[Advaita-l] A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda and srishTi-drishTi-vAda

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

//Reg the MandUkya  Bhashya  on  4-28 cited by you, please see the
immediate continuation of the Bhashya cited. It reads

//  तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति //

//   therefore it also stands to reason  that Consciousness appears to be
born  even though there is no such thing as birth //.

This  admits the separate (vis-à-vis chitta) AdhyAsic existence of  objects
like pots etc. DSV of VSM shade does not admit this.//

How exactly does it admit the AdhyAsic existence of objects like pot etc? I
am not clear about it. Please explain.

From 4.25 to 4.27, vijnAnavAdI proved that there was no existence of
external objects like pot. BhAshya says:-

यस्मान्नास्ति बाह्यं निमित्तम् , अतः चित्तं न स्पृशत्यर्थं
बाह्यालम्बनविषयम् , नाप्यर्थाभासम् , चित्तत्वात् , स्वप्नचित्तवत् ।

Basically, as per bhAshya, the external objects are not and it is the
chitta alone which is responsible for knowledge. There is rejection of
bAhya-artha-vAda by vijnAnavAda as that is acceptable to us. VijnAnavAda
holds that every moment, there is a separate thought born which is
responsible for pot-thought, cloth-thought and there is no requirement of
separate existence of pot, cloth etc.

This is acceptable to advaita in so far as non-existence of pot etc is
concerned. However, for the very same reason, there can be no birth of
vijnAna either.

Anandagiri says -

तस्मादित्यादि व्याचष्टे – यस्मादिति । भूतदर्शनाद्घटादेर्मृदादिमात्रं भूतं
वस्तुतत्त्वं तस्यापि विज्ञप्तिमात्रं तत्त्वं तस्य शास्त्रतो दर्शनादिति
यावत्। द्वितीयपादं दृष्टान्तत्वेन विभजते – यथेति । विमतं विज्ञानजन्म न
तात्त्विकं दृश्यत्वान्नीलपीतादिवदित्यर्थः। विपक्षे दोषमाह – अत इति ।
तत्त्वतो विज्ञानस्य जन्मायोगाद् ये तस्य तात्त्विकं जन्म पश्यन्ति ते
पक्ष्यादीनां खेऽपि पदं पश्यन्तीत्यन्वयः।

Basically the idea here is - just as in case of pot etc, there is
pot-appearance (pot-AbhAsatA) to chitta despite the non-existence of pot,
similarly there is chitta-birth-perception (chitta-jAyamAna-avabhAsatA) to
chitta despite there being no chitta-birth. (chitta-birth = pot).
Anandagiri makes it clearer by using the word vijnAna-janma. In anumAna
used by him, paksha is vijnAna-janma, atAtvikatva is sAdhya, drishyatva is
hetu and blue, yellow are examples.

The crux of the discussion in 4.28 is -- there are no external objects such
as pot and there is pot-appearance despite non-existence of pot.
(4.25-4.27). Therefore, there is no chitta-janma (vijnAna-janma) and there
is chitta-janma-appearance despite the non-existence of chitta-janma. (4.28)

How does it posit AdhyAsic existence of pot - is not clear to me at all.
Chitta alone is sufficient for pot-knowledge.
-------------

//Reg the laghuchandrika  portion cited by you, my understanding  is  that
it summarizes the topic of discussion.  ** If drishTi-abhinnatva is being
talked with respect to srishTi ** as drishTi- srishTi , then  NM lists ten
possibilities and points out the defects in all of them. This is later
refuted by AS.//

Not clear. Kindly elaborate. What is your view? The drishTi-abhinnatva is
being talked vis-a-vis what?

Regards.




