[Advaita-l] shRShTi-dRShTi-vAda collapsed into dRShTi-sRShTi-vAda

Aditya Kumar kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 25 03:19:49 EDT 2017

Please can someone point out who coined the terms Srishti-drishti-vada and drishti-srishti-vada? Where can I get more information about it? What are significant differences between them and it's implication? 
I used to think the Shastras used Adhyaropa apavada method which is self-sufficient to explain creation and non-creation. Even mandukya is using Adhyaropa apavada right? 
I would also like to know if there are any critiques for these vadas. Thanks  

    On Saturday, 24 June 2017 7:05 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:


We have had quite a few discussions on SDV/ DSV, but I don't remember that
we have come across Bhashyakara talking of it. Although most of
Mandukyopanishad's prakriyA is seen as DSV by many, creation stories in
Taittiriya, etc, lead to SDV.

However, in one comment on Karika 3.11, Bhashyakara collapses the
Taittiriya's prakriyA into Mandukya's prakriyA so:

कोऽसावित्याह — पर एवात्मा यः पूर्वम् ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (तै. उ.
२-१-१) इति प्रकृतः ; यस्मादात्मनः स्वप्नमायादिवदाकाशादिक्रमेण रसादयः
कोशलक्षणाः सङ्घाता आत्ममायाविसर्जिता इत्युक्तम् ।
Who is that? [Karikara] says thus—the limitless self alone who was
introduced earlier as “Tai. Up. 2.1.1: existence, consciousness, limitless
ब्रह्म”, from which self, the complexes in the form of sheaths are created
through the Maya of the जीव, like dream and magical world.

This comment by Bhashyakara also negates the argument that people make that
Mandukya also should be understood as per Taittiriya, whereas Bhashyakara
clearly says that the creation story leading to SDV in Taittiriya should be
seen as Mandukya's DSV by using the phrase स्वप्नमायादिवत्, a compound
which resolves as स्वप्नवत् च मायादिवत् च like dream and like magic, former
most definitely being DSV terminology.

Further, one of the arguments made against DSV is that jIva is not a
creator, but Ishvara is, since Ishvara has Mayashakti while jIva has
influence of avidyA. That was rejected by Bhashyakara by equating both Maya
and avidyA as one in the commentary under the earlier verse 3.10 so:

घटादिस्थानीयास्तु देहादिसङ्घाताः स्वप्नदृश्यदेहादिवन्मायाविकृतदेहादिवच्च
आत्ममायाविसर्जिताः, आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः
सन्तीत्यर्थः ।
However, the complexes of body, etc, are comparable to pot, etc, like the
body, etc, seen in dream, and like the body, etc, projected by
magical-power. They are projected by that माया, अविद्या of the self; they
do not exist in reality, this is the meaning.

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list