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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Praveenji,
> I agree with your views below.
>
> As you say, we have to bear in mind that these are all great AchAryas and
> that every prakriyA will have both its benefits and its drawbacks.  One
> man's lAghavam is another's anubhava/shAstra viruddham. lAghavam in one
> place will be gauravam elsewhere.
>

What you say above is echoed in an old post here:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-June/024769.html

The words of Sriharsha in the .....khandakhādya:

अभीष्टसिद्धावपि खंडनानां अखण्डिराज्ञामिव नैवमाज्ञा ।
तत्तानि कस्मान्न याभिलाषं सैद्धान्तिकेऽप्यध्वनि योजयध्वम् ॥
[Though what is intended is secured by the arguments refuting the other
schools, they are not like an edict of a king who is deemed to be above
it.  Therefore, there is no reason as to why they (arguments) may not
be levelled as desired, even against the path delineated by the siddhAnta.]

and Swami Vidyaranya:

Here is a very significant statement from Sri Vidyaranya, in His
commentary to the Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1:

After delineating the various other systems like Nyaya, Sankhya,
Shaivaagama, on their respective theories on creation, (which all hold
that there
is a real creation) he concludes:

//(Let it be so).  Where is the harm, thereby, for us the Vedantins?  There
need be no apprehension that the Maayaavaada is vitiated by such
developments, inasmuch as the illusory formulations of Gautama
and others - any formulation being illusory because it is dRsya, i.e. object
of cognition external to Atman - have been generated by the very
Maya which gives rise to the illusion of samsara of wonderful variety
in all living beings from Brahmaa down to the tiniest creature.
*On the same principles, it may perhaps be urged that the account
of evolution given expression to by the Vedantas is also an
illusion.  We admit that it is so.  And it is the very object of the

Vedanta to teach that the whole creation is an illusion*.//


are pointers in this direction.

regards
subbu


For example, in discussing drishyatva hetu for mithyAtva, vivaraNAchArya
> has to introduce gauravam by including shabda ajanya in the definition of
> drishyatvam as vritti vyApyatvam so that there is simultaneously no
> vyabhichAra and no shAstra vaiyarthya in the case of shuddha brahman, but
> the bhAmatikAra does not.
>
> Ultimately it is down to one's preference.
>
> The bhAmati has answers to the other questions that you raised below.
> avidyA upahita chaitanyam is the Ashraya for avidyA. It does not lead to
> svAshraya doSha because of anAditva of avidyA, chaitanya and jIva. The
> locus of avidyA is the jIva, and the object is Brahman. The viShaya of
> ajnAnam and viShaya of jnAnam being the same, it is possible for jnAnam to
> do ajnAna nivritti.
>
> Anyway my point is not to prove one method is superior to the other, but
> its opposite. No method is absolutely superior. I know I probably sound
> like a broken record, sorry.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 16 Aug 2017 10: a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste Venkatraghavanji,
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If that jIva was one, the argument goes, the liberation of that one would
> > lead to the destruction the world.
> >
> I know that there are pros and cons can be pointed out for both Vivarana
> and Bhamati, but now that I made this analysis from DSV angle, I like
> Vivarana's EJV.
>
> This argument of the world being destroyed can be handled in the way it is
> answered as in adhyAsabhAShya. The question raised is that if the vyApti is
> that yatra yatra lokavyavahAra, tatra tatra adhyAsa, then the jnAni also
> has vyavahAra, meaning he also has adhyAsa and therefore avidyA too. To
> this, the Tikas explain that it is bAdhita-adhyAsa. Similarly, the world
> also continues with the bAdhita-adhyAsa, it need not get destroyed. Else
> prArabdha also should go and jnAni's body should fall off.
> ​
>
> > We don't encounter that, so the jIvAs must be many. If jIvAs are many, is
> > avidyA one or many?
> >
>
> > If avidyA is one, under the jIvAshrita avidyA view, all the jIvas would
> > share the one avidyA. You will have the same problem, the liberation of
> any
> > one jIva would either destroy everyone's common avidyA, or failing which,
> > if that avidyA is not destroyed, could lead to a relapse from moksha for
> > the liberated jIva.
> >
> > Thus there are infinite avidyAs and infinite jIvas in this view.
> >
> As I said earlier EJV has lAghavam, ergo, NJV is unnecessary. All of the
> above can be explained by DSV's brahmAstra svapnavat. If a dreamer knows
> that he is only dreaming, he knows he is really the waker with his
> bAdhita-svapna, but the dream continues and so do others who think they are
> waking. The ashraya of this svapna is the waker who is non-different from
> the waker.
>
> On the other hand, with the Bhamati's explanation, there are other
> questions that can be asked. This jIva who is the avidyAshraya, is it Atman
> or anAtman? If it is Atman, that is only one, so it would be same as
> Vivarana. If it is anAtman, it cannot be the locus of avidyA, since avidyA
> and vidyA can occur only in a sentient entity. Moreover, jIvatva itself
> being a product of avidyA, such an Ashraya cannot precede its creation!
>
> If it still be insisted that the sentient individualised self, which are
> infinite in numbers and argued that it is the Ashraya/ locus of avidyA but
> the viShaya/ subject is brahman, it cannot be said so because the knowledge
> of one entity cannot take away the avidyA in another. If it be said that
> both are the same, you are back to Vivarana and therefore EJV is more
> acceptable. This refutation is dealt by Bhagavan Sureshvaracharya in
> Naishkarmyasiddhi sambandhokti to chapter 3 and others on elaboration of
> verse 3.1.
>
>
> ​
> ​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
>