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

[Sujal Upadhyay]

PraNAms,

I have not read all posts on this topic. If we take DSV with reference to
mano sRSTi, then it will be easy to understand.
We can also explain the example of rajju-sarpa-vAda from this analogy.

I have attempted an explanation here
<http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2016/04/theories-of-creation-in-hinduism.html>
scroll down to 'dṛsṭi-sṛsṭi vāda (perception is simultaneous with creation)'

or visit here
<https://sites.google.com/site/sanatanhindusite/creation-hinduism#TOC-16.1.-S-s-i-D-s-i-V-da-and-D-s-i-S-s-i-V-da---Theories-of-Creation>

If we take drishti as perception, then it makes sense to me as vision
without any meaningful suggestion makes no sense.

Meaning of dṛṣṭi (vision)
Dṛṣṭi though is translated into ‘vision’ is not to be taken as just
‘vision’. By vision, we mean our ‘perception’. When we see something, say a
golden brick, we add our own value to it. So Gold is not perceived just as
a ‘metal’, but as ‘valuable metal’. When we see something, image gets
projected inside our brain. This is called as sensation. Brain processes
this image and tries to give a meaningful suggestion. This meaningful
suggestion is our own suggestion based on information collected in past and
our opinion attached to the information. So perception can be defined as
‘sensation + meaningful suggestion’.


According to Science, light rays fall on eye lens, are carried onto brain
to form an image. This image is the cognised. However our shāshtra-s give
different explanation. Mind travels up to object via senses, feels it and
then projects its own opinion on the object.  Shāshtra-s speak from mental
level.

Sensation without meaningful suggestion makes no sense. Any sensation has
to be coupled with meaningful sensation. If no meaning can be deduced, mind
rejects it. For example, while walking on road, eyes see many people, but
do we remember all faces? However, if we spot a known face, say our friend,
we will respond to him. We not only see an image of human being, but we see
our friend in it. Along with friend, we keep his nature (character or
personality and behaviour towards us) in mind while dealing with him. On
other words, we have ‘an opinion’ about our friend. Hence we just do not
sense or see, but we ‘perceive’ in our own unique way due to unique
opinion. This perception is based upon our own imagination and preconceived
notions. Likewise, what may be important to one may not be important to
another. Shāshtra-s call this selective perception as ‘likes and dislikes’
i.e. ‘rāga and dvesha’.

So we do not just see the object, but we perceive it. In other words, mind
tries to ‘know’ the object via senses. Hence seeing (which is actually
perceiving) is knowing.
Kindly have a look. Do let me know if I have not represented correctly.

OM

Sujal


On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 4:28 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> The discussion is shifting from DSV - SDV to Ekajeeva vaada vs aneka jeeva
> vaada, and this topic was discussed by Shree Subbuji in the past. At that
> time I had some discussions with Swami Paramarthanandaji on this topic. I
> am re-posting my understanding based on that discussion with Swamiji.
>
> Related to the Ekajeeva vaaada vs aneka jeeva vaada - I think Shree
> Bhaskarji is right, this time!
>
> Here is my understanding:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Eka jiiva vaada
>
> First – an acknowledgement – this current writing is prompted by the posts
> on creation and cognition by local tiny jiiva based on Bhagavatam (Uddhava
> Geeta) sloka, with many indirect supportive teachings by Shree Subbuji. .
> Yesterday, I had a chance to discuss this issue with Shree Swami
> Paramarthanandaji about the jest of the eka-jiiva vaada. Since Swamiji is
> not a member of any list, I would paraphrase this write-up as my
> understanding of what Swamiji discussed. Needless to say, that it is left
> to the reader to accept or reject the statements.
> There was a consideration that creation involves only one jiiva, the
> subject and the other entities constituting the world forming the objects
> of his cognition. Ignorance of that jiiva involves parichchinnatvam or
> notion of limitation that I am only this body, mind and intellect, while
> the rest of the creation constitutes objects of his cognition. As usual,
> samsaara or suffering comes by giving absolute reality to the cognized
> world of plurality. Teaching to that jiiva is that whatever that is
> cognized is not really real but mithyaa; since whatever cognized is inert
> and there cannot be any real inert entities since consciousness is infinite
> – prajnaanam brahma.
>
> ​<content clpipped>​