[Advaita-l] dRShTi-sRShTi definitions in the advaitasiddhi

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Fri Aug 11 20:20:23 EDT 2017

Namaste Chandramouliji, Anandji,

(combining replies to reduce flooding the list)

Anandji, thanks for the elaboration on what dRshyatva meant earlier and
also on the avidyA shakti role in DSV (which I assume is in one flavour of
the same).


On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:54 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>

> No No. I have not considered three sattAs for any of the two versions of
> DSV you have listed.
​Okay... however...

I have no doubt pointed out, in this thread itself, that three sattAs are
> being admitted by Sri MS during the course of his arguments, which has been
> refuted  by Sri Anand Ji. I have left it at that.
​... this gave my earlier impression. For what its worth, I didn't see MS
admitting three sattAs.​ I'm not sure how you landed that conclusion.

> I am not even sure which of the above two DSV versions Sri MS is
> presenting.
It has the capacity to include both, wherein it depends on how much of
avidyA do you use as a shakti. Following the line of argument used by
Anandji in his last reply to me, with avidyA as mAyAshakti as used by
Bhagavan Bhashyakara also, one could say it is DSKS. For DES, one doesn't
need additional tools. There is more lAghavam (Occam's razor) there.

> But I do have a problem with two sattAs for DES. Since there is no
> creation, other than seeing itself, which is the second sattA? Is seeing
> itself considered as the second sattA and called prAtibhAsika?
​Yes, just as dream in SDV. sattA just means a reality, whether satyasya
satya pAramArthika or apparent reality prAtibhAsika. However, you are
moving a little ahead of DSV, which is truly the goal. Its good thinking
that if dRShTi alone is sRShTi, then where is the sRShTi?! That lands one
into AV (ajAtavAda), which is the way Mandukya smoothly glides from DSV
into AV.

> I had not associated prAtibhAsika with an act of seeing. I had always
> associated it with an object. Hence my problem.
Well, in either version, there is an apparent world of objects, be it due
to seeing or seeing itself being such a world. So sattA still holds as a
tag for the world.

--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] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list