[Advaita-l] Brahma satyam jagan mithya - in Gaudapada Kārikā

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:52 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Ji,
>
>
>
>  Reg  << The vācārambhaṇa śruti is used at two levels, both for showing
> the
>    mithyātva of the kāryam and the satyatva of the kāraṇam>>,
>
>
>
> My understanding is different.  The shruti says that kAryam IS REAL as
> kAranam alone. Independent of kAranam, kArya is mithya.  That is what
> “iti eva” means.
>

Actually we are no differing here.

>
>
> The vācārambhaṇa śruti taken by itself and without taking into account
> other shruti vAkyAs leads to brahmaparinama vAda advocated by Sri
> Bhartruprapancha (prior to Sri Bhagavatpada) and later by Sri Bhaskara, Sri
> Yadavaprakasha etc who are also considered to be advaitins. The
> corresponding statement in respect of Brahman/Creation would then be
>
>
>
> वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्म इत्येव सत्यम्
>
>
>
> (vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM brahma ityeva satyam).
>
>
>
> This has been refuted by Sri Bhagavatpada.
>

Where?


> The  “ vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM “ part is applicable both to
> parinama vAda as well as vivarta vAda. However the “mRRittikA ityeva
> satyam “ part is only an illustration for the same in the vyAvahArika
> plane and is parinama vikAra, not vivarta vikAra. If you still insist that
> it is a vivarta example, please clarify what is their (clay and pot)  ontological
> status; pAramArthika/vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika/asat. For vivarta, they
> need to be of different ontological status.
>

Shankara, keeping that alone in view has clearly stated, in Chandogya 6.1.4:

कोऽसौ ? विकारो नामधेयं नामैव नामधेयम् , स्वार्थे धेयप्रत्ययः,
वागालम्बनमात्रं नामैव केवलं न विकारो नाम वस्त्वस्ति ; परमार्थतो मृत्तिकेत्येव
*मृत्तिकैव तु* सत्यं वस्त्वस्ति ॥

So, even in vyavahāra, a distinction is made by the vastu tattvadarśī: the
kāryam , vikāra, is avastu, and the paramārtha dṛṣṭi is to hold that '(as)
clay alone' is real. It is keeping this in view alone that Anandagiri says
what I have referred to in the Mandukya karika bhashya tikā.



> According to the interpretation of Sri Bhagavatpada, since Brahman is
> nirvikara, the correct interpretation would be
> ​
>
> << ​<< वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं ब्रह्म एव सत्यम् >>,
>
>
>
> << vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM brahma eva satyam >>.
>
>
>
> The term “iti” would be deleted.
>

I would like to draw your attention to a recently published book:
वाचारम्भणश्रुत्यर्थविवेचनम् published by the Sringeri Peetham. In this book
the specific objection of non-advaitin schools on Advaita: If the shruti
wanted to say that the kārya is mithyā, it would not have used 'iti'. Thus,
this word is redundant according to the Advaitin - has been answered
showing how 'iti' is taken into account by Shankara implicitly by
annotating the sutra and upanishad bhashyas. It makes very interesting
reading. The book is available perhaps in Bangalore mutt book stall too or
in the Vidyabharati Press here.

regards
subbu


> In the shruti this is stated as
>
>
>
> << सदेव आसीत् >>  (sadeva AsIt)
>
>
>
>  Regards
>
>
>