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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Chandramouli ji,
I hope the reference to PrakAshAnada's comments from siddhAnta muktAvali
answers your question, straight from the author.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 24 May 2016 10:54 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji and Sri Subrahmanian Ji,
>
> Namaste.
>
> I am not disputing what you have said. I am not even debating SDV vs DSV.
> But as you are no doubt aware there are any number of advaitins who do not
> subscribe to DSV. That is why in my earlier post, I specifically added the
> words  << in the view of its authors >>. I wanted to know authoritatively
> what the authors meant their work to be. Reason for my doubt also I had
> given therein. So I am not questioning or debating anything here. I am just
> seeking a confirmation regarding the authors' intentions. That is all.
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>