[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Ishwara srushti - shruti bhAshya sammata

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Well said Sri Praveen Mahodaya. I also think Sri Sadananda cannot say
Waking world is not Praatibhaasika. The conclusion Siddhanta from Vichara
Sagara and other texts is showing there is no Vyaavahaarika reality. It is
again from equality of Dream and Waking states we say Vyaavahaarika reality
is not there in Waking also. There is also objection saying in Waking state
things are not changing from one state to another. If a Pot is next to you
when you go to sleep even after waking up you will see the Pot on your
side. The other things in the room are also there like before going to
sleep. But in a dream it is not like that. Today you may be dreaming you
are in some place - Mumbai. Next night you may be dreaming you are in a
different place - Chennai.

But the Siddhanta Muktavali author has shown this is also Illusion. What is
happening is you think the Waking world is the same as the Waking world
before you sleep and dream. But it is Illusion only. The Waking world after
you get up looks like the previous Waking world because of Ati Saadrushya
but it is actually not the same Waking world. There is no proof even in
Science to show the Waking world before going to sleep is the same as
Waking world after the sleep. All this is part of the Illusion of the
Dreamer Jeeva. The Pot seen before is not the same Pot after waking.
Therefore he makes a very bold statement -

एवं जाग्रदवस्थायां प्रपञ्चम् अनुभूय सुषुप्तिं गत्वा पुनरुत्थाय योऽयं
प्रपञ्चानुभवः स प्रपञ्चान्तरमेव विषयीकरोति प्रत्यभिज्ञानं तु अविवेकादेव ।
When ten people see a Illusory Snake instead of a rope lying in front of
them they all say 'we saw the same snake'. But it is because of Aviveka
they are saying that because the Avidyaa Vrutti of one person cannot be
known by another person. Every person's snake is appearing in his Avidyaa
Vrutti. They are all seeing different snakes but they think they are seeing
the same snake. The Pratyabhijnaa of seeing the same snake is Error.
Similarly a person experiences a Waking State World and goes to sleep. Then
he gets up and he sees another Waking state World. The Pratyabhijnaa of
seeing the same Waking state World is because of Error.

