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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:23 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Subrahmanian Ji,
>
>
>
> Reg  << Actually we are no differing here. >>,
>
>
>
> Definitely not. We are differing if you hold on to the view that kArya is
> mithya. I am saying kArya is sathya and nondifferent from kArana, kArya is
> as much of a sathya  as kArana is.
>

This is not supported by the bhashya. It is contradicted by the passages
that I have cited. Anandagiri:  यथा घटशरावादिष्वसत्येषु
मृत्तिकामात्रमनुस्यूतं सत्यमिष्यते, तथैवानात्मस्वसत्येष्वात्ममात्रं
सत्यमेष्टव्यम् ।

The above clearly shows that what is anusyutam alone is satyam and not the
karyam 'as clay' in the way you hold. Same way, anātmā is asatyam and what
is anusyutam in anatma, the sat, alone is satyam.

>
>
>
> Reg  << 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 >>,
>
>
>
>
>
> kAryam only when considered  independent of kArana( bereft of upAdAna
> kArana ) ​is avastu.
>

Not so, kāryam is avastu as nāma rupa object; what is anusyutam alone is
satyam. When the clay that is anusyutam is taught as the only real, there
is no way the kāryam is also held real.


> Why put “as” within bracket.
>

Because Shankara has not said anything for iti explicitly. It is only
implicit.


> kArya is real as kArana alone. Where is the question of vivarta here?
>

The vivarta is there because Shankara takes this mantra and the analogy to
explain the satya-mithya in siddhanta, everywhere.


> You have also not clarified on the ontological status of kArya vis-à-vis
> kArana as per your explanation.
>

Shankara has already stated that the kārya drsti is apāramārthika and the
kāraṇa satyatva drsti alone is pāramārthika. So, effects are mithya and
that which is anusyutam in them alone is satya. In BGB 2.16 Shankara takes
the vikāra as mithyāvabhāsanam only:

त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि
नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति
मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥ That he calls tattvadrsti.
Again, there itself:

 सन् घटः, सन् पटः, सन् हस्ती इति । एवं सर्वत्र तयोर्बुद्ध्योः घटादिबुद्धिः
व्यभिचरति । तथा च दर्शितम् । न तु सद्बुद्धिः । तस्मात् घटादिबुद्धिविषयः
असन् , व्यभिचारात् ; न तु सद्बुद्धिविषयः, अव्यभिचारात् ॥

That which changes, vikāra, is asat; that which does not change, running in
and thru them, alone is sat. That which is vyabhicharita is asat and
avyabhichāri alone is sat.

>
>
>  Regards
>
>
>