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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Yes. But this is vijnAna vAda. Not  accepted in Advaita SidddhAnta.

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 Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 3:12 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji
>
> नाप्यर्थाभासम् , *चित्तत्वात्*, स्वप्नचित्तवत् ।
>
> नाप्यर्थाभासश्चित्तात्पृथक् । *चित्तमेव हि घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते* यथा स्वप्ने
>
> Don't these two statements clearly indicate that bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is
> chitta itself?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep, 2023, 2:35 pm H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>>
>> Reg  //  What about the bAhya-artha-AbhAsa of chitta? That also is
>> accepted by advaita. Isn't it? //,
>>
>> No. Not in my understanding.
>>
>> Reg  //  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 //,
>>
>> Appropriate anvaya would be as below
>>
>> //  यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता, * चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता *,
>> तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात् //.
>>
>> This is in conformity with the declaration in the verse // तस्मान्न
>> जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते । //. It is also in conformity with the
>> second half of the verse // तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते
>> पदम् ॥ // which rejects the vijnAnavAda view. It also clearly points to
>> the advaitic view of objects being AdhyAsic in nature.
>> Regards
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:04 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <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_-8462546846470248731_m_-4527933518827446127_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>