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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you for your participation, Sri Chandramouli ji.

In relation to your comment that the status of creation in PDSV is not
mithyA - ie it is atyanta asat - is not true.

PrakashAnanda says आत्मसत्तातिरिक्ततया द्वैतसत्ता अभावात् - Duality has no
existence apart from Atma  (page 164).

If he had wanted to unconditionally allocate tucchatva to dvaita sattA, he
would not have made that statement.

This idea is in line with Shankaracharya's Chandogya bhAshya "ata:
sadAtmanA sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam sattoanyatve cha
anritatvamiti". The existence of duality is the existence of Atma, and
apart from Atma it is non-existent only.

Therefore he considers it mithyA only from the standpoint of logic.
However, ultimately, only from a paramArtha standpoint does he call it
tuccha - but that is a view shared by all - including Shankaracharya and
VidyAraNya.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

> Sri Anand Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>
>
>
>  It is clear from Sidhantaleshasamgraha that there are several versions of
> DSV covering different aspects like number and nature of Jivas, nature of
> creation (real or unrea letc )and different combinations of such basic
> features. I will confine myself to one version only namely the one
> postulated by Sri PrakAshAnanda in Sidhantamuktavali and use the shortform
> PDSV for brevity.
>
>
>
>  It is also clear that in both PDSV and the Bhashya (Sri Bhagavatpada)
>  pAramArthika status is identical. The issue would then be the status of
> creation for which there are three options namely satya, mithya or
> asat(tuccha). In my understanding mithya has been chosen for this in the
> Bhashya while asat(tucccha) has been chosen in PDSV. Elaborate and
> comprehensive reasons have been advanced in the Bhashya for rejecting the
> other two options. Elaborate reasons have been advanced in PDSV also in
> support of its stand. This being of fundamental significance, it is in my
> view an unbridgeable difference between the two and hence PDSV cannot be
> considered as just a prakriya bheda within the ambit of the Sidhanta
> advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada.It needs to be recognized as an entirely
> different prakriya.
>
>
>
>  Also It is quite reasonable to admit that certain specific ideas and
> arguments might have been adopted in PDSV from previously available works
> of authors like Vimuktatman or Vidyaranya ( even though their theories
> could be  different ) in support of specific ideas in its own  postulate.
> It is the same with other authors also. However it is too farfetched , in
> my view , to consider such instances as evidence of their ( previous
> authors ) endorsement or inclination in favour of its (PDSV)  own postulate
> itself. It is inconceivable, in my understanding , that persons like
> Vimuktatman or Swami Vidyaranya who are so totally committed to the Bhashya
> could endorse  the PDSV which, on fundamental issues of great significance,
> is quite contradictory to the Bhashya.
>
>
>
> With this I wish to conclude, on my part , the discussion. Afterall all
> good things have to come to an end. It has been a very useful, interesting
> and informative discussion from which I have learnt a lot. Thanks a lot for
> the same.
>
>
>
> Pranams and Regards
>