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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatraghavanji,

There seems to some miscommunication between us leading to your explanation
of things I didn't mean and earlier of me doing the same. My effort here
will be mostly to clarify my stance at multiple places and reinterpret
yours in one case as you meant it perhaps. :)

​This mail might not go being long, so I'm trying without formatting and
adding PRB>>>​ before my reply.


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Just to set some context, I am not arguing that DSV is untenable as is
the case with a few posters - I am convinced that it is correct and from a
personal perspective, very elegant solution to some persistent vAsanas. I
am only questioning the logical basis by which we are concluding that DSV
is a necessary step for moksha.

PRB>>>​
But of course.

​​
> Not at all. It can be easily applied in both prakriyas. I was only
responding to your statement that 2 and 3 are DSV. To recall, 2 was "What I
see is an appearance",  3  was "Therefore there is no creation". 2
(drishyatvam) is the hetu for mithyAtva. Saying 2+3 = DSV is tantamount to
saying the concept of mithyAtva is only possible within DSV. I do not agree
with this view.
>

PRB>>>​​Great, the phrasing used by you earlier was slightly different with
'itself" instead of "only", hence my question. I am not saying that
mithyAtva is reserved only for​ DSV, but dRshyatvAt hetu is definitely
reserved only for DSV. You could say kAryatvAt, but not dRshyatvAt.
mithyAtvanishchaya in pure SDV has to necessarily be with dependency
example. If you recall, my reasoning for SDV leading to the last step of
DSV was if the dream example or rope-snake is used. If an SDV follower is
completely convinced by ghaTavat kAryatvAt. I'll explain why that is
doubtful next.


> Thus unless you are saying that the concept of mithyAtva itself is
untenable within SDV, SDV can lead to mokshA too.

PRB>>>​​It looks like Subbuji​ is stating so, but I differ as stated above.
However, as you see I am inline with Subbuji when he says that dream is the
best example. The SDV follower need not use it, but does he not? The last
landing after thinking जगत् मृद्वत् कार्यत्वात् मिथ्या, अतः मृद्वत् कारणमेव
सत्यम्, विकारः (कार्यम्) नामधेयम्, and तत्त्वमसि leading to अहं कारणमस्मि,
all SDV, it *could* still have परोक्षता, which is resolved only by DSV
example since dream is anubhavasiddha for all. And IMO, the hint is in
Shrutis considered as pure SDV that lead to DSV: aikShata preceding asRjata
is a clear give away at this stage for the question, then how did I the
kAraNa become many? SDV would say नानात्व is प्रतिबिम्बवत्/ घटाकाशवत्। Its
fine there for नाना जीवाः, but what about the आ मनः कार्याणि for reflection
to take place? How can I be all this and विवर्त? For that, the best example
is dream. ऐक्षत = अस्रृजत then. Even the best of teachers available for
masses today, who never talk of DSV and even suggest to avoid it, have used
dream at this very point! With all due respect to those Acharyas, that is
DSV. You used the word appearance, which is necessarily a DSV term. If you
argue that pot is just an appearance of clay, I'll say ननु न च। :) Its not
an example for विवर्तत्व, but कार्यत्व and कार्यकारणोर् अभेदः। (I know and
have myself stated earlier that Panchadashikara would use the example for
विवर्त also, but Chandogya doesn't in the तर्क given). The appearance then
is like a dream.

That said, SDV could use water-ocean-bubble-foam argument at this stage,
which would be vivarta, but parokShatA will likely remain.



>>> > Once I conclude that what is seen is an appearance,

...

​>
> Indeed. I am saying it is only an appearance. It also logically follows
that creation did not precede. I also agree that creation is not really
there.
>
​PRB>>>​ Thats exactly where you would have landed into DSV as a final
step. appearance = dRshya. no creation = appearance is creation.

> Thus I think what you are calling DSV is merely apavAda.
​PRB>>>​ No, as explained above, example used for apavAda is the clincher
of vAda. Rest of your mail is based on this misunderstanding from your side
or miscommunication from my side, which I have hopefully clarified above.
So I will respond very selectively in further lines.



That I am the only jIva who has created this universe (which is where the
DSV starts with), is not a necessary step for moksha when the jIvatvam,
creation and universe are all going to be sublated before the attainment of
moksha.
>
​​PRB>>>​ Subbuji has responded to this by quoting sarvajIvAtmabhAva.​ My
explanation will be as I have already done above for aparokShatA.


>
>
> Only if drishyatva hetu leading to mithyAtva sAdhya is somehow not
tenable SDV, which is not correct in my view.
>>
​PRB>>>​ ​Yes, I am saying this: dRshyatvAt sRShTi mithyA is clearly only
DSV is spaShTam and therefore correct.


>
> Even if what you are saying is correct, it just means that the same hetu
is used in both the prakriyAs, that's all.

​PRB>>>​ ​hetu is the prakriyA​. DSV needs no example other than dream. SDV
should do without it. And I will restate myself here, even if it be a
correction, by saying that dream example in SDV is possible only to show
the hetu as adhiShThAnatva of oneself not dRShyatva. However, it never
stops so. There are multiple hetus in one example, thats why best for
aparokShAnubhUti.


​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen​