[Advaita-l] [advaitin] World is mind alone: Shankara (sharing an old post) in the Mundakopanishad bhashya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> Namaste Michael ji.

> But notice what is *not* co-negated in either case: the dream itself, and
> the *citta* whose *pariṇāma* the dream-elephant is standardly held to be
> — the dreamer's own state, real enough as a state of the dreamer to be
> recollected on waking as "I dreamed of an elephant."
>
You agree that neither elephant nor elephant-citta existed in dream. You
agree that neither elephant nor elephant-citta exists in waking.

Now, you saw Michael and Michael-citta in dream. Like elephant and
elephant-citta, they did not exist in dream. Similarly, neither Michael nor
Michael-citta exist in waking.

GK 4.67's own conclusion is not "citta is unreal absolutely"; it is
*citta-dṛśyavac
> cittam api naivāsti paramārthataḥ* — non-existent *like its object*, i.e.
> at the object's level, the level at which elephant and elephant-citta stood
> as a seen pair. What survives is one level up:
>
Nothing survived sir except the ultimate reality which is present in both
dream and waking. That is not one level up. That is the only reality on
which elephant and elephant-citta of both waking and dream are non-existent
appearances.

> *draṣṭur ekatvam* — the oneness of the seer — which is precisely why the
> chapter's own summary word is *draṣṭā*, not *cittam*, and why 4.67's
> close is *jāgrat-svapnayor ubhayor api dṛṣṭr-aikatvaṃ tu vaitathye
> pratipāditam* — sameness of the seer *established through* vaitathya, the
> negation being the route, not the terminus.
>
Sir, whether it is waking-citta or dream-citta, it is held to be on the
same footing as elephant-citta, all non-existent appearances. This is being
shown on the force of anumāna, where the hetu is "seen by draṣṭā".

First, one needs to arrive at this. If one is fine with that, obviously it
transpires that the draṣṭā is the sole reality which sees, always sees.
Merely sees. Whether it is waking-citta or dream-citta or whatever is seen,
they are all non-existent.

> That is the whole of my point, restated once more since it seems not to
> have landed: dvaita including citta is *mithyā* — appearance without
> being — I have granted this from the first reply in this thread.
>
Other followers of SSSS ji like Bhaskar ji etc don't agree. Both of you can
sit down and decide what is it that SSSS ji holds. Both of you claim to be
disciple of SSSS ji with no coherence. He would reject your claim that
citta is mithyā i.e. appearance without being.

> What I have not granted, because the texts you are citing do not say it,
> is that this makes citta the *upādāna* of the seen world at any level,
> even a level later negated.
>
Sir, ācārya says - whatever is seen by citta are not at all different from
citta. What does this mean? Please read 4.64 to 4.66. What do you mean? The
dream-world with elephants and tables and elephant-citta and rivers and
moutanins is not mind? Then what is it? An interaction with a young child
of eight year may help one in this regard.

> The rope-snake needs no rope-substance called "mind" to be silver from; it
> needs a rope. Here the rope is the draṣṭā throughout, and citta — like the
> silver — is what is *negated*, not what does the *appearing*.
>
These are all useless stuff. Sitting in rope, you don't perceive
rope-snake. Only while being in non-rope, you perceive rope-snake. Sitting
in dṛśya, reality appears as draṣṭā. You need illusory-dṛśya to call the
reality as draṣṭā. And the moment you have accepted illusion, you ipso
facto need a mind/ignorance. The illusory rope-snake thus has to be nothing
but mind/ignorance.

This means that draṣṭṛtva too is illusory. The reality i.e. rope is not
draṣṭā but "draṣṭā without draṣṭṛtva".

> Since you've said the case is closed and the literature unnecessary — I'll
> leave it there and let the list judge the texts on their own. I'm grateful
> for the exchange regardless; it's sharpened both papers.
>
I would like you and Bhaskar ji to clarify whether both of you agree with
the other person's understanding of SSSS ji.

In my view, SSSS ji conveniently says whatever he wished at whichever
place. There is no harmony and logic. So, for me, it is not worthy of being
paid attention. Since you differ, you can choose to invest time and energy
to reconcile. As per me, he did not have understanding of bhāṣya.

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.