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

[Aditya Kumar]

Namaste Praveenji,



​​Logic of convenience. There is nothing like near or far in the tradition, which is why it is called a paramparA or sampradAya. The derivation of the words themselves say that it is the right version handed over. Your choosing far-from-tradition Modi, Dasgupta​, etc, over Prakashananda Sarasavati and Madhusudhana Sarasvati of the tradition shows that you yourself are being outside the tradition. It is as simple as that. The traditional approach is to show that the teaching is handed over. The formers' words mean nothing and let me warn you that your words too will mean nothing if you continue this untraditional approach. However, suit yourself, but refrain from commenting on the advaita teachers of the tradition.
A : You have already admitted V Misra rejects EJV. So even from a traditional standpoint, there is reason to believe that DSV is alien to Shankara. Main reason is because, DSV is not explicitly propounded anywhere by anyone before Vidyaranya. However, PS and MS both explicitly state it. So the view that DSVada proposed by earlier Advaitins is simply an interpretation. In doing so, we have to compromise heavily. One small instance is Tat Tvam Asi as already discussed. Another thing we can notice is that, earlier Advaitins had Shankara's works as their subject matter. But MS decides to pick Nyayamruta as his main subject matter in his flagship Advaitasiddhi. Madhwa's proponents are realists. But instead of saying - we have fundamental difference because we consider the world as Anirvachaniya, what was the need to give Nyayamruta legitimacy by claiming to object it. In doing so, MS essentially might have revived the almost dead Madhwa's school (specially after the fame of Vidyaranya). Please note that I am not attacking anyone personally even passively. 




There is no basis for the jump that you make that these are absent. You have to be a literally sarvajna to make such a statement. Even if you don't find it, absence of finding wouldn't prove finding absence. It just shows lack of study. Many have shown Bhagavatpadacharya's support of DSV. You fail to acknowledge, whether for lack of understanding or bias or whatever other "scholarly" reasons you may have. Those who have really studied in the orthodox tradition know that very well. Scholars may earn their publication, doctorate or whatever, but its just that. That will never be considered as an idam iddham fact by any sampradAyavAdin worth his salt.
A : I want to know which orthodox tradition studies Advaitasiddhi or Siddhanta Muktavali?

Moreover, a particular author clearly disagrees with another author/view. It's like saying 'All paths lead to same destiny'. It is merely a non-confrontational, conformist view and certainly not the truth. 

The research, even if called scholarly, does not make a truth. They are all termed as paNDitammanyamAnAH by Shruti and sampradAya.
​gurupAdukAbhyAm,--praveen