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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

On 15 Feb 2018 13:10, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:


>> My intention on drawing attention to the difference between the group of
>> mantras in the two places, Ch Up 6-1 and 6-4, was not in relation to
>> adyarOpa and apavAda, but only in respect of their use of “iti” in relation
>> to establishing mithyAtva. While it is easy to attempt it in the case of
>> 6-1(clay-pot analogy), it is much more difficult to do so with 6-4 (more
>> akin to milk-curds analogy). Other than that I had no other intention.
>>
> I am not sure why you consider this more difficult in 6.4. For example,
take the bhAShya for 6.4.1:

तदेतदाह — यदग्नेः त्रिवृत्कृतस्य रोहितं रूपं प्रसिद्धं लोके, तत्
अत्रिवृत्कृतस्य तेजसो रूपमिति विद्धि । तथा यच्छुक्लं रूपमग्नेरेव
तदपामत्रिवृत्कृतानाम् ; यत्कृष्णं तस्यैवाग्नेः रूपम् तदन्नस्य पृथिव्याः
अत्रिवृत्कृतायाः इति विद्धि ।
*तत्रैवं सति रूपत्रयव्यतिरेकेण अग्निरिति यन्मन्यसे त्वम् ,
तस्याग्नेरग्नित्वमिदानीम् अपागात् अपगतम् ।* प्राग्रूपत्रयविवेकविज्ञानात् या
अग्निबुद्धिरासीत् ते, सा अग्निबुद्धिरपगता अग्निशब्दश्चेत्यर्थः — *यथा
दृश्यमानरक्तोपधानसंयुक्तः स्फटिको गृह्यमाणः पद्मरागोऽयमितिशब्दबुद्ध्योः
प्रयोजको भवति प्रागुपधानस्फटिकयोर्विवेकविज्ञानात् , तद्विवेकविज्ञाने तु
पद्मरागशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते तद्विवेकविज्ञातुः — तद्वत्* । ननु किमत्र
बुद्धिशब्दकल्पनया क्रियते, प्राग्रूपत्रयविवेककरणादग्निरेवासीत् ,
तदग्नेरग्नित्वं रोहितादिरूपविवेककरणादपागादिति युक्तम् — यथा तन्त्वपकर्षणे
पटाभावः । *नैवम् , बुद्धिशब्दमात्रमेव हि अग्निः *; यत आह
वाचारम्भणमग्निर्नाम विकारो नामधेयं नाममात्रमित्यर्थः । *अतः अग्निबुद्धिरपि
मृषैव । किं तर्हि तत्र सत्यम् ? त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् , नाणुमात्रमपि
रूपत्रयव्यतिरेकेण सत्यमस्तीत्यवधारणार्थः ॥*

As AchArya explains - the red colour seen in the fire is because of the
subtle fire tattva, the white colour is the subtle water tattva, the black
colour is the earth tattva. Apart from these subtle elements if you thought
there was a fire, such an idea is removed now. For example, a person who
sees a colourless crystal turned red due to an upAdhi and thinks he has has
a ruby, due to his non-discrimination of the red upAdhi and the colourless
crystal. Later, when he comes to know about the red upAdhi and the crystal,
the idea that this is a  ruby is destroyed. So also here.
An objection arises: Why are you assuming this here ? Before the
discrimnation of fire as the three subtle elements, it was fire only that
existed. Thus it would be appropriate to say that after the three colours
are discriminated, that fireness was destroyed. Like for example, the cloth
disappears when threads are removed. The objection is that there must be an
entity corresponding to the idea of fire, and once its constituents are
removed, the substance is also destroyed. In other words, fire is not
mithyA, it is an aggregate of individual components.
AchArya says: Not so. Fire is only an idea corresponding to the name.
Because it is said in the upaniShad - fire is only a name, dependent on
speech. Thus it follows that the idea of fire is also false. Then what is
real here? The three subtle elements alone are real. It must be understood
that there is not a jot of reality (to fire, or its idea) in the absence of
the three elements.

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.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan