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

[Anand Hudli]

>Can the phrase 'Tat Tvam Asi' be interpreted based on our personal
preference or should it be interpreted based on what Uddalaka said to
Shvetaketu in the context of Chandogya? Can the Mahavakyas have multiple
implied meanings? Aren't the two interpretations >different from each
other? Did Shankara interpret 'Tat Tvam Asi' in this fashion?
>Isn't it clear that Madhusudana Saraswati, in an attempt to prove DSV
re-interpreted the mahavakya, thus thereby differing from Shankara?

This goes back to the fundamental question whether GaudapAda and Shankara
support DSV or not, and has been answered in the affirmative before. Please
consult the archives and posts in this thread too. Regarding the
interpretation of "tattvamasi" mahAvAkya, Shankara has alluded to
jahadajahallakShaNa (without mentioning the term) as per SDV in the
brahmasUtra bhAShya, for example 2.1.22. ‘ तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येवंजातीयकः ; कथं
भेदाभेदौ विरुद्धौ सम्भवतः ? नैष दोषः, महाकाशघटाकाशन्यायेनोभयसम्भवस्य तत्र
तत्र प्रतिष्ठापितत्वात् । अपि च यदा ‘ तत्त्वमसि’
इत्येवंजातीयकेनाभेदनिर्देशेनाभेदः प्रतिबोधितो भवति ; अपगतं भवति तदा जीवस्य
संसारित्वं ब्रह्मणश्च स्रष्टृत्वम् , समस्तस्य मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितस्य
भेदव्यवहारस्य सम्यग्ज्ञानेन बाधितत्वात् ; तत्र कुत एव सृष्टिः कुतो वा
हिताकरणादयो दोषाः । Shankara says the creatorship of Brahman, (the
"tat"pada) and the saMsAritva and other defects of the jIva, (the
"tvam"pada) will be removed through the "tattvamasi" vAkya. Obviously, the
tatpada cannot be associated with creatorship in the context of DSV, since
the jIva is the creator, nor can the tatpada be associated with any of the
attributes such as sarvajnatva, etc., since it is admitted that the jIva
imagines Ishvara and the world as in a dream. This is what Madhusudana
describes.

Anand