[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

Aditya Kumar kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 15 05:24:28 EDT 2017

​If that, I am glad, but you are still sadly mistaken. Bhamatikara Vachaspati Mishra accepts DSV with NJV not EJV. That is not to say that he ​is against DSV. Someone who has Bhamati reference for this may kindly quote the same, since I haven't studied Bhamati text proper.
A : I am not sure if Bhamati explicitly advocates solipsism, but here is a refutation of DSV with nana-jiva vada : -“Some Vedantists hold that there are many individuals and the world-appearance has no permanent illusion for all people, but each person creates for himself his own illusion, and there is no objective datum which forms the common ground for the illusory perception of all people; just as when ten persons see in the darkness a rope and having the illusion of a snake there, run away, and agree in their individual perceptions that they have all seen the same snake, though each really had his own illusion and there was no snake at all. According to this view the illusory perception of each happens for him subjectively and has no corresponding objective phenomena as its ground. This must be distinguished from the normal Vedanta view which holds that objectively phenomena are also happening, but that these are illusory only in the sense that they will not last permanently and have thus only a temporary and relative existence in comparison with the truth or reality which is ever the same constant and unchangeable entity in all our perceptions and in all world-appearance."

I am curious if there is any defence for this critique. 

​As for tucchatvam, since you have ignored the perspective, it is no proof and here's quotation from Bhashyakara using tucchatva example, which I mentioned earlier and you don't seem to have landed on:
Under the Karika: न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ २.३२ ॥There is neither creation nor dissolution, neither anyone bound nor seeker, neither desirous of liberation nor liberated; this is the highest reality.

Bhashyakara says: //प्रकरणार्थोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः — यदा वितथं द्वैतम् आत्मैवैकः परमार्थतः सन्, तदा इदं निष्पन्नं भवति — सर्वोऽयं लौकिको वैदिकश्च व्यवहारोऽविद्याविषय एवेति । This verse is for the purpose of summing up the entire section— when the duality is false and being only one in reality, then this is understood— “this entire group of worldly and Vedic transactions is indeed based on अविद्या”।
तदा न निरोधः, निरोधनं निरोधः प्रलयः, उत्पत्तिः जननम्, बद्धः संसारी जीवः, साधकः साधनवान्मोक्षस्य, मुमुक्षुः मोचनार्थी, मुक्तः विमुक्तबन्धः ।Then, there is no dissolution, creation, transmigrating individual, one having means of liberation, one desirous of liberation, liberated.
A : Okay. This says there is no transmigrating individual. How is this Eka jiva? 
उत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभावाद्बद्धादयो न सन्तीत्येषा परमार्थता । Due to absence of creation and dissolution, those bound, etc, are not there; this is the highest reality.

A : Again, same thing.
कथमुत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभाव इति, उच्यते — द्वैतस्यासत्त्वात् । How is there an absence of creation and dissolution? This doubt is being answered— due to falsity 
of duality.//
A : I am not contesting this.
This is a संग्रहवाक्य expanded further so after quoting many Shrutis. Please read this carefully and tell me what you make of this tucchatva example and then go ahead and refute Sw. Prakashananda.//सतो ह्युत्पत्तिः प्रलयो वा स्यात्, नासतः शशविषाणादेः । There can be creation and dissolution of existent only, not of non-existent rabbit's horn, etc.//
A : Sir, this establishes Ajat vada not DSV. I don't know how you draw parlance with this and prakasananda who says Maya is tuccha. There is a difference between saying 'The world is tuccha' and saying 'Maya is tuccha'. 
In any case, I suggest you to study Mandukya with Karika before attacking (#) DSV or its great proponents any which way. Else, stick to SDV, which is also a great प्रक्रिया that leads to मोक्ष। If you use SDV, try to logically land on एकमेवाद्वितीयब्रह्म without using dream example. If you use a dream example, you will have unknowingly, reluctantly or helplessly subscribed to DSV. This is my firm conclusion. :)
A : I don't have a problem with dream example itself but I am aware of it's limitations. Dream is just an analogy. It is not the proof of unreality of the world. The proof is shruti statements. That is the difference between subjective-idealism and Vedanta established by Maya concept. Eventually, we will subscribe to ajati vada and not DSV. 

(​#)​ Any reduction of Vaidika perspective to shunyavAda is construed as an attack since it is against श्रुतिमत।
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] */


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list