[Advaita-l] dRShTi-sRShTi definitions in the advaitasiddhi

[Anand Hudli]

> Let me refer to this as DSV(MS).  This clearly admits three levels of
> Reality, PAramArthika/PrAtibhAsika/Mithya.  Definitely not the type
> discussed all along here where only two levels were considered. I am not
> sure if this is what Praveen Ji intended in his presentations. He may like
> to clarify/confirm.
>
>

It is not the same as three levels of reality, rather the six entities are
said to be anAdi, without a beginning. Appayya dIkShita also mentions this
and justifies it, not surprisingly, using the dream analogy. In a dream, it
is possible that some objects are pre-existing while others are created as
they are seen. So there is no contradiction with the two orders of reality
maintained by DSV.

>
> While only six entities are mentioned, it is to be noted that avidya has
> infinite number of parts.Since combination of avidya and cit is also
> covered in the six, there are practically infinite number of entities
> admitted. In fact  satyAnRtamithunIkaraNa  covers entire charAchara
> srishti. All this will be mithya and not prAtibhAsika.
>
>
The combination of avidyA and cit is anAdi but this anAditva cannot be
extended to anything else where avidyA may play a role. It is only the
combination that is anAdi, not the resulting effects. If that is not the
case, DSV becomes a mockery of a theory, not even worth studying! It is
erroneous to argue that the whole world is an effect of the combination of
Brahman as the substratum and avidyA which projects the world and hence the
world is outside the scope of dRShTi-sRShTi. The world is definitely
subject to dRShTi-sRShTi and that is precisely why Jagat is not included in
the list of six anAdi's. I am not interested in arguing further on this
topic.


>
>    Also, has Sri MS stipulated to only one jIva in his analysis. This may
> please be confirmed. I am not sure if all the above is admitted or
> intended. Else whether my understanding of the above is wrong.
>
The discussion on DSV is followed by the ekajIva vAda discussion. The DSV
discussion is independent of EJV or NJV, although it makes more sense to
assume EJV. Towards the end of the discussion, Madhusudana replies to an
objection regarding DSV that implies EJV.

> Sidhantaleshasamgraha refers to two versions of DSV. One is mentioned as
> that of Sri Prakashananda as in Vedanta Sidhantamuktavali. Is the other
one
> DSV(MS) ?. Or is it a third one.
>
Madhusudana does not exclusively deal with the first type of DSV, ie.
dRShTi-samakAlIna-sRShTi in his discussion, since there is a reference to
dRShTi itself being sRShTi, which is the second type.

>In continuation, has Sri MS, in any of his other works, presented any
version of DSV ?

siddhAntabindu and vedAntakalpalatikA are two works of Madhusudana wherein
DSV is also discussed.

Anand