[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Eka-sattA-vAda vis-a-vis sattA-traividhya-vAda

[H S Chandramouli]

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> Reg  // Whether it is bhAshya, or texts by later AchAryAs or PurANAs or
> any other VedAntic text, we will have statements which are valid only in
> specific models such as SDV, DSV, Eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda,
> ajAtivAda etc //,
>
> Not in my understanding. Entire Bhashya can be and has been explained by
> several AchAryAs solely in terms of SDV. Others however, presenting
> alternative prakriyAs, cite specific portions of Bhashya as also capable of
> being understood as supportive of their prakriyAs .
>
> I responded with my views since you specifically asked for it. It is upto
> you to consider the same as you deem fit. With this I stop.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:20 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>>
>> Whether it is bhAshya, or texts by later AchAryAs or PurANAs or any other
>> VedAntic text, we will have statements which are valid only in specific
>> models such as SDV, DSV, Eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, ajAtivAda
>> etc.
>>
>> BhAshya statements are not in a singular model.
>>
>> Take for example:
>> 1. वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॥ २९ ॥   अत्रोच्यते — न
>> स्वप्नादिप्रत्ययवज्जाग्रत्प्रत्यया भवितुमर्हन्ति । कस्मात् ? वैधर्म्यात् —
>> वैधर्म्यं हि भवति स्वप्नजागरितयोः ।
>> 2. त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं
>> प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव ।
>>
>> Now, BhAshyakAra will not explicitly say that the former statement is
>> valid in SDV while the latter in DSV. We are required to understand that
>> these statements are valid in different model. Each model relevant for
>> different adhikArI.
>>
>> As BhAshyakAra Himself clarifies -यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता
>> उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात्
>> वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति
>> वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां *दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां*
>> *मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन* सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् ।
>> वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ;* न तु
>> परमार्थबुद्ध्या* ।
>>
>> So, you will find that MANDUkya Upanishad will hardly talk about SDV.
>> Rather it will focus on DSV and ajAtivAda.
>>
>> Similarly, you will find BhAshyakAra somewhere stressing upon the
>> absolute need of the fixed order in the sequence of creation (first space,
>> then air, then fire etc.) and accordingly reconciling different Upanishads,
>> and elsewhere throwing this entire argument out of window by equating them
>> to an arthavAda or story - अस्तु तर्हि सर्वमेवेदमनुपपन्नम् । न,
>> अत्रात्माववोधमात्रस्य विवक्षितत्वात्सर्वोऽय*मर्थवाद *इत्यदोषः ।
>> मायाविवद्वा ; महामायावी देवः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः सर्वमेतच्चकार
>> सुखावबोधप्रतिपत्त्यर्थं *लोकवदाख्यायिकादिप्रपञ्च* इति युक्ततरः पक्षः ।
>>
>> In fact, the truth is ajAtivAda. Even this vivarta-vAda, which
>> encompasses DSV, SDV, eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, is meant for
>> children. The truth is ajAti and not viavrta. The Yoga-vAsisTha says, as is
>> quoted by VedAnta SiddhAnta MuktAvalI - बालान् प्रति विवर्तो ऽयं ब्रह्मणः
>> सकलं जगत्।
>>
>> So, bhAshya itself segregates its teachings by stating some of them to be
>> story/arthavAda/intended for manda-adhikArI etc.
>>
>> That is where later AchAryAs help us to understand what fits where. They
>> would clearly say - look, this is valid in SDV, this in DSV, this in
>> Eka-sattA-vAda, this in sattA-traividhya-vAda etc.
>>
>> That there is eka-sattA is the heart and soul of advaita vedAnta. We need
>> not search for it anywhere in bhAshya. It is the very meaning of advaita
>> vedAnta. For sattA-traividhya, we nee to look. Not for eka-sattA.
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>
>>
>>