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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Adityaji,
​
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> We can say dreams, illusions like mirage or superimposition like mistaking
> rope for snake are all phenomenons observed within Vyavaharika only.​
> ​
> In other words, Vyavaharika is a higher level compared to pratibhasika.
>
Whether it is higher or lower is irrelevant since you have made a
difference between them, thereby giving dream a sattA. So you yourself have
contradicted your own proposition of making two realities of vyAvahArika
and pAramArthika.

We can say dreams are just impressions on the mind so no need to give it
> any reality status at all.​
>
How can you not give it some status when you are differentiating it as an
impression, albeit projected in vyAvahAra. In that case, I'd say all of
waking and dream is in pAramArthika consiousness alone and therefore they
need not be 2 even, why 3!​ A apparent reality needs to be accommodated
from a considered reality for you. For GK and DSV, there's no such need
since both are apparent.


> The point is, pratibhasika reality is pratibhasika because it gets negated
> in Vyavaharika but Vyavaharika satya never gets sublated(we don't have a
> point of reference like for illusion). So there is no basis to equate
> vyavahara to pratibhasika save the shruti, in which case, there is no need
> to reject vyavaharika at all.
>
Incorrect. The waking and dream are both sublated by each other. There is
no dream in waking but no waking in dream either. This is elaborately
discussed in VP of GK.



> Please refer GK Agama prakarana verse 7; He says : Some of those who
> contemplate the process of creation regard it as the manifestation of God’s
> powers; others imagine creation to be like dreams and illusions.
>
​Congratulations​

​for quoting ​the verse I pointed to you long back in this thread by the
word सृष्टिपराः which Subbuji quoted later as सृष्टिचिन्तकाः। Please
understand that this dream being talked about is not the same as the dream
that is being talked of by DSV. The dream is used in the entire GK, which
is the DSV prakriyA, why would it be rejected here? It is not. The dream
that SDV followers know of
before understanding DSV is rejected.
​
The last line of Anandagiri Tika may help understand if its not clear:
​ ​
जाग्रद्गतानाम्
​अर्थानाम् ​
एव ​स्वप्ने
​ ​प्रथानात् तस्य  सत्यत्वं मायायाश्च मण्यादिलक्षणायाः सत्यत्वाङ्गीकाराद्
अनयोः विकल्पयोः सिद्धान्ताद् वैषम्यम् उन्नेयम्।
The dream is thought of by SDV and most others who know neither SDV
​n​
or DSV
​ ​
that dream is that which follows waking
​, meaning the dream objects are those which are seen in waking. Then
again, dvaitins take this dream state as reality. These are the kinds of
dreams refuted in 2nd and 4th prakaraNas. ​

Under 1.16 then Bhashyakara confirms that both states of waking and dream
are only a dream so:
योऽयं संसारी जीवः, सः उभयलक्षणेन तत्त्वाप्रतिबोधरूपेण बीजात्मना,
अन्यथाग्रहणलक्षणेन ... इत्येवंप्रकारान्स्वप्नान् स्थानद्वयेऽपि पश्यन्सुप्तः
​।
One who is this bound individual, he is asleep seeing dreams even in both
[waking and dream] states in such ways as ...
​ ​
characterised by
​the seed in the form of
​
miscomprehension of reality.​

(
​Moderators,
Apologies for more mails today)​​.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen