[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: adhyAsa is substantiated

[Venkatraghavan S]

You are very welcome Praveen ji. Sincere thanks to Sri Mani Dravid
Sastrigal and Ishvara for providing answers.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 24 Aug 2017 2:12 p.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavanji,
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I spoke with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal yesterday - it was quite subtle,
>> so it did take some time for me to understand the import of what he was
>> saying.
>>
>> ​Thanks for all your effort and sharing the same elaborately.​
>
>
>
>> I will cover his response here, and if you still feel there are
>> outstanding points you'd like to discuss from your previous email, I'd be
>> glad to to do that.
>>
> ​I think all questions stand answered, at least from my perspective.
> Overall, my inclination has always been not to mix SDV and DSV and I see
> Shastriji endorsing the same thing.​ Anandji had also mentioned this point
> earlier on. However, the technicalities you brought up were very helpful
> manana for both vAda followers.
>
> 2) Within the definition of prAtibhAsikatvam in DSV itself, there is scope
>> for a prAtibhAsikatva and vyAvahArikatva. Meaning, that while all objects
>> are prAtibhAsikatva, people may not know that and still think that there is
>> a vyAvahArikatva and prAtibhAsikatva. Thus, DSV is not saying that objects
>> appear as being prAtibhAsikam, they simply are.
>>
>
>
>> 5) Therefore our original question - isn't there a category called
>> vyAvahArikatvam that is based on brahma pramA atirikta abAdhyatvam, and
>> such an abAdhyatvam is present in DSV because ajnAna nivritti is absent, is
>> similar to the person in 4 - he knows there is a prAtibhAsikam, but he
>> believes that what he is seeing is vyAvahArikam. In reality, such a
>> vyAvahArikatvam does not exist in DSV, but vyAvahArika vyavahAra can.
>>
>
> The above two are brilliant points. In Mandukya 4th chapter, even while
> refuting hetu-hetumat or any other sambandha between the ​jAgrat-prapancha
> seen and svapna-prapancha, Karikakara mentions something similar: with the
> difference in appearance between the two, although there is none, we
> provisionally give a certain transactional reality to it.
> ​
>
>> I'm not sure if others will like this answer, but I must say that it is a
>> very satisfying explanation, even if it takes a bit of effort (at least for
>> me it did) to understand both the question and the answer.
>>
> It was indeed satisfying, more so to learn of Shastriji's use of required
> techniques without biases. ​Karikakara uses a similar technique of
> Vijnanavadins to dimiss other Buddhists and builds over it by negating them
> using the same. I'm glad that Shastriji was accessible for this
> clarification.​ Thanks again to both of you.
>
> g
> ​urupAdukAbhyAm​
> ,
> --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] */
>
>>