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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Praveen ji

Perfect. Thanks.

On Thu, 7 Sep, 2023, 5:14 pm Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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] */
>
>