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sadaji and others,
>
> ​I assert again, that SDV is a great prakriyA, so is DSV. Each prakriyA
> should be understood on its own merits without bringing irrelevant ideas
> from one to the other. That too can be done for one's own sAdhana based on
> what one subscribes to. However, it can in now way refute the other
> prakriyA itself. As to who is the sRShTikartA in DSV (again, NOT SDV) is
> ​best understood in Vedanta Siddhanta Muktavali where Swami Prakashanada
> puts the onus on the other to prove the duality and its creator and what
> have you. It cannot be proven. And people misunderstand this to be reducing
> Vedanta to Kshanika Vijnanavada, which it is not!
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The analogy of dream creation is only to negate the reality that one
> > assumes to the creation perceived in the waking state also since it is
> also
> > anityam does not remain the same all the time - a basis Goudapada says
> for
> > rejection of the reality for the plurality that is perceived in his
> second
> > ch. of Mandukya Karika.
> >
> >
> ​...​
>  ​
>
>
> > Rope/snake example is to show the adhyasa aspect of the creation to
> negate
> > the reality that one assigns. But not to confuse the creation as
> > praatibhaasika satyam - that is the mental projection of the individual
> > Jeeva.
> >
>
> This "individual" adjective is borrowed from SDV understandings and
> superimposed on the DSV jIva, who is no other than Ishvara. Its laughable
> that some think that to be Charvakavada!! :) This leads to complete
> misunderstanding of DSV/ EJV and refutation of something not said by DSV.
> This is called अप्राप्तस्य निषेधः। Under Manduka Karika 2.32, one more set
> of bhAshya statements clarify the DSV stance:
>
> ​न हि मनोविकल्पनाया रज्जुसर्पादिलक्षणाया रज्ज्वां प्रलय उत्पत्तिर्वा ; न च
> मनसि रज्जुसर्पस्योत्पत्तिः प्रलयो वा, न चोभयतो वा ।
> Indeed, there is neither birth nor destruction of the imagination in the
> mind in the form of rope-snake, etc in rope [else everyone would see it].
> And there is neither birth nor destruction of rope-snake, etc, in the mind
> [else it would be seen to born in the mind]. So too, not in both places [in
> rope and the mind].
>
> Now, this is the all-round example-hetu used for following statement:
> तथा मानसत्वाविशेषाद्द्वैतस्य ।
> So too [there cannot be birth and destruction] of duality, due to
> commonality of duality being in the mind.
>
> As to what this statement meant, Bhashyakara leaves no doubt with the
> following statement: न हि नियते मनसि सुषुप्ते वा द्वैतं गृह्यते ; अतो
> मनोविकल्पनामात्रं द्वैतमिति सिद्धम् । Indeed, the duality is not perceived
> in the absorbed mind or in deep-sleep; therefore, it is proven that duality
> is *mere modification of the mind*.​
>
> This is not applicable only to dream, that was refuted long back. It is
> applicable to waking. Pray tell, whose मनोविकल्प is Bhashyakara talking of?
> Ishvara's? Unfortunately, मयट् प्रत्यय doesn't come to help an SDV आरोप on
> DSV here to call घटवत् मृन्मयत्वात्। Its clearly मनोविकल्प here.
>
>
> > Creation is naama ruupatmikam with names and forms - naming involves
> > knowing and what is perceived is ruupas - are the attributive content of
> > the idam, idam, and idam, since the essence of idam and idam is only
> > Brahman which being infinite is imperceptible. Hence absolute unreality
> of
> > the creation is negated and not transactional reality.
> >
> This is another अप्राप्तस्य निषेधः। ​No one is rejecting transactional
> reality, just as no one refuted ​transactional reality in dream. Karikakara
> says that the dream world has as much transactional value as you find in
> waking world. What does that prove? It just proves that both have equal
> mithyAtva.
>
>
> > We cannot transact with the snake perceived where the rope is.
> >
> ​Oh, but the one who sees the snake runs away from it. That prAtibhAsika
> snake has as much transactional reality for him as does the vyAvahArika
> snake​.
>
>
> The example provided has to be used only up to the point of its
> > applicability. The truth is even the mind that perceiving the world is of
> > the same order of reality as the perceived world.
> >
> ​Yes, both are equally mithyA.​
>
> The Mirage waters or sunrise and sunset are more appropriate for
> > vyaavahaarika satyam than rope/snake example.
> >
> Bhagavan ​​​Bhashyakara gives the most appropriate examples. Anything else
> is superimposing our own understanding on bhAShya itself. One can perhaps
> supplement examples to help understand, but not replace.
> ​
>
> > When Bhagavat paada talks about rope/snake example, one has to understand
> > he negating the reality aspect just as the dream creation.
> >
> ​Not so. He very much uses this example for the Ishvara's creation also. It
> includes all that is created.
>
>
> > However in both sRishTi-dRishTi or dRishTi-sRishTi - there is drashtaa -
> > or seer. Hence we need to look at the validity of the seer before one
> > evaluates the validity of the seen.
> >
>
> ​Without the अभिव्यञ्जक, अभिव्यञ्ज्य cannot be known is the सिद्धान्त।​
> Under Mandukya Karika 4.66, the bhAShya yells out EJV at the top of its
> voice; it cannot be clearer than this: जाग्रतो दृश्या जीवाः
> तच्चित्ताव्यतिरिक्ताः, चित्तेक्षणीयत्वात्, स्वप्नदृक्चित्तेक्षणीयजीववत् ।
> तच्च जीवेक्षणात्मकं चित्तं द्रष्टुरव्यतिरिक्तं द्रष्टृदृश्यत्वात्
> स्वप्नचित्तवत् । The living beings objectifiable for the waker are
> indistinct from the waking mind, due to being seen by the mind, like the
> living beings objectifiable by the mind of the dreamer. And that mind of
> the nature of seen individuals is indistinct from the seer, due to being
> seen by the seer, like the mind of the dreamer.
>
>
>
> > The snake is the creation of the local Jeeva using the prior samksaara
> and
> > based on partial attributes or saadRisyam (or similarity between
> perceived
> > rope attributes and snake attributes), and it goes away when he knows
> that
> > it is rope, when he gathers the full attributive content of the object.
> >
> ​In this same way, Bhagavan Karikakara
> ​ says that waking projections are also created due to saMskAras. Then
> there is an objection to this as to "others" seeing no snake, but rope, so
> rope is real. This is the SDV subjectivity-objectivity argument used
> against DSV which is refuted by Bhagavan Bhashyakara so under 4.37 so:
> तद्धेतुत्वात् जागरितकार्यत्वात् तस्यैव स्वप्नदृश एव सज्जागरितम्, न
> त्वन्येषाम् ; यथा स्वप्न इत्यभिप्रायः । यथा स्वप्नः स्वप्नदृश एव सन्
> साधारणविद्यमानवस्तुवदवभासते, तथा तत्कारणत्वात्साधारणविद्यमानवस्
> तुवदवभासनम्,
> न तु साधारणं विद्यमानवस्तु स्वप्नवदेवेत्यभिप्रायः ॥ Due to being the result
> of waking, only for that seer of dream is the waking real, however, not for
> others; just as dream, this is the idea. Just as dream is indeed real only
> for the dreamer and appears like commonly existing things/  objective
> reality. So too, due to being [considered as] the cause of that dream,
> waking appears like commonly existing things/ objective reality [for the
> waker only]. However, commonly experienced objective world is not an
> existent thing, just like dream itself; this is the idea.
>
> There is no difference at all.
> I'd quoted the
> ​last bhAShya above
> just a few days back on Advaita-L
> ​ on the other threa​d.
>
> ​Finally, whatever the ​आरोप is on DSV, it should apply to the author of
> Dakshinamurtistotra Himself, since the stotra puts the सृष्टिकर्ता and
> "बद्धः" जीवः in सामानाधिकरण्यम् that too with आत्मनेपदम् usage of verbal
> root डुकृञ् करणे which should be used only if the सृष्टिक्रिया brings the
> फल to oneself be it बद्धत्वम् or मुक्तिः।
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
> ,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */​​
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh