[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda - eka jeeva vaada
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 00:54:53 CDT 2016
For someone with a traditional study of the prasthana traya bhashya the
fact that EJV DSV is the default prakriya enshrined therein is beyond
doubt and disputation.
On Jun 13, 2016 10:07 AM, "Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Thank you for your participation, Sri Chandramouli ji.
> In relation to your comment that the status of creation in PDSV is not
> mithyA - ie it is atyanta asat - is not true.
> PrakashAnanda says आत्मसत्तातिरिक्ततया द्वैतसत्ता अभावात् - Duality has no
> existence apart from Atma (page 164).
> If he had wanted to unconditionally allocate tucchatva to dvaita sattA, he
> would not have made that statement.
> This idea is in line with Shankaracharya's Chandogya bhAshya "ata:
> sadAtmanA sarvavyavahArANAm sarvavikArANAm cha satyatvam sattoanyatve cha
> anritatvamiti". The existence of duality is the existence of Atma, and
> apart from Atma it is non-existent only.
> Therefore he considers it mithyA only from the standpoint of logic.
> However, ultimately, only from a paramArtha standpoint does he call it
> tuccha - but that is a view shared by all - including Shankaracharya and
> > Sri Anand Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> > It is clear from Sidhantaleshasamgraha that there are several versions
> > DSV covering different aspects like number and nature of Jivas, nature of
> > creation (real or unrea letc )and different combinations of such basic
> > features. I will confine myself to one version only namely the one
> > postulated by Sri PrakAshAnanda in Sidhantamuktavali and use the
> > PDSV for brevity.
> > It is also clear that in both PDSV and the Bhashya (Sri Bhagavatpada)
> > pAramArthika status is identical. The issue would then be the status of
> > creation for which there are three options namely satya, mithya or
> > asat(tuccha). In my understanding mithya has been chosen for this in the
> > Bhashya while asat(tucccha) has been chosen in PDSV. Elaborate and
> > comprehensive reasons have been advanced in the Bhashya for rejecting the
> > other two options. Elaborate reasons have been advanced in PDSV also in
> > support of its stand. This being of fundamental significance, it is in my
> > view an unbridgeable difference between the two and hence PDSV cannot be
> > considered as just a prakriya bheda within the ambit of the Sidhanta
> > advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada.It needs to be recognized as an entirely
> > different prakriya.
> > Also It is quite reasonable to admit that certain specific ideas and
> > arguments might have been adopted in PDSV from previously available works
> > of authors like Vimuktatman or Vidyaranya ( even though their theories
> > could be different ) in support of specific ideas in its own postulate.
> > It is the same with other authors also. However it is too farfetched , in
> > my view , to consider such instances as evidence of their ( previous
> > authors ) endorsement or inclination in favour of its (PDSV) own
> > itself. It is inconceivable, in my understanding , that persons like
> > Vimuktatman or Swami Vidyaranya who are so totally committed to the
> > could endorse the PDSV which, on fundamental issues of great
> > is quite contradictory to the Bhashya.
> > With this I wish to conclude, on my part , the discussion. Afterall all
> > good things have to come to an end. It has been a very useful,
> > and informative discussion from which I have learnt a lot. Thanks a lot
> > the same.
> > Pranams and Regards
> 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