[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 2:45 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Can you elaborate upon this a bit more? Chitta, vijnAna, prajnapti etc
> have been used as synonyms in 4.25 to 4.27. This chitta is
> vritti-upahita-chaitanya as per Advaita i.e. drishTi. As per vijnAnavAdI,
> it is something being born every moment.
>
...

>
> So, chitta, I think has to be vritti-upahita-chaitanya and not mere
> chaitanya.
>
Sorry for the confusing use of the words and perhaps under a
different quotation. I meant chitta to mean chit/consciousness, but not
without vRtti, from siddhAntI's view; that is it means jnAna. In DSV, the
mukhya meaning of jnAna explained as chaitanya in Vedanta Paribhasha is
held on to all the way to return to in upasaMhAra. Just as you quote 4.29
below. I meant to contrast it with vijnAna which is vRtti only without the
chit of the vijnAnavAdI, since that seems to be the objections to DSV from
many SDV followers. It was also to justify तस्मान्न जायते चित्तम्।


>
> I understand that 4.29 bhAshya does say - उक्तैर्हेतुभिरजमेकं ब्रह्मेति
> सिद्धम् , यत्पुनरादौ प्रतिज्ञातम् , तत्फलोपसंहारार्थोऽयं श्लोकः — *अजातं
> यच्चित्तं ब्रह्मैव* जायत इति वादिभिः परिकल्प्यते, तत् अजातं जायते यस्मात्
> अजातिः प्रकृतिः तस्य ; ततः तस्मात् अजातरूपायाः प्रकृतेरन्यथाभावो जन्म न
> कथञ्चिद्भविष्यति ॥
>
> The whole idea of 4.28 is to deny birth of chitta, just as birth of
> chitta-drishya is denied. The denial of birth of chitta will imply
> non-existence of vritti, like the non-existence of bAhya-artha (by denial
> of birth of chitta-drishya). The Chaitanya will singularly remain as the
> only ajAta vastu.
>
> Is there any error in this understanding?
>
I think it is the right understanding. Having shown how bAhya padArtha is
not an Alambana for this jnAna, and by showing that chitta has no sparsha
with bAhya Alambana also, discounting it as AbhAsa also, meaning
anirvachanIyakhyAti is also not used, finally, chitta is also shown as not
to be born in 4.29.

In an earlier mail to Subbuji, I had mentioned that asat cannot be born,
sat need not be born, so only ajAta brahma was, is, will be.

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] */