[Advaita-l] A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda and srishTi-drishTi-vAda

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Mon Sep 4 06:37:33 EDT 2023

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Please do not misunderstand me. My intention is not to correct any errors
in understanding on the part of others. My understanding could be as faulty
or correct as that of anyone else. But where facts  are concerned. I am
only presenting  them as such, in order that any understanding  should be
based on correct facts and there could be exchange of views based on them.

Reg the MandUkya  Bhashya  on  4-28 cited by you, please see the immediate
continuation of the Bhashya cited. It reads

//  तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति //

//   therefore it also stands to reason  that Consciousness appears to be
born  even though there is no such thing as birth //.

This  admits the separate  (vis-à-vis chitta) AdhyAsic existence of
objects like pots etc. DSV of VSM shade does not admit this.

Reg the laghuchandrika  portion cited by you, my understanding  is  that it
summarizes the topic of discussion.  ** If drishTi-abhinnatva is being
talked with respect to srishTi ** as drishTi- srishTi , then  NM lists ten
possibilities and points out the defects in all of them. This is later
refuted by AS.

Reg  DSV/EJV  per se (of the AS variety), my understanding I believe is
different from what has been discussed so far here.  DSV admits
 prAtibhAsika  only is , in my  view , indicative that it is purely
individualistic and  defines   the adhikAri for the same. Very briefly
stated, the adhikAri is one who is at the  nidhidhyAsana stage, after
completing shravaNa and manana. DSV is recommended  at this stage for a
sAdhaka as a preferred prakriyA. The adhikAri would correspond to
वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः, ब्रह्मसंस्थ  as  explained in BSB 3—20 etc.
Being purely prAtibhAsika, the contents of DSV prakriyA are not to be
extended for  universal  application as with SDV. It is relevant ONLY for
the concerned sAdhaka. Understood this way, many of the questions raised in
the thread  seem to be not relevant at all.

Thus DSV and SDV are really not alternate prakriyAs  for the same adhikAri
at prior to shravaNa manana stage.

I have not elaborated as I believe it is self explanatory.


On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 12:22 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
> many thanks for highlighting the exact portion from advaita siddhi.
> //  यदा यत् पश्यति, तत्समकालं तत् सृजतीत्यत्र तात्पर्यात् ।  //
> Indeed, this prima facie appears to indicate that srishTi is not drishTi,
> rather something which is having equal span of time as drishTi.
> My understanding is based primarily on VSM, which not only holds that
> drishTi alone is srishTi, but also proves that there is no pramANa in
> holding that there can be any difference between drishTi and srishTi. If we
> hold drishTi-sama-samayA-srishTi, we are holding that drishTi and srishTi
> are different and they are merely having same span of time of appearance.
> *Curiously, VSM holds drishTi-eva-srishTi while explaining the meaning of
> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi.* I quote from VSM - "अतः अविद्याकल्पितस्य
> जगतः प्रतीतिसमकालीनमेव सत्त्वमुचितम्, रज्जुसर्पशुक्तिरजतगन्धर्वनगर
> स्वप्नप्रपञ्चेषु तथादर्शनात्।
> अत्र इदं निरूपणीयम् - प्रतीति मात्रं सत्त्वं चेत् सत्त्वं प्रातीतिकं मतम्।
> अविरोधात् मम अपि इष्टं तद्भेदे वद का प्रमा।।
> प्रतीति सम कालीनं सत्त्वं जगत् इति कः अर्थः? किं प्रतीति: एव सत्त्वम्?
> किंवा प्रतीति व्यतिरेकेण जगतः पृथक् सत्त्वमस्ति। अन्त्ये तत्र प्रमाणमस्ति न
> वा?....
> प्रत्येतव्य प्रतीत्योश्च भेदः प्रामाणिकः कुतः?
> प्रतीतिमात्रमेव एतद्भाति विश्वं चराचरम्।।"
> Here, we see in VSM that it is while explaining
> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi that drishTi-eva-srishTi is propounded - प्रतीति
> सम कालीनं सत्त्वं जगत् इति कः अर्थः? किं प्रतीति: एव सत्त्वम्?
> We can also observe that drishTi-eva-srishTi implies
> drishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi and also drishTi-sama-sattAka-srishTi. But the
> opposite is not true. That is to say -- srishTi-sama-kAlIna-srishTi does
> not imply drishTi-eva-srishTi.
> Also, if we see the opening lines of drishTi-srishTi-vichAra of Advaita
> siddhi as commented upon in LaghuchandrikA, it says - "दृष्टि-अभिन्नत्व
> इति।  दृष्टिभिन्नत्वे मानाभावात् दृष्ट्यभिन्नत्वं वाच्यम्; तथा च
> अनन्तरोक्तदोषः। " I could not fully comprehend the statement as it is not
> clear that drishTi-abhinnatva is being talked with respect to what? If
> drishTi-abhinnatva is being talked with respect to srishTi, then it can be
> taken that advaita-siddhi is also holding drishTi-eva-srishTi and the later
> usage "yada yat kalam pashyati.." is obviously implied by
> "drishti-eva-srishTi".
> Also, if we see Shankara's statement in MANDUkya- यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ
> घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि
> भूतदर्शनात् - here also, the separate existence of pot etc vis-a-vis chitta
> is not accepted. DSV does precisely that. There is no pot out there being
> created. There is pot-thought and that itself is pot.
> Kindly correct me if I erred anywhere. Again many thanks for sharing the
> relevant line from advaita-siddhi. Obliged.
> Regards.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list