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

[Aditya Kumar]

 Namaste Praveenji,

 

But in vyavahara, how can eka jiva vada be proposed either logically or by support of shastras? 
​It has been shown logically ​and even by support of shAstras in Mandukyopanishad, especially in vaitathya and advaitaprakaraNa.
>> Isn't both these prakaranas explaining tri-kala abhadita - parabrahman?   
Does this not go against the evidence what we have?

​​The evidence ​we have is through the other five pramANas. They are themselves insufficient ​for anything related to AtmA and a shabda pramANa is needed. However, when rightly established, it doesn't go against logic.
>> I am only talking about what we can infer from pratyaksha. For example, to determine the distance between any two objects found in pratyaksha, we don't need another pramana. It is evident. We can see that there are so many varieties of jivas or pratyagatman in the world. Even purusha sukta says everything came out in succession. Further, Shankara has said, shruti cannot contradict reason, as in, a 1000 shruti statements cannot make fire cold! So how do we say there is only one jiva especially within the vyavaharika level where Advaitins don't have any need to discount multitude of beings? From what I have read about this vada, one of the two positions(sdv or dsv) has to be correct. If dsv is correct, then sdv is wrong. 
Further, if drishti srishti vada is the view of Shankara/gaudapada, then the son becomes the creator of his own father? And also there will be absolutely no difference between chetana and achetana vastus? If Drishti-srishti vada is valid then, creation=perception. However, every time we feel hot when we go near fire. It is not sometimes cold and sometimes hot. That means, fire retains it's own svabhava/guna/attribute. In other words, it(nature of fire) is independent of our involvement. How can Drishti-srishti vada explain this phenomenon?​ 
In drishti-sristi vada, I think perception itself is regarded as creation? 

 
Because creation requires power of ishwaratva/power of creation/lordship.
T​he power is needed, but that it belongs only to Ishvara is not considered as true in DSV. The AgamaprakaraNa of Mandukya doesn't make the jIveSha bheda at all, it puts together samaShTi in vyAShTi itself. There are no words such as Virat and Hiranyagarbha used there, but only vishva in waking and taijasa in dream. However, Ishvara is mentioned by calling prAjna in suShupty-avasthA as Ishvara. Bhashyakara uses this mantra-vAkya to mean that the equality is also at the other two states between samaShTi and vyaShTi. DSV doesn't use the prakriyA of creating the bheda and ​rejecting it, but rejects the already perceived bheda by declaring it is imaginary.
>> The Mandukya refers to nirguna brahman/para form of ishvara. But that is already accepted view and does not contradict the saguna/Apara form of ishvara. Srishti-drishti vada can accommodate both but can Drishti-srishti vada accommodate for such Apara/saguna form? I think in the Adhyaropa method, bedha is not created but addressed with reason and in a non-contradictory way. But I am feeling that dsv denies to address such a detailed world by calling it imaginary.  
But I can't even create my dreams, much less the world/s. 

​Thanks for bringing up another important objection to DSV, which is fairly common which has the following thinking as its basis "I cannot dream *as I like/ wish*". Now, for that to be correct, Ishvara should be the creator in SDV as per His wish. However, it is not so either. Ishvara cannot create as per his wish but in keeping with the saMskAras of the jIvas called the samaShTi saMskAra, in which case, it is equally fair to say that the jIva dreams as per his saMskAra without choice on what to dream. This is nothing but sRShThi.
>> So a non-intelligent, non-self Samskara becomes the creator of both jiva and ishvara? I don't think Ishvara has any role in dsv? 
If there are two persons in a room, as per dsv, who creates whom or who is the projection of whom? Who is jiva and who is not? ​​​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--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] */​