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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:23 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >
> >  Swami Vasudeva Brahmendra
> > Saraswati, in his Sanskrit book Vichara Sagara, has discussed Swami
> > Vidyaranya’s version as discussed in Panchadasi (which is the same as in
> > Anubhutiprakasha). Ref book page 209, adobe page 312. According to him,
> the
> > version presented by Swami Vidyaranya is only a different interpretation
> of
> > SDV only and not DSV (either of the two versions) !!!


Could you please point where Vasudeva brahmendra sarasvati says that the
version of DSV presented by VidyAraNya in anubhUti prakAsha is another
version of SDV - it is not in the portion of VS quoted by you.

The author does not say the VidyAraNya's DSV is another form of SDV. All he
says is that the view in panchadashi is SDV. However, this is not
tantamount to a comment on the prakriyA taught in the anubhUti prakAsha by
VidyAraNya himself.

The context in which this comment is made in the VichAra sAgara is also
important. The portion that you quote is actually an Akshepa to sattA dvaya
vidyA taught by the guru. The objection is that sattA cannot be dvividha,
it has to be trividha, as endorsed by svAmi vidyAraNya in panchadashi,
vedAnta paribhASha and other pramANa granthas.

That this is not the siddhAnta is clear, because in the very next page, the
title of the next topic is "anAtmapadArthAnAm sarveShAm
prAtibhAsikasattaiva AtmapadArthasyaiva pAramArthikI satteti sattA
dvividhaiva" - all anAtma objects have prAtibhAsika sattA, it is only Atma
that is pAramArthikam. Thus sattA is dvividha, two-fold only.

The first line of the topic clarifies further - In comparison to sattA
traividhyam (three-fold sattA) which has been taught for weaker students,
now, in order to establish that sattA is only one, we will talk about the
lack of any difference between the dream and the waking states.

Anyone following the same may please clarify  and also
> > inform what he has to say on the subject. If confirmed, then the
> > understanding that Swami Vidyaranya has endorsed DSV
> > ​
> > (any version)
> > ​
> > would not be correct.
> >
>
This conclusion is not justified on the evidence presented. A comment by
one AchArya on the position taken by another AchArya in one work does not
invalidate the other AchArya's position in another work. We are talking of
prakriyAs here, so this is not a contradiction. It is arriving at the same
conclusion using two different routes.

Regards
Venkatraghavan