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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Can you please succinctly define what you mean by mithyA, so that we can revisit your question if need be?

Ø   I think I have already shared my understanding about mithyA jnana and mithyA jagat.  First of all as I have been reiterating the jagat which is Ishwara hetuka, the jagat for which brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, the jagat / kArya which is like kAraNa trishu kAleshu na vyabhicharati, that jagat which has been pointed out by shruti as brahma (like sarvaM khalvidam brahman, brahmaivedaM vishwaM etc.)  is not mithyA.  Then what is mithyA jagat??  The jagat which is independent of its kAraNa is mithyA, since this mithyA jagat is in reality not possible to exist it is mithyA only.  Like ring cannot exist apart from gold, attributing the separate existence to ring is mithyA only.  In short when jagat is identified as jagat only apart from brahman is mithya and when the same jagat has been realized as brahman it is satya.  Therefore, the jagat that is understood wrongly due to avidyA by jeeva is called mithyA jnana (anyathAgrahaNa) and for this mithyA jnana the jneya vastu is mithyA jagat.  This mithyA jagat varies from individual to individual and in this mithyA jagat there is no trace of kAraNa hence it is called mithyA.  The jagat which is in its Shakti rUpa / kAraNa rUpa brahmAnanya ( pls. again refer kAryAkArOpi sutra bhAshya) whereas jagat which is jneya vishaya to mithyA jnana of the jeeva is kevala jeeva mAnasa pratyaya hence it is mithyA.  Looking at a woman treating her as wife after marriage is the temporary avidyAkalpita ( that he is purusha, has a separate BMI etc.) jnana if that same person takes saNyAsa, the avidyAkalpita relationship of patnitva goes, but that woman does not vanish in thin air but that woman continue to be there as woman only.  Though the changing world in its vyaktAvyaktAtmaka vikAra in its kAraNa svarUpa nothing but satya, the relationship that jeeva imagines in that jagat due to avidyA is mithyA.



To us, whatever is not paramArtha satyam and paramArtha asat (alIka/tuccha) is mithyA.

Ø     The paramArtha satyam what we are passionately holding close to our chest is not vyavahAra abhAva satya or avasthAteeta or kAlAntara or lOkAntara satya wherein we have to negate the very existence of perceived jagat and placing paramArtha satya aloof from jagat.  OTOH,  realizing the kAraNa svarUpa of this kArya jagat through kArya jagat (jagat here including our BMI and external jagat) is svarUpa jnana or Atmaikatva jnana.  And in that paramArtha jnana there is nothing that can be labelled as mithyA.  For him (the jnAni) sarvaM Atmameva, he sees nothing apart from IT.  And this Atmaikatva jnana does not bring an end to this jagat. But the wrong notions about jagat conceived by the jeeva due to avidyA are gone.  jnana does not bring bhedAkAra nivrutti, it only bring bheda buddhi nivrutti.  brahmavidyA does not create or destroy a thing in front says shankara in bruhadAraNyaka.

So we call vyAvahArika satya and prAtibhAsika satya as mithyA.

Ø     You can have your opinion on it prabhuji.  But shankara says if only the pAramArthika satya was not there in them (vyAvahArika satya) they would never be available for vyavahAra.  So, whatever we see in vyavahAra jagat and the transactions relating to this vyAvahArika jagat is satyameva not mithya from the jnAni’s point of view.

You may ask: but doesn't vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika satya have Brahman as AdhAra, or otherwise how would they appear to exist?

Ø   Not only antaryAma /AdhAra / AdhishtAna he (brahman) is the upAdAna too for this vyAvahArika objects.  That we should not forget while throwing the vyAvahArika jagat in mithyA basket.

We say: Yes they do. But the AdhAra as a separate entity is not included within our definition of mithyA

Ø     If AdhAra is a different / separate entity from the  upAdAna then we can say jagat is mithya..but that is not the case here, tatsrushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat, brahman is the AdhAra as well as upAdana for this jagat.

- if it was, then that AdhAra - as sat, and nothing else - is a paramArtha satya, and hence not included within what we call mithyA (see the definition above, whatever is not paramArtha satyam...)

>  kindly see above what exactly paramArtha satya according to the Atmaikatva jnAni.

If you understand our position, that is sufficient for me - it's OK even if we are in disagreement.

Where people will have a problem is when you claim Shankara is also taking your position. The issue with that stand is that you would have to ignore MandUkya BhAshya + prakaraNa granthAs attributed to Shankara.

Ø   If we discount the kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM, if we negate the Ishwara hetuka srushti, if we deny the pancheekaraNa, trivrukkaraNa just to prove the illusory nature of jagat we have to ignore major portion of sUtra, geeta and shruti and without our knowledge unfortunately we are wearing the attire of vijnAnavAdins when it comes to jagat existence.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar