[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar,

Shankara didn't mention either of these terms explicitly. However my view
is that there are several sections of the kArika, bhAshya, etc. which seem
to argue from a DSV standpoint. There are others which argue from a SDV
standpoint. He doesn't definitely state his preference for one over the
other.

Therefore it is incorrect for some people to say he rejected DSV and
preferred SDV, or vice versa - that's the only point that I am making.

This is similar to Shankara's treatment of AbhAsa vs avaccheda vAda. In
different parts of his bhAshyas he seems to argue taking different
standpoints.

Ultimately all these are just prakriyAs, and whatever is suitable for the
student should be adopted - the difference in prakriyAs doesn't imply a
difference in siddhAnta

Regards
Venkatraghavan
On 6 May 2016 7:03 a.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhujji
> Hare Krishna
>
>
> I think they are well aware of vyavahAra sattA. Their contention is
> precisely because Shankara makes a distinction between vyAvahArika sattA of
> the waking state and prAtibhAsika sattA of the dream state, he rejects
> drishTi-srishTi, which holds that there is no distinction between
> vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika from the standpoint of Ultimate Reality.
>
> >  I was just wondering prabhuji, whether shankara himself coined these
> DSV & SDV terms in his prasthAna traya bhAshya.  If my limited knowledge is
> right, we can hardly find these terminologies in shankara's prasthAna traya
> bhAshya.  I may be wrong here in my observation.
>
> >  However, these terms can be found (especially DSV)  in famous Advaita
> prakaraNa grantha-s like yOga vAshishTa or jnana vAsishTa ( I have the RK
> mission edition with me).  But as per Sri SSS's  observation yOgavAshishTa
> rAmAyaNa, bhAgavata, sUta saMhita (yajna vaibhava kAnda), adhyAtma rAmAyaNa
> etc. are later to shankara's prasthAna traya bhAshya.  He further observes
> that ihad been available at the time of bhAshya rachana, bhAshyakAra would
> have mentioned / quoted them in his bhAshya-s.
>
> >  Let that be aside, coming back to DSV and SDV, kArika & shankara
> bhAshya appear to advocate DSV.  But Sri SSS clarifies in rahasya vivrutti
> and guadapAda hrudaya that it is wrong to assert that either of the stand
> points (i.e. DSV & SDV) superior to other.  Based on kArika bhAshya 4.67,
> Sri SSS clarifies that if we accept the outer objectives / things
> invariably we have to accept the cognizer the consciousness which
> objectifies the external world.  In the same way, if we accept the
> consciousness, i.e. vijnAna or buddhivrutti, then inevitably we have to
> accept the outer things.  There is no independent existence of either this
> or that.  Contextually we have to understand these two viewpoints without
> disturbing the siddhAnta.
>
>
> In quoting Shankara though, what is missed is that when he appears to make
> a distinction from the two, he does so from vyavahAra drishti, not
> paramArtha. That he holds the two to be of the same level of reality
> becomes apparent when we read kArika bhAshyam.
>
> >  and shankara here specifically insists that in the svapna there is no
> 'gaNdha' of paramArtha whereas in vyavahAra satta there exists paramArtha
> satta, it is because of the existence of this satta in vyavahArika jagat,
> the transactions would take place effectively and uniformly.  But from the
> nirvishesha brahman point of view, tasya traya trayee svapnAH.  kAtaka
> shruti too says : svapnAntaM jAgaritANcha ubhau yenAnupashyati, mahAntaM
> vibhum AtmAnaM matvA dheerO na shOchati.  The crux of the issue is doing
> the samanvaya of these seemingly contradictory declaration by bhagavatpAda.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
>