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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Praveenji,
Thank you so much for the collection of quotations from various TIkAs. The
interpretation of 'iti' as a prakAravachana is a nice take on the issue.

Its very clear from all these quotations that the mithyAtva of the vikAra
is propounded by this shruti.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


2018-02-15 17:38 GMT+00:00 Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>:

> ​​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.
>>
>