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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >  But prabhuji,  you said that Ishwara does not forms a part of DSV (jeeva
> kalpita or jeeva srushti) along with other five including shuddha
> Chaitanya.
> There are variations of DSV. PrakAshAnanda holds that avidyA is responsible
> for creation. Even in that case, Ishvara can be equated to shuddha
> chaitanya, which is not jIva-kalpita. One of the six anAdis is jIva-Ishvara
> bheda and it will still hold (until realization) if Ishvara is taken to be
> nirguNa Brahman.
>
>
> >   And finally one more important and final question with regard to DSV.
> Whether the 'drushti' which is the hetu (kAraNa) for the srushti  in this
> prakriya pertains to avidyA saMyukta jeeva / bhrAnta jeeva or
> avidyAvinirmukta nitya shuddha Buddha mukta Ishwara??  Here jeeva denotes
> parichinna Chaitanya with upAdhi or Ishwara with vishesha upAdhi ??  If
> this whole DSV prakriya based on bhrAnta jeeva srushti.  Then I am afraid
> this prakriya cannot be reconciled with shruti, yukti and anubhava.
>
> It is not the case that a bhrAnta-jIva is responsible for sRShTi. shuddha
> brahman in association with ajnAna gets jIva-hood and creates, again with
> avidyA playing a crucial role. This is not a sequential process, in the
> sense brahman becomes a jIva first and then creates the world. Both steps
> are simultaneous, since Time itself is part of the creation. There have
> been discussions before on Time as an Illusion.
>
> There are different versions of DSV-eka-jIva-vAda as explained by appayya
> dIkShita in his siddhAnta-lesha-saMgraha. However, the prominent among
> them is the one put forth by PrakAshAnanda in his
> vedAntasiddhAntamuktAvalI. According to this view, the
> nityashuddhamuktasvabhAva Brahman, in association with ajnAna, attains the
> state of jIva (ajnAnamAshritya jIvabhAvaM labdhvA), and creates (imagines)
> the bodies of Gods, animals, humans, etc. and also creates the entire
> universe with the fourteen worlds (brahmANDAdicaturdahsabhuvanaM sRShTvA).
> Among those bodies, one is a God, one a human, one Hiranyagarbha the
> Creator of all (teShu teShu deheShu kashcit devaH kashcit manuShyaH kashcit
> hiraNyagarbhaH sarveShAM sraShTA). One is Vishnu the Protector and one is
> Rudra the Destroyer of all during Pralaya (kashcit VishNuH pAlakaH kashcit
> anyaH sarvasaMhArakartA rudraH pralaye)... I the son of a Brahmin, having
> served the Gods with Bhakti consisting of pUjA, namaskAra, etc., and having
> earned the sAdhanas such as shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana, will attain
> liberation (ahaM punaH kashcit brAhmaNakumAraH teShAm bhaktiM
> pUjAnamaskArAdinA anuShThAya shravaNAdi sAdhanaM sampAdya mokShaM
> sAdhayiShyAmi iti). Thus, the jIva, although Ishvara (Brahman) himself
> becomes deluded in the waking state (Ishvaro .api san bhrAnto bhavati
> jAgare).
>

This is in perfect tune with what Shankara says in the commentary to the
Br.Up.1.4.10 where occurs the mahāvākya: aham brahma asmi:

तस्मात् — यत्प्रविष्टं स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म, तद्ब्रह्म, वै - शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः,
इदं शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यते, अग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि, ब्रह्मैवासीत् , सर्वं च
इदम् ; किन्त्वप्रतिबोधात् ‘अब्रह्मास्मि असर्वं च’ इत्यात्मन्यध्यारोपात्
‘कर्ताहं क्रियावान्फलानां च भोक्ता सुखी दुःखी संसारी’ इति च अध्यारोपयति ;
परमार्थस्तु ब्रह्मैव तद्विलक्षणं सर्वं च । तत् कथञ्चिदाचार्येण दयालुना
प्रतिबोधितम् ‘नासि संसारी’ इति आत्मानमेवावेत्स्वाभाविकम् ;
अविद्याध्यारोपितविशेषवर्जितमिति एव - शब्दस्यार्थः ॥

Shankara has captured the heart of DSV, in all aspects stated in the
Prakāśānanda anuvāda above, in the above crisp couple of sentences:

Brahman, having created, has entered the body-mind complex. This Brahman
that is present in the body, was Brahman alone and everything in creation,
even before arriving at the realization that it is Brahman. But owing to
ignorance it thinks 'I am not-brahman, and 'not-all'. Because of these
wrong notions, the effects such as 'I am a doer, enjoyer of fruits of my
actions, happy, miserable, samsārin' also are experienced by it. However,
in truth, it is Brahman alone and also all that is other than Brahman (the
world) as well.  By some fortunate turn of things, a compassionate Acharya
teaches 'You are not samsārin', and it realizes its own native self that is
free of all superiimposition wrought by ignorance.

In another section of this very bhāṣya of the 1.4.10  Br.Up. itself
Shankara has stressed the need for propitiating the gods, pitrs, etc. who
will bless the nishkāma aspirant with all that is required for
ātma-sādhana. This is also echoed in the Prakāśātman anuvāda by the word
'pūjā'.     यं तु मुमोचयिषन्ति, तं श्रद्धादिभिर्योक्ष्यन्ति,
विपरीतमश्रद्धादिभिः । तस्मान्मुमुक्षुर्देवाराधनपरः श्रद्धाभक्तिपरः
प्रणेयोऽप्रमादी स्यात् विद्याप्राप्तिं प्रति विद्यां प्रतीति वा
काक्वैतत्प्रदर्शितं भवति देवाप्रियवाक्येन ॥

Thus we have incontrovertible evidence for the obvious presence of DSV as
the mukhya prakriyā of shānkara vedānta.

regards
subrahmanian.v



>
> Anand
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>