this as sat - to differentiate from asat -naasato
> vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH. That for me is the absolute law of
> conservation.
>
> Since the adhishtaanam of both BMI and the world - the apparent perceiver
> and apparent perceived are nothing but  changeless entities - sat which
> scriptures also calls it as chit or ananda - Brahman or infinite, the
> scriptures emphasizes that alone is real and everything else is
> vyaavahaarika satyam or praatibhaasika satyam.
>
> Jannam will destroy the praatibhaasika errors - just as rope/snake is
> destroyed when the underlying adhishtaanam is seen. Hence jiiva sRishTi
> which is I-ness, My-ness and raaga and dweshas get destroyed with the
> knowledge.
>
> Jnaanam will not destroy the vyaavhaarika satyam - ring/gold or pot/ mud
> or world/Iswara (Brahman point there is no world even). However jnaanam
> involves in spite of understanding that everything is nothing but Brahman
> which is one without a second, he sees the world of plurality with the BMI
> as long as BMI is there to see (since they are both same order of reality).
> Only when the BMI drops out as in videha mukti - no more
> perceiver/perceived duality in Brahman.
>
> Is ring real or not - or pot real or not - Just as they are real enough to
> use - utility itself is not criteria for absolute reality as in dream world
> of objects as Goudapaada establishes in vaitatya prakaraNam. Since BMI and
> the world are Iswara sRishti they do not disappear with janaam.
>
> Only samsaara which is jiiva sRishTi disappears for a a jnaani.
>
> I am not sure why there is so much confusion here. Bhashya also has to be
> understood with samanvayam in mind.
>
> Seeing the world does not make it real - in fact it makes it mithyaa only
> since it is seen. As sat cannot be seen and asat also cannot be seen.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 3/29/16, Aurobind Padiyath via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is
> brahman !!??
>  To: "advaita-l at lists advaita-vedanta. org" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
>  Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016, 8:59 AM
>
>  If we see the pot
>  independent of mud, which is not possible and in reality
>  is name and form of the mudpot, then it has to
>  be defined as MithyA. As
>  there will have to
>  be the pot existence without mud. So the name and form
>  called pot of which the base is mud all put
>  together is Sat not MithyA. You
>  cannot bring
>  water etc with a MithyA pot. Like the snake case. That's
>  why
>  we are able to carry on Vyavahara even
>  after knowing that the pot is made
>  of
>  mud.
>  Same way for the Jnani, the jagat is
>  nothing but Brahman but the
>  vyavaharika
>  Jagat is also of the same Brahman. If one sees a jagat
>  (names
>  and forms) without knowledge and
>  existence of those names and forms (I
>  don't know how it will be possible),then
>  that jagat is mithya.
>  Yetra na anypascati =
>  sarvam Brahma,
>  Yetra anypascati = how can
>  this happen when one Knows the above? As there
>  is nothing in reality Anya.
>
>  Aurobind
>  On 29 Mar 2016 17:57,
>  "Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l" <
>  advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  wrote:
>
>  > praNAms Sri
>  Ravikiran prabhuji
>  > Hare Krishna
>  >
>  > For a jnAni, when
>  Brahman is satya always (jnAna nishTa), is there a
>  > further need to mention jagat satya along
>  with Brahma satya ?
>  > By stating so, does
>  it further qualify or enhances it, by any means?
>  >
>  > Ø   For
>  that matter for the ajnAni also jagat is satya only and from
>  this
>  > satyatva buddhi in jagat he does
>  the vyavahAra thinking that this jagat is
>  > his bhOga bhUmi and he is bhOktru, this
>  jagat is karma bhUmi thinking that
>  > he
>  is kartru / karmi etc.  So for his jagat is an independent
>  satya and he
>  > is an individual enjoyer /
>  sufferer etc.  Whereas from the pAramArthika
>  > drushti of the jnAni, this jagat is not an
>  independent reality and jnAni is
>  > not an
>  independent enjoyer etc.  Because in him there is no
>  jnAtru, jnana,
>  > jneya triputi
>  vyavahAra.  He sees Atman and only Atman in sarva vikAra,
>  for
>  > him jagat is not MITHYA it is satya
>  in its kAraNa svarUpa.  From this
>  >
>  sarvAtma bhAva, whatever he does is satyameva.
>  sadAtmanA
>  >
>  satyatvAbhyupagamAt…sarvavyavahArANAM sarvavikArANAM
>  cha
>  > satyatvaM.clarifies shankara in
>  sUtra bhAshya.  He is not declaring here
>  > jagat is mithyA and his vyavahAra with
>  this jagat is mithyA, it is
>  > satyameva
>  from the highest point of view that is brahmaikatva
>  drushti.
>  > 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
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  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
>