[Advaita-l] dRShTi-sRShTi definitions in the advaitasiddhi
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Tue Aug 15 11:56:22 EDT 2017
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> सर्वलोकादिसृष्टिश्च तत्तद्दृष्टिव्यक्तिम् अभिप्रेत्य, यदा यत् पश्यति,
> तत्समकालं तत् सृजति इत्यत्र तात्पर्यात्। Due to the usage तत्-तत्-दृष्टि-
> व्यक्तिम्, I wonder if this statement of MS could also accommodate NJV?
> Sorry for the late reply.
Not at all, I just repeated the question since it was one question to you
in a long mail to Chandramouliji, so it was likely missed. Thanks for your
> I am inclined to think that this does not refer
> to NJV, since the original Brihadaranyaka Upanishad context under
> discussion is about a single self, in the form of a dialog between
> ajAtashatru and gArgya. The word "vyakti", which could be misleading,
> refers to an instance of dRShTi, rather than an individual. So it means
> with each instance of dRShTi, there is a corresponding sRShTi that takes
> place contemporaneously.
Although, I too interpreted दृष्टिव्व्यक्ति as कर्मधारय translating to
"individual sights", but I wondered if it could be made द्वन्द्व by someone
to somehow accommodate Bhamatikara's NJV (although to do so strictly it
should have been व्यक्तिदृष्टि)।
> However, I would also like to add that the DSV discussion is for the most
> part free from NJV or EJV, although it is better to assume EJV, as it
> naturally leads into EJV in the next section.
I had particularly not seen the context in which the AS discussion takes
place and made सङ्गति connections, sorry! But I did see that EJV follows
> The NJV version would have
> gaurava, (heaviness) since each jIva would have to have its own avidyA for
> the purpose of creation.
Thanks, I'd said this very thing to my Acharyaji in one discussion on
Bhamatikara's DSV version that I don't need NJV at all since EJV is
लाघवम्। He seemed to agree. Yet, I don't think I landed this wonderful
thing of अविद्याश्रय with EJV the way you do below.
Further, it may also imply each jIva is the locus
> of its own avidyA. Except vAchaspati, advaitins usually agree with vivaraNa
> in maintaining that Brahman is the locus of avidyA.
> This also ties in what I remember Chandramouliji mentioning recently as
per another book wherein the author says Vivarana is EJV, while Bhamati is
NJV. I was wondering as to how that conclusion was arrived at. Now it
perfectly syncs in. Thanks much; this is very helpful.
--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