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

[Venkatraghavan S]

This is from Panchadashi 6.130, not 6.30. Regret the typo.
On 11 Jun 2016 5:00 p.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Chandramouli ji,
> One more addition - PrakashAnanda goes on to quote Sri VidyAraNya Swami
> from Panchadashi 6.30, (incorrectly shown as GaudapAda in my version of the
> book) by saying:
>
> तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा ।
> ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तलौकिकैः ॥
> Maya is known as tucCha (non existent) based on shruti, anirvachanIya
> based on logic, or (incorrectly as) real  by the uninformed.
>
> In any case, given that VidyAraNya swami is being used to substantiate the
> ideas conveyed by PrakashAnanda, it is safe to say that he is in agreement
> with the former, as far as this aspect is considered.
>
> By calling dvaitam as tucCha, he is doing so from a paramArtha standpoint,
> and he does not have adhyAsa in his mind at all.
>
> Coming to your original  contention that
> a) " the postulate of Sri PrakAshAnanda and that school of thought"  is
> not "what is intended or endorsed by Swami Vidyaranya or for that matter by
> the AchAryas of the vivaraNa school.";
> b) which contention is based on the classification of DSV in vivaraNa as
> "1. What is perceived is Created ( both jnAnAdhyAsa and arthAdhyAsa )"
> whereas PrakashAnanda's DSV is that "Perception itself is Creation( only
> jnAnAdhyAsa ).";
> c) which classification is based on your understanding of PrakashAnanda's
> position as "dvaitam is तुछ्छ(tuchcha).;
>
> then, I would venture that that tucchatvam as used by PrakashAnanda is
> highly specific and contextual to mean abhAva, used from a paramArtha
> drishTi, and not with a view to limit adhyAsa to jnAnAdhyAsa alone.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 11 Jun 2016 4:02 p.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Namaste Sri Chandramouli ji,
> > This is what he says
> > आत्मसत्तातिरिक्ततया द्वैतसत्ता अभावात् - Duality has no existence apart
> from Atma  (page 164).
> >
> > To explain why the world is tuccha he says the following:
> >
> > श्रुतिस्तु "सदेव सोम्य इदमग्रासीत्", "एकमेवाद्वितीयं", "स एष नेति
> नेत्यात्मा", "अथ तस्यायमादेशः अमात्रश्चतुर्थो अव्यवहार्यः प्रपञ्चोपशमः
> शिवोsद्वैतः" इति एवंप्रकारिका सजातीयविजातीयस्वगतभेदशून्यमात्मानं बोधयन्ती
> आत्मातिरिक्तस्य सर्वस्य तुच्छत्वमभिमन्यन्ते।
> > तदतिरिक्तस्य कथञचिदपि सत्त्वे अद्वैतव्याघातप्रसंगात् तस्मात्
> जगतस्तुच्छत्वं श्रुत्यनुमतमेव" (Pages 177,178)
> >
> > Trans - Shruti, by saying, "Existence alone existed in the beginning, my
> dear", "only one, without a second", "the self is to be known as 'not
> this', 'not this' ", "now, here is the instruction - the self, which is the
> fourth quarter, is not an object of experience (amAtra), is beyond
> vyavahAra, of the nature of the cessation of worldly experience, the
> auspicious, the non dual", etc., is denying any sort of inter-species,
> intra-species, or internal differences in Atma and through that, it says
> that apart from the Atma, everything else is "tucCha". If there was
> anything apart from that, the Atma, the idea of advaita itself would be
> contradicted and hence the "tucChatva" of the world is accepted by Shruti."
> >
> > It is clear from this that Sri PrakashAnanda uses tuCChatva in this
> context to refer to the independent existence of anything else apart from
> Atma. Here, he doesn't use the word in its traditional sense - that which
> doesn't appear in any locus in any of the three periods of time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> >
>