[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda - eka jeeva vaada
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 02:23:04 CDT 2016
Dear Sri Anand Ji,
Reg << You seem to have completely misinterpreted Dasgupta as well as
PrakAshAnanda.>>, Well. “misinterpretation” or “ differing interpretations
”‘ are not only possible but even likely in respect of prakAshAnanda as the
subject is very abstract. Specific word is one’s own preference. But
“misinterpretation” in respect of Dasgupta?? That would be quite a feat.
Obviously I disagree.
Reg << अतोऽविद्याकल्पितस्य जगतः प्रतीतिसमकालीनमेव सत्त्वमुचितम्,
रज्जुसर्प-शुक्तिरजत-गन्धर्वनगर-स्वप्नप्रपञ्चेषु तथादर्शनात्। (Page 40, VSM
with English translation by Arthur Venis).
Here PrakAshAnanda is saying the world is imagined due to Avidya, and its
existence (not its creation, which is the other view of DSV) is
cotemporaneous with its cognition. And he gives the examples of snake-rope,
silver-nacre, a mirage, and the dream world.
What more do you want as proof to make the point that for PrakAshAnanda,
the world is prAtibhAsika satya, not tuccha or totally nonexistent like a
The phenomena of snake-rope,
silver-nacre, a mirage, and the dream world have been explained by
different schools of thought in different ways. All of them are not agreed
that they represent prAtibhAsika satya. So many well defined and well
established terms like mithya, prAtibhAsikasatya, anirvachanIya etc were
already available to PrakAshananda to explain the status of the world had
he deemed it fit instead of using the examples of snake-rope,
silver-nacre, a mirage, and the dream world.But he does not use any of them
even once in his work. On the otherhand, it is he who has preferred to use
the word “tuccha” instead of those terms in several places in his work.It
is not that I am saying so. Evidently he does not intend those examples as
representative of prAtibhAsikasatya. As you yourself say, << It is
better to hear
the words straight from the horse's mouth rather than rely on other people
quoting what is supposed to have been said by PrakAshAnanda.>>. Why should
we use the term prAtibhAsikasatya which he has so conspicuously avoided
instead of the term tuccha which he has preferred to use ??
I think hereon we will only be repeating our respective positions if the
discussion were to continue. It is time to call it a day, agree to
disagree, and let the issue to rest.
Thanks once again for the interesting discussion.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list