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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  //  What about the bAhya-artha-AbhAsa of chitta? That also is accepted
by advaita. Isn't it? //,

No. Not in my understanding.

Reg  //  यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ *घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य* विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता,
तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्. Thus, advaita holds that it is chitta
itself which appears as bAhya-artha-AbhAsa such as pot, in the absence of
pot //,

Appropriate anvaya would be as below

//  यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता, * चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता *,
तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात् //.

This is in conformity with the declaration in the verse // तस्मान्न जायते
चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते । //. It is also in conformity with the second
half of the verse // तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ //
which rejects the vijnAnavAda view. It also clearly points to the advaitic
view of objects being AdhyAsic in nature.
Regards

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 7:04 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli 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.//
>
> Perfect. KArikA 4.24 perfectly depicts the position of bAhyArthavAdI which
> basically is  बाह्यार्थस्य प्रज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तस्य अस्तिता There is existence
> of external objects different from prajnAna (pratIti such as that of shabda
> etc). This position is contradicted by vijnAnavAdI who holds in 4.26 that
> there is no bAhya-artha. There is only artha-AbhAsa which is same as
> chitta.
>
> यस्मान्नास्ति बाह्यं निमित्तम् , अतः चित्तं न स्पृशत्यर्थं
> बाह्यालम्बनविषयम् , (This says - there is no bAhya-artha)
>
> नाप्यर्थाभासम् , चित्तत्वात् , स्वप्नचित्तवत् । (this accepts
> bAhya-artha-AbhAsa, however it holds that to be chitta. That is,
> bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is same as chitta/vijnAna/prajnapti)
>
> ..नाप्यर्थाभासश्चित्तात्पृथक् । चित्तमेव हि घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते यथा स्वप्ने
> ॥ (artha-AbhAsa, accepted by VijnAnavAdI is not different/separate from
> chitta like swapna-chitta).
>
> Thus, in addition to // First  that external objects do not exist , and
> second  that jnAna exists  even in the absence of  external objects//,
> VijnAnavAda also holds that bAhya-artha-AbhAsa is same as chitta.
>
>
> //In kArika 4-28, Advaita SidhAnta  accepts both,  but rejects the
> VijnAnavadins understanding  of the same.//
>
> What about the bAhya-artha-AbhAsa of chitta? That also is accepted by
> advaita. Isn't it? यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ *घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य* विज्ञानवादिना
> अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्. Thus, advaita holds that it is
> chitta itself which appears as bAhya-artha-AbhAsa such as pot, in the
> absence of pot.
>
> //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.//
>
> I think positing AdhyAsic birth here for pot is out of context. What has
> been accepted by advaita is --- "pot does not exist. There is pot-AbhAsa
> and that is non-different from chitta". This is the position of VijnAvAda
> also and there is concurrence thereupon with advaita. However, VijnAnavAda
> accepts kshanikatva of vijnAna/chitta and birth thereof. That is rejected
> by advaita by positing the ultimate doctrine of ajAti.
>
> For rejecting the birth of chitta, an anumAna is used: and the anumAna
> adduced is by taking help of VijnAnavAda itself:
>
> यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता,
> तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्//
>
> since there is pot-AbhAsatA of chitta, despite non-existence of pot.
>
> तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति अतो
> न जायते चित्तम् ।
>
> therefore, there is chitta-janma-avabhAsatA of chitta, despite
> non-existence of chitta-janma.
>
> That is what is stated more explicitly by Anandagiri:  विमतं विज्ञानजन्म न
> तात्त्विकं दृश्यत्वान्नीलपीतादिवदित्यर्थः. Chitta-janma is not tAtvika, on
> account of being drishya, like blue, yellow etc. Here, chitta-janma is
> paksha, non-tAtvika-tva is sAdhya, drishyatva is hetu and blue, yellow are
> drishTAnta.
>
> This discussion on chitta-janma is, however, not material to our
> discussion on DSV which confines itself to drishTi alone being srishTi.
> That is srishTi is non-different from drishTi which appears to be accepted
> by advaita as stated in 4.28.
>
> The doctrine of ajAti, is the ultimate apavAda-drishTi, as explained in
> Samkshepa-shArIraka. However, a step penultimate thereto, the DSV does
> appear to be accepted by advaita in so far as explanation of perception etc
> is concerned in absence of bAhya-artha.
>
> Regarding Laghuchandrika, I will apply mind.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
<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>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>