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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 6:40 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> the point of contention here is -- as mentioned in 4.26, it is the
> chitta itself which appears as
> bAhya-artha-AbhAsa.नाप्यर्थाभासश्चित्तात्पृथक् । चित्तमेव हि
> घटाद्यर्थवदवभासते यथा स्वप्ने
>
> VijnAnavAda holds that there is no bAhya-artha. There is bAhya-artha-AbhAsa
> and that is chitta itself.
>
Yes, but kShaNika though. The chitta, which means consciousness here, of
the Vijnanavadi is in the sense of Siddhanti's vRttyAtmakajnAna.


> This has been admitted by Advaita, is my view,

Admitted, but as you know, with the kShanikatva of that consciousness being
refuted as it is nitya chaitanya pratiphalita in vRttti.


> as seen from 4.28 bhAshya --
> यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता,
> तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात्.
>
> Is there any error in this view?
>
Not in my understanding. I think you are right. Yet another beauty of
Mandukya is that it has Anandagiritika on the mUla also, not only on
bhAShya. And that reads so (Italic emphasis is mine):

ज्ञानस्य सालम्बनत्वप्रसिद्धेस्तत्त्वदृष्ट्या ज्ञेयाभावे ज्ञानमपि न
स्यादित्याशङ्क्याऽऽह –

चित्तमिति ।

*न हि स्फुरणं सकर्मकं तस्य सकर्मकत्वप्रसिद्ध्यभावात्। जानातेस्तु सकर्मकत्वं
क्रियाफलत्वकल्पनया स्वीकृतमिति भावः*।

*चित्तस्यार्थस्पर्शित्वाभावेऽपि तदाभासस्पर्शित्वं स्यादित्याशङ्क्याऽऽह *–

नार्थेति ।

तत्र हेतुमाह –

अभूत इति ।

It makes the already clear mUla and bhAShya absolutely clear as being in
svArtha as it reads! Again, for those who do not know chitta here means
chit and not antaHkaraNa. If there is still any doubt, that is shattered by
the bhAShya on 4.27 so: ननु विपर्यासस्तर्हि असति घटादौ घटाद्याभासता
चित्तस्य.... अयमेव हि स्वभावश्चित्तस्य, यदुत *असति निमित्ते घटादौ
तद्वदवभासनम् *and the TIkA on it so:

स्वभावशब्देनाविद्योच्यते। न हि भ्रान्तिरभ्रान्तिपूर्विकेति नियमः। सविषयाणां
भ्रमाणामविद्यात्वाभ्युपगमादित्यर्थः॥२७॥
The TIkA clarifies that prapanchabhrAnti in siddhAnta is not
abhrAntipUrvikA, meaning earlier bhrAnti due to anAdikAla ajnAna leads to
further bhrAnti, thereby refuting this as a case of anyathAkhyAti. It also
refutes the possibility of vijnAnavAda here since they have no system of
pratyabhijnA, let alone earlier bhrAnti leading to later bhrAnti.

> This matches completely with drishTi-srishTi-vAda which holds
> drishTi-eva-srishTi.
>
Yes, it does. Even in DSV, this DES is main siddhAnta although
samakAlIna/DSKS is also accepted, just like EJV is the main siddhAnta
although NJV is accepted and considered as possible even within DSV by
some!

I read this thread with a lot of joy, and my understanding is inline with
your presentation for the most part, though I have almost no study in
brihatprasthAna AS, etc. I have loved the approach of VSM though, endorsing
every bit of DSV and putting the onus of proving the bAhya prapancha on the
pUrvapakShI.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */