[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Jul 15 02:48:08 EDT 2017
An advaita sadhaka, by default, will have to go through the eka jiva vada
prkriya alone, before arriving at the destination.
There is one, among many, yukti-s that is available in the Shankara
bhashyam for this:
अथैवं सति तदौदासीन्यस्वरूपावस्थाने फले प्राप्ते शास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं प्रति
अर्थित्वं निवर्तते ; तदभावात् शास्त्रस्यापि *शास्त्रत्वं तं प्रति निवर्तत
एव* । तथा *प्रतिपुरुषं** परिसमाप्तं शास्त्रम्* इति न शास्त्रविरोधगन्धोऽपि
For the aspirant who has become established in the Self, there is no more
seeking in respect of the validity of the shaastram, since the seeking is
not there, the shAstratvam of the shAstram too, *for him*, ceases. Thus, *for
each individual* the shAstram ceases to be and therefore there is no
contradiction of the shAstra.
Here the words 'tam prati', and 'pratipuruSham' show that bondage
experienced by each one consists of the whole world and all duality, and it
is his realization that frees him from this world of duality. This is the
phenomenon of eka jiva vaada that each sadhaka will have to come to at the
end of sadhana. It was he that imagined a world and it is for him the
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Adityaji,
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
> > Yes, I too understand Advaita as expounded by Vachaspati Misra.
> If that, I am glad, but you are still sadly mistaken. Bhamatikara
> Vachaspati Mishra accepts DSV with NJV not EJV. That is not to say that he
> is against DSV. Someone who has Bhamati reference for this may kindly
> quote the same, since I haven't studied Bhamati text proper.
> As for tucchatvam, since you have ignored the perspective, it is no proof
> and here's quotation from Bhashyakara using tucchatva example, which I
> mentioned earlier and you don't seem to have landed on:
> Under the Karika:
> न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
> न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ २.३२ ॥
> There is neither creation nor dissolution, neither anyone bound nor seeker,
> neither desirous of liberation nor liberated; this is the highest reality.
> Bhashyakara says:
> प्रकरणार्थोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः — यदा वितथं द्वैतम् आत्मैवैकः परमार्थतः
> सन्, तदा इदं निष्पन्नं भवति — सर्वोऽयं लौकिको वैदिकश्च व्यवहारोऽविद्याविषय
> एवेति । This verse is for the purpose of summing up the entire section—
> when the duality is false and being only one in reality, then this is
> understood— “this entire group of worldly and Vedic transactions is indeed
> based on अविद्या”।
> तदा न निरोधः, निरोधनं निरोधः प्रलयः, उत्पत्तिः जननम्, बद्धः संसारी जीवः,
> साधकः साधनवान्मोक्षस्य, मुमुक्षुः मोचनार्थी, मुक्तः विमुक्तबन्धः ।Then,
> there is no dissolution, creation, transmigrating individual, one having
> means of liberation, one desirous of liberation, liberated.
> उत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभावाद्बद्धादयो न सन्तीत्येषा परमार्थता ।
> Due to absence of creation and dissolution, those bound, etc, are not
> there; this is the highest reality.
> कथमुत्पत्तिप्रलययोरभाव इति, उच्यते — द्वैतस्यासत्त्वात् ।
> How is there an absence of creation and dissolution? This doubt is being
> answered— due to falsity
> of duality.
> This is a संग्रहवाक्य expanded further so after quoting many Shrutis.
> Please read this carefully and tell me what you make of this tucchatva
> example and then go ahead and refute Sw. Prakashananda.
> सतो ह्युत्पत्तिः प्रलयो वा स्यात्, नासतः शशविषाणादेः । There can be
> creation and dissolution of existent only, not of non-existent rabbit's
> horn, etc.
> In any case, I suggest you to study Mandukya with Karika before attacking
> (#) DSV or its great proponents any which way. Else, stick to SDV, which is
> also a great प्रक्रिया that leads to मोक्ष। If you use SDV, try to
> logically land on एकमेवाद्वितीयब्रह्म without using dream example. If you
> use a dream example, you will have unknowingly, reluctantly or helplessly
> subscribed to DSV. This is my firm conclusion. :)
> (#) Any reduction of Vaidika perspective to shunyavAda is construed as an
> attack since it is against श्रुतिमत।
> --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] */
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list