[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda and srishTi-drishTi-vAda

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I think the Laghuchandrika is just giving the justification for DSV itself.
Justification being the absence of any pramANa for  srishTi in the absence
of a witness drashtA. Hence  srishTi can be postulated ONLY when it is
associated with DrishTi. Hence drishTi-abhinnatva with srishTi is essential
for validating srishTi.
I am not sure if this is valid since Shruti pramANa can be cited for srishTi
sans DrishTi. Presumably this is addressed in Laghuchandrika later on.

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>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 3:32 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda
> and srishTi-drishTi-vAda
> To: Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>
>
> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> VijnAnavAdin  established   two  points  while refuting other Baudha
> doctrines  in kArika verses 4-25 to 27. First  that external objects do not
> exist , and second  that jnAna exists  even in the absence of  external
> objects.  In kArika 4-28, Advaita SidhAnta  accepts both,  but rejects the
> VijnAnavadins understanding  of the same. As per VijnAnavAda, jnAna is
> kshaNika and  born . In  Advaita SiddhAnta, there is no birth for either
> jnAna or external objects.  SidhAnta   interprets  absence of birth in two
> different ways.  In respect of  jnAna  (Consciousness) , it is not born but
>  *Exists* as nitya and anAdi. (तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं). It does not depend
> on external objects for its *Existence*. In respect of external objects,
> SidhAnta interprets absence of birth as absence of *Real*  birth. External
> objects  perceived  by Consciousness  (चित्तदृश्यं)  do not  have birth
> in reality (चित्तदृश्यं न जायते),  but their birth is AadhyAsic.  This is
> the purport of  the first half of verse 4-28.
>
> The second half of the karika verse  is a rejection  of  the VijnAnavAda.
>
> Anandagiri  tIka  conveys the same meaning. (chitta-birth = pot) seems to
> be incorrect. Please take a relook at your translation of Anandagiri  tIka
> with the above understanding.
>
> Reg  Laghuchandrika portion pointedout by you, my  understanding of
> Sanskrit does not permit me to respond in any definitive way. More
> knowledgeable members may like to respond. Even so  I am attempting a
> response. NM lists ten possible definitions for  drishTi- srishTi. Then
> goes on to point out  defects in all of them , thus dismissing DSV itself.
> AS selects a few of them as acceptable and proceeds  further in defence of
> DSV using them as definitions. Laghuchandrika  starts by giving a
>  justification for these selections. It lists the first justification as
> drishTi-abhinnatva. दृष्टिभिन्नत्वे मानाभावात् दृष्ट्यभिन्नत्वं वाच्यम्.
> DrishTi  and  srishTi cannot be delinked. It cites this requirement as an
> essential one for any definition.
> 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_-9130031578724353689_m_2728809210534644303_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:15 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> <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_-9130031578724353689_m_2728809210534644303_m_2802641778437579315_m_2900682315276862938_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
>> Pune
>>
>> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>>
>