[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Jul 20 01:30:05 EDT 2017

Namaste Praveenji, Subbuji

Firstly, thanks to you both for this illuminating discussion. The
overcoming of paricChinnatvam in DSV that Subbuji referred to is one of the
reasons why I have a personal preference for this prakriya - I alluded to
this in a previous response and was glad to see Subbuji mention it

Our two perspectives boil down to these two differences in our thinking are:
1) Whether drishyatvam is a hetu exclusively reserved for DSV.
2) Whether paricChinnatvam can only be overcome via DSV.

Re 1, yes svapna is drishya, rajjusarpa is drishya. It is also true that
the seer is the 'creator' of those things. It is also true that mithyAtvam
is established because of drishyatvam. However, drishyatvam is not because
of their creation by the seer, the two are independent factors. If it was
dependent on creation by the seer, then we should have simply used
drishTa-srishTitvam as hetu for mithyAtva. Further, there is vyabhichAra in
redness seen in the crystal due to a proximate flower. The redness is
mithyA, it is seen, but it is not created by the seer.

Re 2, this is a compelling argument, but mainly because it is relevant to
me individually, not sure whether it can be extended as a general rule. The
nishedha of attributes like paricChinnatvam etc happens with shruti vAkya
like neti neti also. The jahadajahallakshaNa employed during mahAvAkya
vichAra drops the paricChinnatvam during tvam pada shodhana.

I am not fully convinced that one has to necessarily take on board DSV
after SDV for moksha.

Subbuji's arguments about taking on the statements of jagat srishTi made
from the standpoint of Brahman, as practice during nidhidhyAsanam by the
mumukshu are correct, but again, that is from the standpoint of Brahman.


On 20 Jul 2017 3:10 a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

 I am not saying that mithyAtva is reserved only for​ DSV, but dRshyatvAt
hetu is definitely reserved only for DSV. You could say kAryatvAt, but not
dRshyatvAt. mithyAtvanishchaya in pure SDV has to necessarily be with
dependency example. If you recall, my reasoning for SDV leading to the last
step of DSV was if the dream example or rope-snake is used. If an SDV
follower is completely convinced by ghaTavat kAryatvAt. I'll explain why
that is doubtful next.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list