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

[H S Chandramouli]

For clarification on the issue under discussion currently, the following
from previous posts may be added.



Me



<<  Reg  << I am unable to understand why 6-4 is more difficult to
establish mithyAtva, or how this is more akin to milk-curds analogy. The
use of 'iti' to say that the effect is real only as the cause is true in
both places in my opinion.>>,



I absolutely agree with the second sentence. But at this stage I need a
clarification before I answer the other question. Is it your contention
that this represents mithyatva? No offence meant. Just a straightforward
doubt. In my view, it does not.>>



Venkat



<< In my view, absolutely so. >>



Regards


On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Namaste.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought, even at the cost of repetition, it may be useful to atleast
>> briefly recap the specific issue under discussion. It started with the Ch
>> Up mantra 6-4-1 vikAro nAmadheyam,……. There are two parts to the mantra.
>> Regarding the first part, vikAro nAmadheyam, that it covers mithyatva
>> also,  there is no disagreement. It is only with regard to the second
>> part, ityEva…., there is a disagreement as to whether that by itself covers
>> mithyatva also. Even this has currently been localized to the statement
>>
>>
>>
>> << vikAro nAmadheyam, kAraNam ityeva satyam corresponds to the second
>> definition of mithyAtva.>>.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a disagreement.  I presume reference is to Advaita Sidhi. If
>> you can please give reference to any particular page/s from the book, it
>> would be of great help. I could take some time to go through and respond as
>> firstly it is in Sanskrit and secondly it is a very tough text to
>> understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I thought where such an understanding  leads to. It would lead
>> to the conclusion
>>
>>
>>
>>  << Jagat (kArya/effect) is satya as Brahman (kAraNa/cause) alone >>.
>>
>>
>>
>> Am I justified in reaching such a conclusion or am I missing something?
>> Is the conclusion itself acceptable?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>