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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Anand ji,
Thanks for the reference. In my view, the fourth definition would also
equally apply (in some ways the applicability is easier). The pot is absent
in the clay in which it is seen - स्वाश्रयनिष्ठ अत्यन्ताभाव प्रतियोगी.

In relation to the connection of this with the neha nAnAsti kinchana shruti
- if you see one of the interpretations of इति as pointed out by Praveen ji,
 *इतिशब्दः प्रकारवचनः मृत्तिकेति मृत्तिकाप्रकारवदित्यर्थः
तत्प्रकारश्चोपादानत्वं मृत्तिकाप्रकारवत् मूलकारणं सत्यमित्यर्थः, its quite
a nice link to neha nAnAsti kinchana, because the scope of the mantra is
not limited to the clay-pot, the word 'iti' as a prakAravachana expands to
scope of the mantra to all material causes, leading all the way to the
ultimate cause, the mUlakAraNa, sat. Thus apart from sat, neha nAnAsti
kinchana. That this is the case is referred to by ShankarAchArya in his
bhAShya on the ArambhaNAdhikaraNa (see last quote below).*

*Sri Chandramouli ji, *
*This interpretation is not from Advaita Siddhi directly - so you will not
find a statement that links the vAcArambhaNa shruti with the 2nd definition
of mithyAtvam (or the fourth). However, if you are looking for some
confirmation from the siddhi, please refer to the comments on the meaning
of the term upAdhi here *http://www.advaitasiddhi.com/
blog/pariccheda-1-dvitiya-mithyatva-vichara-part-6

The siddhikAra says - एतदेव सदर्थकेनोपाधिपदेन सूचितम् |

upAdhi = upa (samIpe) AdhIyate svadharma: yena - that which transposes its
attributes into the proximate one. We normally translate upAdhi to mean the
locus, but actually the meaning is deeper. The word upAdhi in the second
definition refers to sat - in this context it is sat, in the form of clay,
which is the locus. In such a locus, the pot is absent in all three periods
of time. Thus the pot is mithyA. The siddhikAra confirms this later by
saying उक्तरीत्या अधिकरणविवक्षायां दोषाभावात् |

That sat is being ultimately referred to in the vAcArambhaNa mantra can be
inferred from the quote in Praveenji's email, referred to above -
मृत्तिकाप्रकारवत्
मूलकारणं सत्यमित्यर्थः. The iti word is the link to sat.

ShankarAchArya explicitly says that the vAcArambhaNa shruti is actually an
illustration about Brahman (eSha brahmaNo dRShTAnta AmnAta:) and that all
effects are anrita, ie mithyA (brahma vyatirekeNa kAryajAtasya
abhAva:) - नामधेयमात्रं
ह्येतदनृतम् ; मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम् — इति एष ब्रह्मणो दृष्टान्त आम्नातः ;
तत्र श्रुताद्वाचारम्भणशब्दाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ब्रह्मव्यतिरेकेण
कार्यजातस्याभाव इति गम्यते ।

*Regards*
*Venkatraghavan*

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> << vikAro nAmadheyam, kAraNam ityeva satyam corresponds to the second
> > definition of mithyAtva.>>.
>
> Shri Venkatraghavanji,
>
> That is interesting. In that case, this vAkya must have the same gist as
> the shruti vAkya  "neha-nAnAsti kiMchana" as BrahmAnanda says in his
> gauDabrahmAnandI on the second definition, "neha nAnAstI"tyAdishrutyarthe
> vivadamAnaM prati sAdhyAntaramAha". And yes, the neha nAnAsti shruti does
> explain the realization that transformation of clay into pots, etc. does
> not introduce diverse realities; rather the underlying reality clay is One.
>
> Anand
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>