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

[Anand Hudli]

Shri Praveenji,

> They could be shown to be mithyA, not from DSV viewpoint but due to
> having dRshyatva, etc. anAdyavidyAnAM dRShTi-sRShTitvena mithyAtva-abhAve
> api dRshyatvAdihetunA eva teShAM mithyAtvasiddheriti.
>

>Anandji, ​Why can't dRshyatva as a hetu be within DSV here?​

Perhaps my message was not clear, but I didn't mean to say dRshyatva cannot
be used as a hetu within DSV. It is purely because the six entities are
anAdi, they will not have any sRShTi. This being the case, it is not
possible to show their mithyAtva using the DSV argument's hetu of being
created only due to cognition and not existent otherwise. Another way of
looking at it would be that five of the six entities (other than
shuddhacit) are either avidyA or are defined in terms of avidyA and hence
cannot be real. This reasoning is common to both SDV and DSV.

>Also earlier, my post came out as a statement, but I meant to ask a
question, sorry. Couldn't the pointed flaw be turned around on the
purvapakShin who points out that jIva can't be a sRShTikartA, because he
has no choice of creation, since Ishvara also creates as per the jIvakarma,
not as per His whims? If its a doSha, its equal in DSV and SDV.
saMskArajanitA dRShTi eva sRShTirbhavati iti.
>

Actually, it is not that jIva has no choice of creation, but he has no
shakti or capability to undertake the creation task, and once creation
happens, he does not have full control over it. Madhusudana addresses this
issue in DSV, saying it is not just the jIva alone who creates this
creation but it is the avidyA shakti that makes the (big) difference. So in
a sense, it is possible to view avidyA as reigning over creation. However,
due to reasons mentioned earlier, an Ishvara is accepted as part of the
DSV. Now, it is debatable what exactly this Ishvara is responsible for in
DSV. One may note that certain shruti/smRti statements such as mAyAM tu
prakRtiM vidyAn mAyinaM tu maheshvaram and paritrANAya sAdhUnAM... etc
point to a Controller role for Ishvara or it could just be that Ishvara is
the shuddha caitanya, as accepted in the bhAmatI. In the first case, saguNa
upAsana of Ishvara is possible, while in the second case, one pursues
strictly the jnAnamarga with the objective of realizing Ishvara.
Traditionally, many of our AchAryas have been upAsakas at some point or the
other.

Anand




On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> > 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
>
>