[Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1

[Aditya Kumar]

Namaste Praveen Bhatji,
I did. I went through the emails exchanged on this forum as well as others. Some people even brought Quantum physics into the picture lol. I understand the importance of tradition in Advaita but this purely academic. As a matter of fact, Advaita tradition considers Vachaspati Misra as a stalwart in the lineage. Even he advocates aneka-jiva vada. 
I understand the fact, Vedanta is very esoteric. Notwithstanding any scholar's reputation, should we not give merit to the arguments alone? Considering that prakasananda is not as popular or as respected as Vachaspati Misra, doesn't that make him a mere scholar in comparison? 
I request you to give me the ref to the verse that you are speaking of. I think the context is clear though, as prakasananda repeatedly denies maya. He has explicitly stated maya is tuccha. He has even stated 'like hare's horn'. How can anyone overlook this?
I haven't written on the vijnanavada part yet. I actually got a copy of siddhanta muktavali and read it. He derives almost 99% of his thesis from Sunya vada and Vijnanavada. I will write about it in detail shortly. 
Briefly, Shankara says in BSB that dreams are sublated in waking state, the magician's magic is sublated when trick is revealed, but we never observe the objective world sublating in anything. 
In order for it to be sublated, Maya is essential which establishes the paramartha satya. This is the unique position of Vedanta. If maya is accepted, then objectivity of the world need not be denied. On the other hand, whether we accept maya or not, if we assert that world is only subjective, it needs a positive proof. No such proof or illustration can be given. This is the same refutation against the Buddhists. 

    On Friday, 14 July 2017 11:50 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Namaste Adityaji,
As Venkateshji already suggested, kindly go through over 200 mails exchanged on this ​​in the recent past. Other than that, I suggest not to learn DSV or anything for that matter related to Vedanta from scholars' books and consider that as traditional stance. Learn the tradition from the tradition.
I wouldn't give much consideration to a scholar's refutation of a traditional work of Sw. Prakashananda. If the comparison is between Bhagavatpadacharya's work and Sw. Prakashananda's, you or anyone else will have to establish that the latter contradicts the former. Your tucchatva example is not good enough because at one place in Mandukya, Bhashyakara has given a tucchatva example as well. One has to understand the perspective of the example and not jump to conclusions without merits of the context!
Those who compare Vijnanavada and Advaita DSV have unfortunately understood neither. To say that both have a slight difference of one agreeing with brahman and another not is beyond ridiculous, akin to saying that there is only a slight difference between zero and infinity!
To call DSV as one individual's subjectivity is showing one's ignorance of DSV and more, whoever it is. It is said कामी स्वतां पश्यति। One sees what he desires... regardless of what DSV really says.
​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] */