[Advaita-l] drushti and satya

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Feb 9 23:14:12 CST 2010

It is, of course, a very useful and important caution to distinguish
between dRshTi and satya, but I would be even more careful before
stating that Sankara nowhere says this or that. If there is one thing
that I have learnt in reading through the various bhAshya-s, it is to
expect the AcArya to surprise the reader in unexpected ways! Often,
we make a big deal out of issues which he doesn't seem to care much
about. On the other hand, there are other issues that seem very
important for his discussion but have lost their edge with time.

sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
Hare Krishna

As always, you are kind enough to clarify my doubts immediately prabhuji. 
Thanks for the clarification with regard to the importance of distinction 
between drushti and satya while presenting vedAnta siddhAnta.  Kindly dont 
think my doubt has the roots from the works, which are not so palatable to 
most of the pundits in advaita vedAnta today.  It is my own doubt after 
reading somany comfortable answers in the name of vyAvahArik satya. 
Actually, some days back, I've expressed this doubt in another advaitin 
forum.  Here it is for your kind info.:


This vyAvahArika satya & pAramArthika satya & their clear cut 
understanding from vyavahAra is a never ending puzzle is it not??  See, we 
do accept that there is jeeva-jeeva bedha (there is hell a lot of 
differece between paripUrNa vedAntins like big four S's of our group, Sri 
Sastri prabhuji, Sri Subbu prabhuji, Sri Sadananda prabhuji & Sri Sunder 
prabhuji and lip vedAntins like me :-))  , jeeva-jada bedha, (difference 
between bhaskar & basket:-), jada-jada bedha (difference between ice cream 
& gobi manchuri:-),  jeeva-Ishwara bedha (difference between bhagavaan 
bhaskara & mortal bhaskara)  etc. etc. and accordingly we have been 
promptly following these difference to its reality...and at the same time 
if someone questions paramArthik ONENESS or ultimate nondual reality, 
which we advaitins tirelessly advocating, we again with all humility say, 
no, this ultimate ONENESS cannot be explained in words & it cannot be 
reached even from the mind ( we quote those famous shruti vAkya-s  yato 
vAcho nirvartante aprApya manasa saha, na tatra chakshurgacchati, na 
vAggacchati nO manaH etc. in justification.) Under these circumstances, I 
have a doubt here, when everything fair and true from the vyAvahArik point 
of view where is a theory that can be refuted from the advaita 
perspective??  I am not able to understand which are the stand points that 
can be refuted from vyAvahArik view point of advaita??  If nothing is 
wrong in vyavahArika satya  & the bedha is true and pAramArthika is 
indescribable,  what is that we are refuting here & from which 
standpoint??  My doubts may sound like from the desk of dvaitin but I have 
these fresh doubts after seeing somany 'comfort' answers in the name of 
vyAvahArika & pAramArthika :-)) 
// unquote //
If, as you said, there needs to be given significant importance in the 
usage of satya & drushti, why in advaita we use the wrong terminology to 
explain certain concepts??  Prabhuji, dont you think it is appropriate to 
hold 'drushti bedha' instead of 'satya bedha' especially when advaita 
advocating ekameva adviteeya satya??  IMHO, it is because of this 
significant difference between these two terms shankara used the only word 
: drushti  without mixing it with 'satya'.  For example in sUtra bhAshya 
while explaing the cause & effect, shankara says only in lOka drushti milk 
can become curd without any external cause..whereas in shAstra drushti, 
effect is invariably dependent upon the 'cause' the lord.  Likewise, 
elsewhere, shankara takes the example of waves & sea and says from the 
vyavahArika there is a distinction of the experiencer and the experienced 
(vyavahArikaM bhOktrubhOgya lakshaNaM vibhAga) but in paramArtha there is 
no such distinction (na tvayaM vibhAgAH paramArthOsti)..and in geeta 
bhAshya too, na hanyate hanya mAne shareere verse shankara says ONLY 
drushti without any suffix of 'satya' to vyavahAra and pAramArthika. 
Moreover, lOka drushti or vyAvahArika drushti is avidyAtmaka, it is an 
error, possible only in duality, how can this avidyA drushti can reveal 
the 'satya' in vyavahAra to say this world is vyavahArika satya?? Ofcourse 
everyone would agree 'satya' cannot have the gradations & show different 
colours in vyavahAra and pAramArthika.  It is due to our avidyA we see the 
ONE satya differently. 
Your humble servant
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list