[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Yes, it seems to be so !!  But how this stand point is different from that
> of vijnAna vAda which shankara himself refuted in sUtra bhAshya??
>

In the 4.99 verse of the GK Shankara says:

क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥

For the last words: naitad buddhena bhāṣitam:

तथा धर्मा इति आकाशमिव अचलमविक्रियं निरवयवं
नित्यमद्वितीयमसङ्गमदृश्यमग्राह्यमशनायाद्यतीतं ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वम्, ‘न हि
द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-२३)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Brha&page=04&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9F%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%E2%80%99%20(%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%83.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%AA-%E0%A5%A9-%E0%A5%A8%E0%A5%A9)#BR_C04_S03_V23>
इति
श्रुतेः । ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम्
। यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् ।
इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥
Even though the Bauddha denied the triputi, the external objects and
admitted the idea that everything is just consciousness, and thereby came
very close to the Advaya vastu of the Vedanta, yet,  this paramārtha
tattvam Advaitam (characterized by the nitya chaitanyam for which Shankara
cited the vakyam above) is to be known only from the Upanishads.
By saying this Shankara has accepted that the bāhyārtha nirākaranam is
Vedanta Advaya and denial of triputi too is Vedanta and admitting all to be
jnanamātram is also aupanishadic.  But by not admitting the Eternal
Consciousness (and by accepting only the kshanika vijnana - vijnanavada),
the Buddha did not measure up to the Vedantic doctrine.
Thus, for Shankara that alone is Aupanishada tatvam which denies external
world and bases that denial on the nitya Chaitanyam.  This is the
difference between the kshanika vijnana vāda of the Bauddha and the
prapanchopashama Nitya Chaitanya vāda of Vedanta.
Sri SSS, has openly agreed to the above in the three Kannada translations
that I have presented in another post. His words 'husi torike', ibbaru
chandraru toruvudu are proof of this.

vs




>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
> From: Venkatraghavan S [mailto:agnimile at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:37 PM
> To: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda
>
>
> 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<mailto:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>