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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Aditya ji,

On 14 Jul 2017 6:18 p.m., "Aditya Kumar via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:


Mycomments –

That is because, this view cannot accommodate Maya, Ishvara andParamartha
satya. This is established in the subsequent portions of the essay.


DSV does not accommodate paramArtha satya? I would be curious to know how
this is established- bases on my reading of the vedAnta siddhAnta muktAvali
this is an incorrect understanding.

All thequotes are from the book ‘A history of Indian philosophy’ -

“….Speakingon the subject of the causality of Brahman, he says that the
attribution ofcausality to Brahman cannot be regarded as strictly correct ;
for ordinarilycausality implies the dual relation of cause and effect;
since there is nothingelse but Brahman, it cannot, under the circumstances,
be called a cause.”

My comment - Thisis an oversimplification and gross misrepresentation of
causality in Advaita.


That no causality can be attributed to Brahman from the standpoint of
ultimate reality is pretty much the substance of the advaita prakaraNa of
the kArika. So your argument can equally be directed against gaudapAda,
which is absurd.


My comment - Thisis beyond all doubt that Prakasananda is unwilling to
accept Maya, which iscentral to Vivarta vada. In other words, Maya is what
differentiates Vivartavada of Advaita from Satkaryavada of the Sankhyas.
Vivarta itself is thenegation of causality. To negate vivarta itself makes
no sense whatsoever.


Vivarta is a bridge between the perception of the world and its mithyAtva.
The world is seen, and therefore we think it is real because of perceiving
it. The upaniShad says no, what you perceive is not real, it is only an
appearance, a vivarta.

DSV is speaking from the standpoint of one who already has accepted that
whatever is perceived is mithyA. Given his conviction that the world is a
mithyA vastu, he does not seek an explanation for it.

vivarta is postulated as an explanation to bridge the cognitive dissonance
between the perception of an object and the statement that there is no
world. If there is no need for an explanation, why does one need vivarta?


“If one looks at maya in accordance with the texts of theVedas, maya will
appear to be an absolutely fictitious non-entity (tuccha),like the hare s
horn”

My comment - Wehave three possibilities, by any logic. Sat, Asat and
Neither Sat nor Asat. Tobreak it down further, Trikala-abhadita satya,
bhadita-satya and asat ortuccha. Shankara defines Maya as
sat-asat-vilakshana, which literally meansthat which does not have the
nature of either sat or asat. But Prakasananda isclearly considering Maya
as tuccha or asat. This is a death-nail to this viewin terms of legitimacy.


Well, the source for this view is a sloka from the sixth chapter of
vidyAraNya's panchadashi quoted by prakAshAnanda in the text. Again perhaps
the criticism can equally be applied to vidyAraNya svAmi.

The sloka was referred to in the DSV discussion sometime back.

तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा ।
ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तलौकिकैः ॥

Maya is known as tucCha (non existent) based on shruti, anirvachanIya based
on logic, or (incorrectly as) real  by the uninformed.

Please refer to archives for details.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan