[Advaita-l] 'iti' in the vAcArambhaNa shruti

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​​Namaste Venkatraghavanji and others,

*I've merely given a running translation of all quotations for non-Sanskrit
readers. Preferably refer to the original Sanskrit.*

*Tikakara puts it simply so: विकारस्य मिथ्यात्वे किं
परमार्थतोऽस्तीत्याशङ्क्याह—मृत्तिकेत्येवेति। When the product/ effect (pot)
is mithyA, what exists in reality? With such expectancy, He says clay
(cause) alone.*


*(There is a *नरेन्द्रपुरीयं टिप्पणम् prior to Bhagavan Anandagiri as well,
which does a lot, but mostly refutes Bhaskara's misrepresentation of
bhAShya and bashes him up with "choicest of words"). I'm skipping the same.


*Then there is a later sub-commentary अभिनवनारायणानन्देन्द्रसरस्वतीटीका
which though is quite elaborate. I'm sure you will agree that it is
absolutely wonderful: ननु नामव्यतिरेकेण विकाराभावे निर्विषयत्वं
प्रसज्येतेत्याशङ्क्य परमार्थतो विकाराभावेऽपि अनिर्वचनीयस्य तस्य सत्त्वान्न
दोष इत्याह—नामैव केवलमिति । *
Objection, if the product has no existence other than name, then there
would be no object at all! Considering such a doubt pointing to no real
defect, He says "a mere name" to mean that even though there is no object
in absolute reality, it has _anirvachanIya_ existence.

*ननु विकारस्यासत्त्वे तत्र सद्बुद्धिर्न स्यादित्याशङ्क्य मृत्तिकैव
सत्यमित्यनेन परिहरति—मृत्तिकैवेति । He says "clay alone [is real]" to
answer the doubt that there would be no cognition of existence w.r.t. an
object (pot) that is not real. *ननु तस्या अपि
विकारत्वादसत्वादसत्यत्वमित्याशङ्क्य इतिशब्देन परिहरति—इतीति । इत्यनेन
प्रकारेण मूलकारणमेव सत्यं तत्सत्तैव सर्वविकारे प्रतीयत इति उन्नेयमिति शेषः
।**

*Objection, since even that cause (clay) is an effect, that too is unreal.
To answer this objection, He resolves by using_iti_. In this manner, the
root cause alone is real. It should be understood [in Bhashyakara's
sentence] that its (root cause's) existence alone pervades to appear in all
effects/ products. *
*Further *अक्षरार्थस्तु—इतिशब्दः प्रकारवचनः मृत्तिकेति
मृत्तिकाप्रकारवदित्यर्थः तत्प्रकारश्चोपादानत्वं मृत्तिकाप्रकारवत् मूलकारणं
सत्यमित्यर्थः ।**

*The meaning of words— the word _iti_ means the manner/ variety of
manifestation; and that variety is its material cause; like variety of clay
manifestations [are only clay], the root cause alone is real. *
*नन्वेवमपि कार्यस्य परमार्थतः कारणव्यतिरेकाभावेऽपि अनिर्वचनीयस्य भेदस्य
सत्त्वात् कथं कारणज्ञानेन कार्यज्ञानमिति चेत्, *
If it be objected that even though an effect does not exist in reality
other than its cause, still there being _anirvachanIya_ reality of
difference [between cause and effect], how can knowledge of cause lead to
knowledge of effect?

**न, वस्तुतत्वज्ञानमेव हि वस्तुज्ञानं आरोपितरजतादिरूपेण ज्ञाते वस्तुनि
शुक्तिकां जानातीति व्यवहारादर्शनात् *।*
* Not so, the knowledge of a thing is only the knowledge of its status/
thing-ness, due to non-observation of anyone said to be knowing the shell
when a superimposed thing such as silver, etc, is known. (That is, only
when the substratum shell is known, one can be said to be knowing the
superimposed silver, etc, in reality). वस्तुनश्च तत्त्वमुपादानमेवेति
तद्विज्ञाने सर्वविकारजातं ज्ञातमेवेति । एतदभिप्रेत्येव वाचारम्भणश्रुत्या
कारणव्यतिरेकेण कार्यासत्त्वोक्तिपूर्वकं तस्य कारणमेव
तत्त्वमित्युक्तम्—मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यमिति ।*
And since the reality of anything is only its material cause, when there is
knowledge of that cause, all effects are as-well known. Having intended
this, after stating that there is no effect other than the cause
through vAcArambhaNashruti,
its cause alone is said to be the reality via "clay alone is real".

And finally, there is a bonus. Vidvan SS Sastriji adds in the
footnote: मृत्पिण्ड एव नामरूपभाक् भवतीति न मृदो द्रव्यान्तरं घटादिरिति
प्रतिज्ञातेऽर्थे प्रमाणमुच्यते मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यमिति ।
Since the lump of clay itself partakes of name and form, He states the
pramANa towards the proposed idea that there is no pot as an entity separate
 from clay by "clay alone is real".

​gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Thank you. Please do share your findings from the tIkAs.
>