1

Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1 says

All this is Brahman. Everything comes from Brahman, everything goes back to Brahman, and everything is sustained by Brahman. One should therefore quietly meditate on Brahman. Each person has a mind of his own. What a person wills in his present life, he becomes when he leaves this world. One should bear this in mind and meditate accordingly.

Whereas Nirmalamba Upanishad and Vivekacudamani verse 20 say "ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः"

Do these 2 statements contradict each other??

11
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda Please stop downvoting Questions sir. If you don't like then please don't write. Close it. Why Downvote and reduce my points?? Mar 13 at 10:57
  • 1
    Sir your question is not clear. Brahman is everything. Jagat is mithya. The world is nothing but Brahman. It is perceived wrongly as a snake but the underlying rope of Brahman is real. Mahavakyas only say that Atman and Brahman are same.
    – GIRIBLR
    Mar 13 at 15:18
  • 1
    @DarkKnight I did quote them Minor Upanishads dont have verse numbers sometimes. Vivekacudamani isnt Shruti. Its a text written by an Acharya Mar 13 at 16:06
  • 1
    @SethuSrivatsaKoduru it is a non dualistic monism interpretation of vedas and upanishades that are shruti. It is more like a poetic way of expressing your interpretation. Mar 13 at 16:23
  • 1
    @DarkKnight Everything is Brahman and Jagat is Mithya and only self is true Mar 14 at 4:22
1

Everything including the world is Brahman. The upanishad you quoted also says the same thing. All this is Brahman." Thus there is no contradiction.

According to advaita, the world is also Brahman but is perceived wrongly by the ajnani. The ajnani thinks the world is real apart from Brahman but the substratum is Brahman. Take the example of bracelet, ring and necklace. The jnani sees the gold in each of them but the ajnani thinks each of them are different due to different names and forms. Advaita says the names and forms are not real by itself but dependent on the underlying substratum. The world of names and forms are not real by itself but dependent on Brahman, the underlying substratum.

*ataH pR^itha~N.hnAsti jagatparAtmanaH

pR^ithak.hpratItistu mR^iShA guNAdivat . guNAhivat

aaropitasyAsti kimarthavattA.

a-dhiShThAnamAbhAti tathA bhrameNa .. 235.. Vivekachudamani*

The world has no existence apart from the Supreme Self and the appearance of its separateness is false like the appearance of a snake in a rope. Can a superimposition have any existence apart from its own substratum? Through delusion, it is the substratum itself which appears like that.

An ajnani perceives the world to be apart from the Brahman and real. But actually the world is Brahman only.

Talk 399, Talks with Ramana Maharshi

Now they say that the world is unreal. Of what degree of unreality is it? Is it like that of a son of a barren mother or a flower in the sky, mere words without any reference to facts? Whereas the world is a fact and not a mere word. The answer is that it is a superimposition on the one Reality, like the appearance of a snake on a coiled rope seen in dim light. But here too the wrong identity ceases as soon as the friend points out that it is a rope.

Whereas in the matter of the world it persists even after it is known to be unreal. How is that? Again the appearance of water in a mirage persists even after the knowledge of the mirage is recognised. So it is with the world. Though knowing it to be unreal, it continues to manifest. But the water of the mirage is not sought to satisfy one’s thirst. As soon as one knows that it is a mirage, one gives it up as useless and does not run after it for procuring water.

1

No. Here confusion cause by interpretation of word Mithya as 'Asatya'.

From Sringeri Jagadguru's teaching from Link Question and answer series 5

There are some people with possibly vested interests , out there to defame the postulates of Advaita and necessarily create an element of hatred and aversion to it .

This is detestable. It is of importance to understand correctly what the actual technical philosophical term" Mithya" means.Ignoracne , or Improper or half baked knowledge or even intellectual dishonesty could be the reason for misunderstanding this term .

Advaita does not assert that the world is unreal totally . It supports the reality of world like Dvaita and other philosophies too . This is very evident . But the point of difference lies in to what extent the reality is assigned . Reality of the world is temporary. It elides upon the dawn of Knowledge . The world is the creation of Maya . As discussed elaborately in previous episodes , Maya is an apparent pseudo-entity who veils the truth of Brahman . So world being its product(effect) falls under the reign and control of Maya(the cause) . When Maya is destroyed , so is the world . Being a product of Maya , the world also shares the property of being opposed to Knowledge of the Brahman . Hence when Brahman is revealed through Brahma -Jnana , the world must necessarily disappear for the Seer . This is the ontology of world as per Advaita . This is the meaning of the term Mithya -temporary reality .

For full translation refer samskrta Nandini user in comment section of this episode.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .