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

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Jul 19 01:32:43 EDT 2017

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji,
> ​Thanks for great quotations from Anubhutiprakasha.
> ​​
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:46 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > Questions such as "How could it happen I was not aware that the world was
> > not there and when I became aware, it was born?” could arise.  If this
> kind
> > of "how and why" arise during this practice, then the right to remain in
> > this prakriyAa is lost.
> >
> ​This question is resolved by Shruti-based tarka as "svapnavat
> kalpitatvAt"​. To *the* DSV-follower (since there is only one in EJV), this
> tarka clicks the first time he understands it and all duality is
> cognitively resolved; no other tarka is needed.
> Such questions can only be answered through the सृष्टिदृष्टि प्ररक्रिया
> > (sRRiShTidRRiShTi prakriyA). As long as such questions do not arise and
> > unflinching faith of the nature  << If the ShAstras say so then this has
> to
> > be so >> is maintained, the practice of दृष्टिसृष्टि प्ररक्रिया
> > (dRRiShTisRRiShTi prakriyA) definitely leads to the desired experience.
> >
> ​The Shruti does use tarka for DSV and SDV tarka also finally lands in DSV
> as a last step before aikya jnAna. SDV has to resolve lot of queries. For
> example, during the Mandukya vaitatathyaprakaraNa study, someone said "this
> kalpita argument is far-fetched", and at another time, "please explain this
> without the dream example". Such people coming from SDV take the adhyAropa
> prakriyA as idam ittham, as it is, and do not give it up. They become
> sRShTipara, committed to creation.

Dear Praveen ji,

The above observation is very valid and Shankara says in the Mandukya
karika 1.7:

विभूतिं प्रसवं त्वन्ये मन्यन्ते सृष्टिचिन्तकाः ।
स्वप्नमायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता ॥ ७ ॥
विभूतिर्विस्तार ईश्वरस्य सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिचिन्तका मन्यन्ते ; न तु परमार्थ
चिन्तकानां सृष्टावादर इत्यर्थः, ‘इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते’ (बृ. उ. २ ।
५ । १९)
श्रुतेः । न हि मायाविनं सूत्रमाकाशे निःक्षिप्य तेन सायुधमारुह्य
चक्षुर्गोचरतामतीत्य युद्धेन खण्डशश्छिन्नं पतितं पुनरुत्थितं च पश्यतां
तत्कृतमायादिसतत्त्वचिन्तायामादरो भवति । तथैवायं मायाविनः सूत्रप्रसारणसमः
सुषुप्तस्वप्नादिविकासः ; तदारूढमायाविसमश्च तत्स्थप्राज्ञतैजसादिः ;
सूत्रतदारूढाभ्यामन्यः परमार्थमायावी । स एव भूमिष्ठो मायाच्छन्नः अदृश्यमान
एव स्थितो यथा, तथा तुरीयाख्यं परमार्थतत्त्वम् । अतस्तच्चिन्तायामेवादरो
मुमुक्षूणामार्याणाम् , न निष्प्रयोजनायां सृष्टावादर इत्यतः सृष्टि
चिन्तकानामेवैते विकल्पा इत्याह — स्वप्नमायासरूपेति । स्वप्नसरूपा मायासरूपा
चेति ॥

The above bhashya has several far reaching effects:
1. Those who are keen on the ultimate truth, Paramartha satyam, are not
concerned about creation.
2. Those who are concerned with creation lose sight of the Paramartha
tattva. This is stated in the second sentence in the bhashyam.
3. The Supreme Mayavi, the Turiya, is the one who is not 'within' creation;
he is beyond it.
4. Therefore mumukshus are concerned about the Turiya alone and not in
5. Creation-theory is of no utility; nishprayojanam.
Thus, Shankara is clearly implying that DSV alone is the only purport of
the Vedanta. As you have observed and as Madhusudana, etc. too have stated,
DSV is the only path in Vedanta. All those who are at present considering
the SDV, an adhyaropa, as the truth, will have to eventually come to DSV,
naturally.   They may postpone the transition but can never avoid it. There
are no 'this or that' alternative in Vedanta; it is 'only DSV' as the
ultimate path.

> Only when one moves to apavAda stage in
> SDV, one can have hope of being tattvapara, committed to reality. As to why
> adhyAropa has to be done, Shruti has given a hint that various types of
> self-contradictory creation stories can all be streamlined as valid only
> when all of them are merely stories for leading one to the truth and
> therefore, false. Bhashyakara says in Mandukya that the rise of knowledge
> in tat tvam asi statement is also not via positively saying that this is
> what you are, but by negation of wrong notion like a chidi-kriyA, cutting
> the rope (of avidyA/ bondage). The knowledge arises at the same time of
> this chidi-kriyA since brahmAtmA is self-evident and self-revealing and
> known as-one-is when all wrong notions are gone.
> ​Finally, any tarka that lets one remain with ​the aikyajnAna as shown by
> Shruti is valid, mithyA during adhyAropa and tuccha after adhyAropa, both
> being mere words showing bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNya.
> ​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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list