[Advaita-l] Dr Mani Dravid

[Antharyami]

Hari OM~
Pranams Shri Vidyasankar ji,

In the sadhana-adhyaya the bhasyakara clearly calls the Chandogya portion
VI.3.4 as the Trvrt-karana Sruti and not otherwise. This itself is a clear
evidence that Sankara categorically subscribes to the Trvrtkarana theory and
not the pancikarana process. Atreya as quoted in the Caraka Samhita while
explaining the physiological evolution divides (deha) Prakrti into two; sama
and asama. Sama prakrti is avyakta which is equiposed state of malas
(pathogenic constituents), which is three fold as we all know viz, vata,
pitta and slesma. Mutual homologation of these three constituents animates
the chemistry of physiological process of energization at the microcosmic
level [ref. Uttaratantra of Susruta Samhita canto 55]. Correspondingly these
pathogenic constituents refer to the Rajas and Tamas aspects of the
macrocosmic prakrti while the sattva is regarded non-pathogenic by
nature. The glossators commenting upon sutra bhasya draws a compelling
parallel to the view and morphs trvrtkarana with it to delineate the
macro-cosmic event of evolution as an extension from the micro-cosmic order
as they correspond Ap, Tejas and Prthvi parallel to the pathogenic
constituents. All this explain the fact that the adjectival phrase
Trivrtkarana in the ablative sense implies triplication with three basic
elements Ap Tejas and Prthvi in the strict sense. The chemistry of
tripartite matrix as portrayed in the Chandogya is clearly the prerogative
and prerquisite for the nama rupa vyakarana vani in Vacaspati's opinion via
Sankara's stand. The Pancikarana may be an logical extension of the
Trvrtkarana but the fact remains that Sruti is balavat which supports
Trvrtkarana by name and not Pancikarana per-se.

Unfortunately I am not able to find the issues of Philosophy East and West
bearing your article. If possible kindly send me the soft copies which will
be very helpful.

With Narayana Smrti,
Devanathan.J