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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

​On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 1:54 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> The links have just been provided in the thread. The ten definitions are
> listed on book page 533, adobe page 556. Drishtisrishtyupapattih.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the translation. I understand all the terms  अज्ञात सत्ता, यत्,
> तत् (aj~nAta sattA, yat, tat) to refer to “   प्रत्यगात्मन्
> (pratyagAtman)/ साक्षी (sAkShI)/ (all pervading) Atman/ Brahman ”.
>
​​Sorry, they do not.  अज्ञात and सत्ताक are adjectives to वस्तुएँ which is
plural, talking of objects. That's Hindi. As for Sanskrit, यत् and तत् are
neuter relatives and co-relatives refering to karma (grammatical object) of
pashyati (sees), which is a worldly object. Else it had to be यः (masculine
of यत्) and there would be no सः (masculine of तत्) since it makes no sense
in anvaya.


> पश्यति (pashyati) understood as “ ईक्षण (IkShaNa) /  संकल्प (saMkalpa) ”.
> सृजति (sRRijati) as “ appear as Its vistAram/manifestation/origination ”,
> (all the English terms picked from the translation by Swami Gambhirananda
> on bhashya for BG 13-31 <<
>
​Kindly tell me the shloka words if possible, I would like to check what
context you are referring to ​for these translations. I haven't found the
bhashya under 13.31 or even the entire 13th chapter. In any case, even if
you apply these very translations to the AS words under discussion, there
will be no anvaya of the sentence and will make absolutely no sense if yat
and tat are taken as you take them. Please try in English itself
substituting those words for Sanskrit words, and rearranging them however
you wish. The reason is there is no issue with translating individual
words, but what about the Sanskrit pronouns? You are not going to find
translations for those pronouns out of context.


> यदा भूतपृथग्भावमेकस्थमनुपश्यति ।
> तत एव च विस्तारं ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते तदा ॥ ३० ॥ >>
>
>
>
> << yadA bhUtapRRithagbhAvamekasthamanupashyati |
>
> tata eva cha vistAraM brahma sampadyate tadA || 30 || >>,)
>
>
>
> the translation for the hindi commentary on Anubhutiprakasha  would then
> be understood as follows
>
>
>
> << (Hindi) Without cognizing the प्रत्यगात्मन् (pratyagAtman)/ साक्षी
> (sAkShI) (same as (all pervading) Atman/ Brahman),  cognizing only its
> vistAram/manifestation/origination is drishtisrishti (“V” of DSV not
> included as the term as used here is not a prakriyA, but only a term). MS
> has mentioned the purport of DS (again “V” omitted) as ; (Sanskrit)
> Whatever the प्रत्यगात्मन् (pratyagAtman)/ साक्षी (sAkShI) desires (संकल्प
> (saMkalpa)), It appears as His vistAram/manifestation/origination >>.
>
> I​ used ​DSV instead of DS since its well-understood in these threads as
the topic of discussion. Obviously, although the word vAda is not
mentioned, the justification is still of the DS of DSV, as the title
​"
Drishtisrishtyupapattih" states. Moreover, you yourself said that the
versions of DSV being used by me are the ones found as 2 out of 10
definitions in AS by MS!
​​

> This brings it in line with avasthAtrayavivEka, consistent with the later
> part of the commentary as also with the verses 48-52, Chapter 9 of
> Anubhutiprakasha.
>
I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying that DSV is only an
avasthAtrayaviveka as someone else said? I'd be very surprised. Else...


> This is my understanding.
>
>
>
> Both of us having stated our respective positions, maybe it is time to
> leave it at that.
>

... ​I don't think I understand the ​dispute. In any case, I was only
answering the questions you directed to me. So I am fine with your decision
too, now that I have responded to your new interpretations.

​Thanks
,
--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] */