Viveka Sloka 20 Tel Eng

బ్రహ్మ సత్యం జగన్మిథ్యేత్యేవంరూపో వినిశ్చయః ।
సోఽయం నిత్యానిత్యవస్తువివేకః సముదాహృతః ॥ 20॥

బ్రహ్మ - బ్రహ్మ, సత్యం- సత్యమైనది, జగత్ - జగత్తు, మిథ్యా -అసత్యమైనది, ఏవం రూపః = ఈ విధమగు, వినిశ్చయః= విశ్చయము, సో అ యం = ఆ ఇది, నిత్యానిత్యవస్తువివేకః- నిత్యానిత్య వస్తువివేకమని, సముదాహృతః - చెప్పబడినది.

జనులు సాధారణముగ అనిత్య సుఖములను కూడ కోరుచుందురు. అందుచే బ్రహ్మ సత్యము, జగత్తు అనిత్యము అను నిశ్చయ మున్నను దృఢమగు వైరాగ్యము కలుగదు. 'జగత్తు అసత్యము’ అని చెప్పినచో- అసత్యవస్తువును ఎవ్వరును కోరరు. రాజ్యము కావలె ననుకొనువారు స్వప్న రాజ్యమును కోరుకొనరు కదా?

అందుచే వైరాగ్యము తప్పక కలుగుటకై 'బ్రహ్మ నిత్యము; జగత్తు అనిత్యము' అని కాక 'బ్రహ్మ సత్యము, జగత్తు అసత్యము' అని చెప్పినాడు. వినిశ్చయ మనగా విశేషముగ నిశ్చయము. అనగా ఈ నిశ్చయము అప్రామాణ్య జ్ఞానముచే బాధింపబడదు అని చెప్పినట్లైనది. “సో అ యమ్ సః వివేకినః” (17 శ్లో) అను పదములోని వివేకికి విశేషణముగా చెప్పబడినది,

అయం "ఆదౌ నిత్యానిత్యవస్తువివేకః” అని చెప్ప బడినది అని అర్థము. 'సముదాహృతః' అనుపదములో 'సమ్' అను ఉపసర్గను ప్రయోగించుటచే ఇట్టి వివేకమే ఐహికాముష్మిక ఫల భోగవిరాగమును కలిగింప సమర్థము అను విషయము సూచితము.

అవ. వివేకమును నిరూపించి వైరాగ్యమును విశదీకరించు చున్నాడు…

brahma satyaṃ jaganmithyētyēvaṃrūpō viniśchayaḥ ।
sō'yaṃ nityānityavastuvivēkaḥ samudāhṛtaḥ ॥ 20॥

It is one thing to say the world is unreal, it is another to say it is not true. This may seem like a play with words, but it is based on sound reasoning. When we say something is unreal we base it on observation with the senses, feelings and subjective notions. To dismiss the world as unreal is not an easy proposition to the sadhakas who set their sights on finding the truth.

So there is a need for a logical explanation of the world and why it exists. Thus far Sankara tried to dismiss the world as unreal which is the obverse of the statement: a horned rabbit exists. All the explanations of the world, such as aja or vivarta (Sloka 11), are based on subjective perception and not as objective truth.

World exists because of our shared belief. An individual believes that the world exists even after he is gone because the world doesn't exist exclusively to serve him. If he is a believer in the transmigration, he may say: I come and go but the world exists in between my appearances.

Consider what happens in sushupti or in deep sleep. We know that our bodies exist before going to sleep and after waking up. We don't have any perception of them in sushupti. Does it mean the body disappeared during sushupti? It can be answered by inference. The body existed before going to sleep and after waking up, hence it must exist in between.

Does the world exist for as long as the human race exists and disappear when the last human dies? In other words, is the world a figment of human imagination? Take for example, a piece of cotton cloth. It is woven with threads going criss-cross. The individual pieces of thread are not the cloth. When they are viewed as a collection only they are perceived as the cloth. This is called vyasthi in the scripture. Whatever the samishthi believes, like in the world, it is said to be real. When there is a single human left in (vyashthi) the world, it is not real. Only he is real and whatever he perceives with his senses is unreal as it is apart from him. He can, using his senses, interact with the world but it is not real to him. It is in this point of view that Sankara calls jagat mithya.

Thus, logic (tarka) is used to prove the existence of the world. A logical fallacy is when we start with the belief about the existence of all physical things and perceive that they, having been made of atoms, don't actually exist, but depend on our intellect to recognize them as such. If in the future, no one is wearing cotton clothes, and everyone is wearing molded plastic suits, one has to make a logical inference about the existence of strands of threads, that are en masse called a cloth. Many dialects will have their own words for cloth, that are not mutually contradictory, as they all refer to the collection of threads. Same is with world.

Therefore, when the physical world was at it infancy, the creator provided the ingredients -- such as cotton seeds, water, soil, sunshine and so on-- for the threads to make a cloth. As humans evolve, if clothes are no longer used, it is by inference that we know they existed at one time.

Additionally there is a nitya versus anitya distinction in the scripture. When clothes disappear by substitution with plastic suits, they are called anitya. In other words, if things that existed once, no longer are in vogue, they are said to be anitya . This implies all things that have a birth--manufacturing date in the clothes example-- have to perish or have an expiry date. Brahman, however, is nitya or always exists. Hence he says brahma satyam. Sankara will dwell more on this as we progress.