[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Fwd: A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda and srishTi-drishTi-vAda

[H S Chandramouli]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A comparative analysis of drishTi-srishTi-vAda and
srishTi-drishTi-vAda
To: Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>


Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

VijnAnavAdin  established   two  points  while refuting other Baudha
doctrines  in kArika verses 4-25 to 27. First  that external objects do not
exist , and second  that jnAna exists  even in the absence of  external
objects.  In kArika 4-28, Advaita SidhAnta  accepts both,  but rejects the
VijnAnavadins understanding  of the same. As per VijnAnavAda, jnAna is
kshaNika and  born . In  Advaita SiddhAnta, there is no birth for either
jnAna or external objects.  SidhAnta   interprets  absence of birth in two
different ways.  In respect of  jnAna  (Consciousness) , it is not born but
 *Exists* as nitya and anAdi. (तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं). It does not depend
on external objects for its *Existence*. In respect of external objects,
SidhAnta interprets absence of birth as absence of *Real*  birth. External
objects  perceived  by Consciousness  (चित्तदृश्यं)  do not  have birth in
reality (चित्तदृश्यं न जायते),  but their birth is AadhyAsic.  This is the
purport of  the first half of verse 4-28.

The second half of the karika verse  is a rejection  of  the VijnAnavAda.

Anandagiri  tIka  conveys the same meaning. (chitta-birth = pot) seems to
be incorrect. Please take a relook at your translation of Anandagiri  tIka
with the above understanding.

Reg  Laghuchandrika portion pointedout by you, my  understanding of
Sanskrit does not permit me to respond in any definitive way. More
knowledgeable members may like to respond. Even so  I am attempting a
response. NM lists ten possible definitions for  drishTi- srishTi. Then
goes on to point out  defects in all of them , thus dismissing DSV itself.
AS selects a few of them as acceptable and proceeds  further in defence of
DSV using them as definitions. Laghuchandrika  starts by giving a
 justification for these selections. It lists the first justification as
drishTi-abhinnatva. दृष्टिभिन्नत्वे मानाभावात् दृष्ट्यभिन्नत्वं वाच्यम्.
DrishTi  and  srishTi cannot be delinked. It cites this requirement as an
essential one for any definition.
Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_2728809210534644303_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:15 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> //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.//
>
> How exactly does it admit the AdhyAsic existence of objects like pot etc?
> I am not clear about it. Please explain.
>
> From 4.25 to 4.27, vijnAnavAdI proved that there was no existence of
> external objects like pot. BhAshya says:-
>
> यस्मान्नास्ति बाह्यं निमित्तम् , अतः चित्तं न स्पृशत्यर्थं
> बाह्यालम्बनविषयम् , नाप्यर्थाभासम् , चित्तत्वात् , स्वप्नचित्तवत् ।
>
> Basically, as per bhAshya, the external objects are not and it is the
> chitta alone which is responsible for knowledge. There is rejection of
> bAhya-artha-vAda by vijnAnavAda as that is acceptable to us. VijnAnavAda
> holds that every moment, there is a separate thought born which is
> responsible for pot-thought, cloth-thought and there is no requirement of
> separate existence of pot, cloth etc.
>
> This is acceptable to advaita in so far as non-existence of pot etc is
> concerned. However, for the very same reason, there can be no birth of
> vijnAna either.
>
> Anandagiri says -
>
> तस्मादित्यादि व्याचष्टे – यस्मादिति । भूतदर्शनाद्घटादेर्मृदादिमात्रं भूतं
> वस्तुतत्त्वं तस्यापि विज्ञप्तिमात्रं तत्त्वं तस्य शास्त्रतो दर्शनादिति
> यावत्। द्वितीयपादं दृष्टान्तत्वेन विभजते – यथेति । विमतं विज्ञानजन्म न
> तात्त्विकं दृश्यत्वान्नीलपीतादिवदित्यर्थः। विपक्षे दोषमाह – अत इति ।
> तत्त्वतो विज्ञानस्य जन्मायोगाद् ये तस्य तात्त्विकं जन्म पश्यन्ति ते
> पक्ष्यादीनां खेऽपि पदं पश्यन्तीत्यन्वयः।
>
> Basically the idea here is - just as in case of pot etc, there is
> pot-appearance (pot-AbhAsatA) to chitta despite the non-existence of pot,
> similarly there is chitta-birth-perception (chitta-jAyamAna-avabhAsatA) to
> chitta despite there being no chitta-birth. (chitta-birth = pot).
> Anandagiri makes it clearer by using the word vijnAna-janma. In anumAna
> used by him, paksha is vijnAna-janma, atAtvikatva is sAdhya, drishyatva is
> hetu and blue, yellow are examples.
>
> The crux of the discussion in 4.28 is -- there are no external objects
> such as pot and there is pot-appearance despite non-existence of pot.
> (4.25-4.27). Therefore, there is no chitta-janma (vijnAna-janma) and there
> is chitta-janma-appearance despite the non-existence of chitta-janma. (4.28)
>
> How does it posit AdhyAsic existence of pot - is not clear to me at all.
> Chitta alone is sufficient for pot-knowledge.
> -------------
>
> //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.//
>
> Not clear. Kindly elaborate. What is your view? The drishTi-abhinnatva is
> being talked vis-a-vis what?
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_2728809210534644303_m_2802641778437579315_m_2900682315276862938_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>
>
> --
> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
> Pune
>
> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>