[Advaita-l] dRShTi-sRShTi definitions in the advaitasiddhi
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Fri Aug 11 05:04:03 EDT 2017
I have nothing more to contribute to the discussion at this stage. Hence
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > Let me refer to this as DSV(MS). This clearly admits three levels of
> > Reality, PAramArthika/PrAtibhAsika/Mithya. Definitely not the type
> > discussed all along here where only two levels were considered. I am not
> > sure if this is what Praveen Ji intended in his presentations. He may
> > to clarify/confirm.
> It is not the same as three levels of reality, rather the six entities are
> said to be anAdi, without a beginning. Appayya dIkShita also mentions this
> and justifies it, not surprisingly, using the dream analogy. In a dream, it
> is possible that some objects are pre-existing while others are created as
> they are seen. So there is no contradiction with the two orders of reality
> maintained by DSV.
> > While only six entities are mentioned, it is to be noted that avidya has
> > infinite number of parts.Since combination of avidya and cit is also
> > covered in the six, there are practically infinite number of entities
> > admitted. In fact satyAnRtamithunIkaraNa covers entire charAchara
> > srishti. All this will be mithya and not prAtibhAsika.
> The combination of avidyA and cit is anAdi but this anAditva cannot be
> extended to anything else where avidyA may play a role. It is only the
> combination that is anAdi, not the resulting effects. If that is not the
> case, DSV becomes a mockery of a theory, not even worth studying! It is
> erroneous to argue that the whole world is an effect of the combination of
> Brahman as the substratum and avidyA which projects the world and hence the
> world is outside the scope of dRShTi-sRShTi. The world is definitely
> subject to dRShTi-sRShTi and that is precisely why Jagat is not included in
> the list of six anAdi's. I am not interested in arguing further on this
> > Also, has Sri MS stipulated to only one jIva in his analysis. This may
> > please be confirmed. I am not sure if all the above is admitted or
> > intended. Else whether my understanding of the above is wrong.
> The discussion on DSV is followed by the ekajIva vAda discussion. The DSV
> discussion is independent of EJV or NJV, although it makes more sense to
> assume EJV. Towards the end of the discussion, Madhusudana replies to an
> objection regarding DSV that implies EJV.
> > Sidhantaleshasamgraha refers to two versions of DSV. One is mentioned as
> > that of Sri Prakashananda as in Vedanta Sidhantamuktavali. Is the other
> > DSV(MS) ?. Or is it a third one.
> Madhusudana does not exclusively deal with the first type of DSV, ie.
> dRShTi-samakAlIna-sRShTi in his discussion, since there is a reference to
> dRShTi itself being sRShTi, which is the second type.
> >In continuation, has Sri MS, in any of his other works, presented any
> version of DSV ?
> siddhAntabindu and vedAntakalpalatikA are two works of Madhusudana wherein
> DSV is also discussed.
> 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