[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar,

Please read the paper for how drishTi-srishTi is different from
vijnAnavAda. I'm not being difficult and I would be happy to discuss any
follow-up questions you may have, but it seems such a waste to duplicate
effort, when the paper already says whatever I need to say.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> 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??
>
>
>
> 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> 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
>
>