On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 4:07 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> Please do not misunderstand me. My intention is not to correct any errors
> in understanding on the part of others. My understanding could be as faulty
> or correct as that of anyone else. But where facts  are concerned. I am
> only presenting  them as such, in order that any understanding  should be
> based on correct facts and there could be exchange of views based on them.
>
> Reg the MandUkya  Bhashya  on  4-28 cited by you, please see the immediate
> continuation of the Bhashya cited. It reads
>
> //  तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति
> //
>
> //   therefore it also stands to reason  that Consciousness appears to be
> born  even though there is no such thing as birth //.
>
> This  admits the separate  (vis-à-vis chitta) AdhyAsic existence of
> objects like pots etc. DSV of VSM shade does not admit this.
>
> Reg the laghuchandrika  portion cited by you, my understanding  is  that
> it summarizes the topic of discussion.  ** If drishTi-abhinnatva is being
> talked with respect to srishTi ** as drishTi- srishTi , then  NM lists ten
> possibilities and points out the defects in all of them. This is later
> refuted by AS.
>
> Reg  DSV/EJV  per se (of the AS variety), my understanding I believe is
> different from what has been discussed so far here.  DSV admits
>  prAtibhAsika  only is , in my  view , indicative that it is purely
> individualistic and  defines   the adhikAri for the same. Very briefly
> stated, the adhikAri is one who is at the  nidhidhyAsana stage, after
> completing shravaNa and manana. DSV is recommended  at this stage for a
> sAdhaka as a preferred prakriyA. The adhikAri would correspond to
> वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः, ब्रह्मसंस्थ  as  explained in BSB 3—20
> etc. Being purely prAtibhAsika, the contents of DSV prakriyA are not to be
> extended for  universal  application as with SDV. It is relevant ONLY for
> the concerned sAdhaka. Understood this way, many of the questions raised in
> the thread  seem to be not relevant at all.
>
> Thus DSV and SDV are really not alternate prakriyAs  for the same adhikAri
> at prior to shravaNa manana stage.
>
> I have not elaborated as I believe it is self explanatory.
>
> Regards
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:22 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>
>> many thanks for highlighting the exact portion from advaita siddhi.
>>
>> //  यदा यत् पश्यति, तत्समकालं तत् सृजतीत्यत्र तात्पर्यात् ।  //
>>
>> Indeed, this prima facie appears to indicate that srishTi is not drishTi,
>> rather something which is having equal span of time as drishTi.
>>
>> My understanding is based primarily on VSM, which not only holds that
>> drishTi alone is srishTi, but also proves that there is no pramANa in
>> holding that there can be any difference between drishTi and srishTi. If we
>> hold drishTi-sama-samayA-srishTi, we are holding that drishTi and srishTi
>> are different and they are merely having same span of time of appearance.
>>
>> *Curiously, VSM holds drishTi-eva-srishTi while explaining the meaning of
>> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi.* I quote from VSM - "अतः अविद्याकल्पितस्य
>> जगतः प्रतीतिसमकालीनमेव सत्त्वमुचितम्, रज्जुसर्पशुक्तिरजतगन्धर्वनगर
>> स्वप्नप्रपञ्चेषु तथादर्शनात्।
>>
>> अत्र इदं निरूपणीयम् - प्रतीति मात्रं सत्त्वं चेत् सत्त्वं प्रातीतिकं
>> मतम्। अविरोधात् मम अपि इष्टं तद्भेदे वद का प्रमा।।
>>
>> प्रतीति सम कालीनं सत्त्वं जगत् इति कः अर्थः? किं प्रतीति: एव सत्त्वम्?
>> किंवा प्रतीति व्यतिरेकेण जगतः पृथक् सत्त्वमस्ति। अन्त्ये तत्र प्रमाणमस्ति न
>> वा?....
>>
>> प्रत्येतव्य प्रतीत्योश्च भेदः प्रामाणिकः कुतः?
>>
>> प्रतीतिमात्रमेव एतद्भाति विश्वं चराचरम्।।"
>>
>> Here, we see in VSM that it is while explaining
>> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi that drishTi-eva-srishTi is propounded - प्रतीति
>> सम कालीनं सत्त्वं जगत् इति कः अर्थः? किं प्रतीति: एव सत्त्वम्?
>>
>> We can also observe that drishTi-eva-srishTi implies
>> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi and also drishTi-sama-sattAka-srishTi. But the
>> opposite is not true. That is to say -- srishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi does
>> not imply drishTi-eva-srishTi.
>>
>> Also, if we see the opening lines of drishTi-srishTi-vichAra of Advaita
>> siddhi as commented upon in LaghuchandrikA, it says - "दृष्टि-अभिन्नत्व
>> इति।  दृष्टिभिन्नत्वे मानाभावात् दृष्ट्यभिन्नत्वं वाच्यम्; तथा च
>> अनन्तरोक्तदोषः। " I could not fully comprehend the statement as it is not
>> clear that drishTi-abhinnatva is being talked with respect to what? If
>> drishTi-abhinnatva is being talked with respect to srishTi, then it can be
>> taken that advaita-siddhi is also holding drishTi-eva-srishTi and the later
>> usage "yada yat kalam pashyati.." is obviously implied by
>> "drishti-eva-srishTi".
>>
>> Also, if we see Shankara's statement in MANDUkya- यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ
>> घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि
>> भूतदर्शनात् - here also, the separate existence of pot etc vis-a-vis chitta
>> is not accepted. DSV does precisely that. There is no pot out there being
>> created. There is pot-thought and that itself is pot.
>>
>> Kindly correct me if I erred anywhere. Again many thanks for sharing the
>> relevant line from advaita-siddhi. Obliged.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_2900682315276862938_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com