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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli 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.//

Perfect. KArikA 4.24 perfectly depicts the position of bAhyArthavAdI which
basically is  बाह्यार्थस्य प्रज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तस्य अस्तिता There is existence
of external objects different from prajnAna (pratIti such as that of shabda
etc). This position is contradicted by vijnAnavAdI who holds in 4.26 that
there is no bAhya-artha. There is only artha-AbhAsa which is same as
chitta.

यस्मान्नास्ति बाह्यं निमित्तम् , अतः चित्तं न स्पृशत्यर्थं
बाह्यालम्बनविषयम् , (This says - there is no bAhya-artha)

नाप्यर्थाभासम् , चित्तत्वात् , स्वप्नचित्तवत् । (this accepts
bAhya-artha-AbhAsa, however it holds that to be chitta. That is,
bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is same as chitta/vijnAna/prajnapti)

..नाप्यर्थाभासश्चित्तात्पृथक् । चित्तमेव हि घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते यथा स्वप्ने ॥
(artha-AbhAsa, accepted by VijnAnavAdI is not different/separate from
chitta like swapna-chitta).

Thus, in addition to // First  that external objects do not exist , and
second  that jnAna exists  even in the absence of  external objects//,
VijnAnavAda also holds that bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is same as chitta.


//In kArika 4-28, Advaita SidhAnta  accepts both,  but rejects the
VijnAnavadins understanding  of the same.//

What about the bAhya-artha-AbhAsa of chitta? That also is accepted by
advaita. Isn't it? यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ *घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य* विज्ञानवादिना
अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्. Thus, advaita holds that it is
chitta itself which appears as bAhya-artha-AbhAsa such as pot, in the
absence of pot.

//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.//

I think positing AdhyAsic birth here for pot is out of context. What has
been accepted by advaita is --- "pot does not exist. There is pot-AbhAsa
and that is non-different from chitta". This is the position of VijnAvAda
also and there is concurrence thereupon with advaita. However, VijnAnavAda
accepts kshanikatva of vijnAna/chitta and birth thereof. That is rejected
by advaita by positing the ultimate doctrine of ajAti.

For rejecting the birth of chitta, an anumAna is used: and the anumAna
adduced is by taking help of VijnAnavAda itself:

यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता,
तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्//

since there is pot-AbhAsatA of chitta, despite non-existence of pot.

तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति अतो न
जायते चित्तम् ।

therefore, there is chitta-janma-avabhAsatA of chitta, despite
non-existence of chitta-janma.

That is what is stated more explicitly by Anandagiri:  विमतं विज्ञानजन्म न
तात्त्विकं दृश्यत्वान्नीलपीतादिवदित्यर्थः. Chitta-janma is not tAtvika, on
account of being drishya, like blue, yellow etc. Here, chitta-janma is
paksha, non-tAtvika-tva is sAdhya, drishyatva is hetu and blue, yellow are
drishTAnta.

This discussion on chitta-janma is, however, not material to our discussion
on DSV which confines itself to drishTi alone being srishTi. That is
srishTi is non-different from drishTi which appears to be accepted by
advaita as stated in 4.28.

The doctrine of ajAti, is the ultimate apavAda-drishTi, as explained in
Samkshepa-shArIraka. However, a step penultimate thereto, the DSV does
appear to be accepted by advaita in so far as explanation of perception etc
is concerned in absence of bAhya-artha.

Regarding Laghuchandrika, I will apply mind.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.