[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda - eka jeeva vaada

[Anand Hudli]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >* Quote from इष्टसिद्धि ( translation by A J Alston as appearing in the *
> >* work “ The Method of the Vedanta “. This itself is a translation of
> the *>* sanskrit work Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijna by Sri SSS) << There
> is no *>* defect at all in our view. For we accept that the universe is
> the work of *>* mAyA. And mAyA and its effects are indeterminable as
> either a reality or as *>* an unreality. On our system, there is not even
> a suspicion of the defects *>* that affect the doctrine that the world is
> totally real and the doctrine *>* that it is totally unreal >>. Unquote. *
> > > > >* Thus the position of इष्टसिद्धि is very different from the
> position taken *>* by PrakAshAnanda that << Perception itself is
> Creation( only jnAnAdhyAsa ) *>* >> . This statement ( attributed to
> PrakAshAnanda in Sidhantaleshasamgraha *>* ) is also very different from
> what you state above that “PrakAshAnanda *>* makes use of this
> effectively to *>* deny any separate existence of the creation from the
> seer”. SDV also *>* holdson to such a view. *> >
>
> Although VimuktAtman does not explicitly address DSV and devotes
> considerable attention to khyAtivAdas, there are many ideas in the
> इष्टसिद्धि which are crucial for PrakAshAnanda. Apart from
> "दृग्दृश्ययोर्भेदनिरासः", see for example,
> किं सर्वजीवभेदकल्पनाहेतुरेकैवाविद्या, उत प्रत्येकमेका? आद्ये कल्पे एकस्य
> धिया अविद्याक्षय एकमुक्तौ सर्वमुक्तिस्त्वत्पक्षे एव; मत्पक्षे तु
> एकमुक्तावेकमुक्तिरेव, अनेकाभावात्। (6.19) Is the cause of the notion of all
> jIvas one avidyA or is there one ignorance per jIva? In the first case, if
> there is the destruction of (the one) avidyA and liberation for one jIva,
> there would be liberation for all, according to your doctrine (of many
> jIvas). In our doctrine (of one jIva) there is liberation for one jIva
> (with such destruction of avidyA), since there are not many jIvas (but one
> jIva).
>
> Again, in 6.20:
>
> ब्रह्मादिभेदजातं चेत्त्वन्मोहेनैव भाति ते।
> स्वप्नवत्किं न सिद्धं ते मोहोऽन्यो येन कल्प्यते॥
> यथा स्वप्ने ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तं चेतनाचेतनभेदजातं त्वन्मोहेनैव ते भाति
> नान्यमोहेन, न च वस्तुभूतम्, नाप्यन्येषां भाति त्वद्बोधेनैव बाधदृष्टेः,
> यैश्च सहासीत्संवादस्ते ते पृष्टा न सोऽस्माभिः कृत इत्याहुः प्रबोधे;
> अतो नाज्ञान्तराविद्यान्तराणि स्वप्ने कल्प्यन्ते - तथा जागरितेऽपि
> त्वन्मोहेनैव सर्वस्य ते भानान्न तानि कल्प्यानि, तैर्विनापि सर्वभेदसिद्धेः।
>
> In a dream, different conscious and inert things from Brahman to immovable
> objects appear through your own ignorance, not through the ignorance of
> another, nor are they substantial (real), and they do not appear to others,
>


A correction. "Brahman" should be "BrahmA", the four-faced God, not the
Brahman of the upanishads.

Anand






> since they are sublated upon your waking up (from the dream), (as for
> example), your interactions with others (in your dream) are denied by them
> in the waking state. Hence, there are no other ignorant persons or other
> ignorances in a dream. In the same way, (other ignorant persons or other
> ignorances) should not be assumed in the waking state, since everything
> appears due your own ignorance, and the differences (or different objects
> in the waking state) can be established without such an assumption.
>
> Further, VimuktAtman devotes the 7th chapter to a defense of the
> eka-jIva-vAda. For instance, in 7.29, he says all vyavahAra consisting of
> division into plurality of selves, merit, sin, heaven, learned, ignorant,
> Guru, disciple, liberated, unliberated, etc. is due to the non-Self and
> avidyA, and is to be accepted as a dream is.
>
> तदविद्याविलसितं सर्वमनात्मजातम्, आत्मनश्च बहुत्वम्,
> पुण्यपापस्वर्गोत्तरविद्वदविद्वद्गुरुशिष्यमुक्तामुक्तादिविभागव्यवहारश्च
> स्वप्न इवेत्याद्यभ्युपेयम्।
>
> Anand
>