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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Chandramouliji,

Near the the opening sections of the siddhAnta muktAvali, PrakAshAnada
quoted the ShvetAshvatara shruti (and MahAnArAyaNa upanishad from
Taittiriya) to justify why the avidyA upAdhi is one only and as a
consequence  jIva is also one:
अजामेकाम् लोहितशुक्लकृष्णाम् बह्वीः प्रजाः सृजमाना सरूपाः ।
अजो ह्येको जुषमाणोsनुशेते जहात्येनां भुक्तभोगामजोsन्यः॥

Please read the paragraph after this sloka wherein PrakAshAnada shows how
EJV follows from this mantra - how avidyA is one, jIva is one, etc. In the
Hindi version that Sri Praveen ji sent, this is on Page 17.

I have previously sent you other shruti supports for DSV (स यथोर्णनाभिः
from BrihadAraNyaka 2.1.20, etc.).

So to answer your question "is the DSV considered an independent postulate
based purely on reasoning ( independent of the shruti )", not really, it is
very much based on the shruti, with reasoning as an ancillary support, like
all of advaita.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 24 May 2016 9:34 a.m., "H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sri Anand Ji,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the explanation concerning mahAvAkya  presenting
> the definition of tat pada as per Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati  confirming,
> inter alia , the need and use for all the three words in the mahAvAkya.
>
>
>
> I have a doubt. In the view of its authors, is the DSV considered an
> independent postulate based purely on reasoning ( independent of the
> shrutis ), much like sAmkhya, yOga darshana etc,  but expounding the
> ultimate advaita sidhAnta and drawing support from the shruti for its
> arguments. On the other hand SDV is an exposition of the shrutis themselves
> through the Bhashya  and not an independent postulate. Thus it is improper
> to compare SDV and DSV at all.
>
>
>
> My doubt is based on the following. Sri  PrakAshAnanda in his
> sidhAntamuktAvali begins with the following statement
>
>
>
> << Having first gained through Veda a true intuition of that Self, which
> has no second self and which is bliss and light and is imperishable, we
> next expound the method of reasoning in regard to that self….I >>.
>
>
>
> He follows it up with the following commentary.
>
>
>
> << The grammatical construction is as follows : Having gained through Veda
> an intuition of the Self with its four abovementioned charecteristics,
> reasoning, ie. Ratiocination which is confirmatory of Veda, is now
> expounded in regard to it, tatra , ie. the Self as characterized in the
> aforesaid manner.  >>.
>
>
>
> Thus the emphasis is purely on reasoning ( logic ) only. This is clear from
> the presentation of the issue in the work itself. It is highly polemical in
> character and almost solely concerned with refuting various objections (
> assumed ) raised by the opponents on a logical basis. It does not flow
> freely from the shrutis , but only quotes relevant vAkyAs from the shrutis
> in support of its arguments.
>
>
> I would be obliged for a response.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>