[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: no anavasthA doSha in dRShTi-sRShti

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Anand Hudli prabhuji
Hare Krishna

The "svapnavat" formula is to be used in resolving all doubts in DSV.
ekasya api nidrAdoShasya anekavidhakAryajanakatvasya svapne dRShTatvAt lAghavasahakRtA anyathA anupapattirvicitrashaktikamekamajnAnamAdAya
vishrAmyati iti yutkam, says PrakAshAnanda. Just as the variegated dream objects are effects of the one defect, sleep (nidrA), it is appropriate to presume, aided by the law of parsimony, that there is one ajnAna with a multitude of powers. Of course, this one ajnAna has its locus (Ashraya) in Brahman. Shankara also says, avidyAtmikA hi bIjashaktiH and parameshvarAshrayA mAyAmayI. So there is no difference between avidyA and mAyA. In the version of DSV where Ishvara sRShTi is superimposed by jIva dRShTi, it can be admitted that the adhiShThAna for the adhyAsa is Ishvara sRShti, as in the case of a rajju-sarpa or shukti-rajata adhyAsa. However, we have to remember that even the rajju or shukti, i.e. Ishvara sRShTi, itself is mithyA only. Any sRShTi, whether it is by Ishvara or jIva, is mithyA, to be consistent with the ajAta-vAda or non-creation, which is the final siddhAnta.

>  Thanks for your kind clarification.  With all due respects to those vyAkhyAnakAra-s who treated both avidyA and mAya equally, I am not in a position to accept avidyA and mAyA are synonyms in shankara bhAshya.  Especially when avidyA and avyaktA explained with 'saMyukta' pada, when shruti says mAya is prakruti and mAyin is parameshwara (if mAya is avidyA then  parameshwara would be 'avidyAvanta' as per this shruti ), and when shankara compares avidyA to vishA and mAya to anna in geeta bhAshya.  So, the power (Shakti) is nothing but Shakta.  And as your goodself know, the locus to avidyA (the ashraya of avidyA) is a very complicated and debatable issue from various viewpoints.  BTW, is there any mention in SLS by Sri appayya deekshita with regard to avidyA and mAya, usage of these terms in various contexts and its samanvaya etc.  If yes, please let me know.

>  And again when it comes to Ishwara srushti Vs avidyA kalpita jagat of jeeva, it has been already said in bhAshya what is vedAnta maryAda.  If we want to talk creation, that has to be done by attributing the creatorship to Ishwara and that is what vedAnta maryAda.  Yes, ultimately ajAta vAda is the parama siddhAnta.  But for that we should not negate the existence.  For the 'astitva' srushti ( or srushti of that astitva)  is not compulsory.  For proving the existence of nAma rUpa its creation and order is not necessary.  Astitva is nitya and srushti is upAya to explain that nityAstitva.  Hence srushti and its order are not the aim of teaching of shruti.  In the sUtra janmAdasya yathA bhAshyakAra clarifies, why after athAthO brahma jignAsa, shruti pointing its finger at 'jagat kAraNatva' of brahman when brahman in its svarUpa, nirguNa, nirAkAra niravayava, nirAkAra etc.  If the Ishwara srushti itself mithyA or bhrAnti, the very second sUtra and major portion of shruti, substantiation of brahma jagatkAraNatva by bhAshyakAra against sAnkhya vaisheshikAdi theory of jagatkAraNatva, his arguments against pUrvameemAmsaka-s would go waste.  Elsewhere, bhAshyakAra clarifies : yes, brahman is yatO vAchO nivartante aprpya manasa saha, it cannot be objectified by indriya-s like eyes etc. and realized it.  Nevertheless  it (brahman) exists even it is attributeless (nirvishesha, nirguNa) because it is considered as  mUlaM of jagat.  tathApi sarva vishesharahitOpi jagatO mUlaM ityavagatvAt astyeva (brahma).  

>  I just shared my thoughts prabhuji.  You ignore if it is vyAkhyAna viruddha or DSV theory viruddha.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar