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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatraghavanji,

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> This is appropriating the concept of mithyAtva itself to drishTi srishTi
>> vAda - I don't think there is any basis to do that. The reason for this is
>> in the text below that you quoted.
>>
> ​Are you saying that mithyAtva concept is ​applicable only to SDV?!


> > Once I conclude that what is seen is an appearance,
>
​When you conclude that it is an appearance, you are really saying it is
*only* an appearance. Then, it logically follows that creation did not
precede. By saying its is a mere appearance, you will have said that the
creation is not really there.

why is it
> > necessary to attribute an causal agent for that appearance?
>
​An appearance without basis is not possible. The basis is the kalpita
jIva​, who is the first to make an appearance who then has kalpita jagat.
This is the "as-though" sequence that Karikarakara talks of in VP.

If no causal
> > agency is needed, there is no necessity for drishTa srishTi to follow
> > srishTa drishTi before moksha.
>
​In that case, you will have to attain mokSha without saying it is only an
appearance/ dRShTi.


>
> You also mentioned elsewhere that the dream drishTAnta is exclusively
> applicable to drishTi srishTi prakriyA.
>
​Yes.​

I am not convinced that it is exclusively so.
>
​Sure.
​

> It is not necessary that every aspect of the drishTAnta will match every
> aspect of the dArshTAnta. All the person using this anumAna relies on is
> that the hetu that exists in svapna exists in the dArshTAnta too, in order
> to establish that the sAdhya (mithyAtva) that exists in svapna exists in
> the dArshTAnta also.
>
​True, you have the answer to that yourself which is in the unstated hetu.
If sAdhy​a is mithyAtva, what is the singular aspect used as hetu in the
example?

Thus, to postulate that the svapna jagat sriShTi kartritvam that exists in
> the dream is an absolute necessity as a stepping stone to moksha.
>
​Each time you use the dream example
​ in what you say is SDV​
, you are using the same hetu which is the only hetu used in DSV. What else
can it be then, but DSV!

​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen​