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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Praveen ji.

Many thanks.

//Again, for those who do not know chitta here means chit and not
antaHkaraNa. If there is still any doubt, that is shattered by the bhAShya
on 4.27 so: ननु विपर्यासस्तर्हि असति घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य.... अयमेव
हि स्वभावश्चित्तस्य, यदुत असति निमित्ते घटादौ तद्वदवभासनम् and the TIkA on
it so:

स्वभावशब्देनाविद्योच्यते। न हि भ्रान्तिरभ्रान्तिपूर्विकेति नियमः। सविषयाणां
भ्रमाणामविद्यात्वाभ्युपगमादित्यर्थः॥२७॥//


Can you elaborate upon this a bit more? Chitta, vijnAna, prajnapti etc have
been used as synonyms in 4.25 to 4.27. This chitta is
vritti-upahita-chaitanya as per Advaita i.e. drishTi. As per vijnAnavAdI,
it is something being born every moment.


Advaita too holds, in DSV, momentary vritti, like swapna. Hence, DSV does
not accommodate pratyabhijnA either. The vritti, in case of
vritti-upahita-chaitanya, will have to be of avidyA and certainly not of
antahkaraNa. Thus, drishTi, which is avidyA-vritti-upahita-chaitanya, is
same as srishTi, which is bAhya-artha-avabhAsa.

Thus, in my view, Advaita and vijnAnavAda both hold:
1. There are no bAhya-artha.
2. The bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is chitta. (This chitta is some momentary thing
in vijnAnavAda which is born every moment. In Advaita, it is
vritti-upahita-chaitanya).

Now, chitta meaning chit(=chaitanya) and not vritti-upahita-chaitanya does
not appear to be in line with acceptance of bAhya-artha-AbhAsa-of-chitta
because pure chaitanya cannot have any AbhAsa. We have to incorporate
avidyA for AbhAsa.

So, chitta, I think has to be vritti-upahita-chaitanya and not mere
chaitanya.

I understand that 4.29 bhAshya does say - उक्तैर्हेतुभिरजमेकं ब्रह्मेति
सिद्धम् , यत्पुनरादौ प्रतिज्ञातम् , तत्फलोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः — *अजातं
यच्चित्तं ब्रह्मैव* जायत इति वादिभिः परिकल्प्यते, तत् अजातं जायते यस्मात्
अजातिः प्रकृतिः तस्य ; ततः तस्मात् अजातरूपायाः प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो जन्म न
कथञ्चिद्भविष्यति ॥

The whole idea of 4.28 is to deny birth of chitta, just as birth of
chitta-drishya is denied. The denial of birth of chitta will imply
non-existence of vritti, like the non-existence of bAhya-artha (by denial
of birth of chitta-drishya). The Chaitanya will singularly remain as the
only ajAta vastu.

Is there any error in this understanding?

Regards.

On Thu, 7 Sept 2023, 07:30 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 6:40 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> the point of contention here is -- as mentioned in 4.26, it is the
>> chitta itself which appears as
>> bAhya-artha-AbhAsa.नाप्यर्थाभासश्चित्तात्पृथक् । चित्तमेव हि
>> घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते यथा स्वप्ने
>>
>> VijnAnavAda holds that there is no bAhya-artha. There is
>> bAhya-artha-AbhAsa
>> and that is chitta itself.
>>
> Yes, but kShaNika though. The chitta, which means consciousness here, of
> the Vijnanavadi is in the sense of Siddhanti's vRttyAtmakajnAna.
>
>
>> This has been admitted by Advaita, is my view,
>
> Admitted, but as you know, with the kShanikatva of that consciousness
> being refuted as it is nitya chaitanya pratiphalita in vRttti.
>
>
>> as seen from 4.28 bhAshya --
>> यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता,
>> तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्.
>>
>> Is there any error in this view?
>>
> Not in my understanding. I think you are right. Yet another beauty of
> Mandukya is that it has Anandagiritika on the mUla also, not only on
> bhAShya. And that reads so (Italic emphasis is mine):
>
> ज्ञानस्य सालम्बनत्वप्रसिद्धेस्तत्त्वदृष्ट्या ज्ञेयाभावे ज्ञानमपि न
> स्यादित्याशङ्क्याऽऽह –
>
> चित्तमिति ।
>
> *न हि स्फुरणं सकर्मकं तस्य सकर्मकत्वप्रसिद्ध्यभावात्। जानातेस्तु
> सकर्मकत्वं क्रियाफलत्वकल्पनया स्वीकृतमिति भावः*।
>
> *चित्तस्यार्थस्पर्शित्वाभावेऽपि तदाभासस्पर्शित्वं स्यादित्याशङ्क्याऽऽह *–
>
> नार्थेति ।
>
> तत्र हेतुमाह –
>
> अभूत इति ।
>
> It makes the already clear mUla and bhAShya absolutely clear as being in
> svArtha as it reads! Again, for those who do not know chitta here means
> chit and not antaHkaraNa. If there is still any doubt, that is shattered by
> the bhAShya on 4.27 so: ननु विपर्यासस्तर्हि असति घटादौ घटाद्याभासता
> चित्तस्य.... अयमेव हि स्वभावश्चित्तस्य, यदुत *असति निमित्ते घटादौ
> तद्वदवभासनम् *and the TIkA on it so:
>
> स्वभावशब्देनाविद्योच्यते। न हि भ्रान्तिरभ्रान्तिपूर्विकेति नियमः।
> सविषयाणां भ्रमाणामविद्यात्वाभ्युपगमादित्यर्थः॥२७॥
> The TIkA clarifies that prapanchabhrAnti in siddhAnta is not
> abhrAntipUrvikA, meaning earlier bhrAnti due to anAdikAla ajnAna leads to
> further bhrAnti, thereby refuting this as a case of anyathAkhyAti. It also
> refutes the possibility of vijnAnavAda here since they have no system of
> pratyabhijnA, let alone earlier bhrAnti leading to later bhrAnti.
>
>> This matches completely with drishTi-srishTi-vAda which holds
>> drishTi-eva-srishTi.
>>
> Yes, it does. Even in DSV, this DES is main siddhAnta although
> samakAlIna/DSKS is also accepted, just like EJV is the main siddhAnta
> although NJV is accepted and considered as possible even within DSV by
> some!
>
> I read this thread with a lot of joy, and my understanding is inline with
> your presentation for the most part, though I have almost no study in
> brihatprasthAna AS, etc. I have loved the approach of VSM though, endorsing
> every bit of DSV and putting the onus of proving the bAhya prapancha on the
> pUrvapakShI.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>