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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,
Just to set some context, I am not arguing that DSV is untenable as is the
case with a few posters - I am convinced that it is correct and from a
personal perspective, very elegant solution to some persistent vAsanas. I
am only questioning the logical basis by which we are concluding that DSV
is a necessary step for moksha.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> This is appropriating the concept of mithyAtva itself to drishTi srishTi
>>> vAda - I don't think there is any basis to do that. The reason for this is
>>> in the text below that you quoted.
>>>
>> ​Are you saying that mithyAtva concept is ​applicable only to SDV?!
>

Not at all. It can be easily applied in both prakriyas. I was only
responding to your statement that 2 and 3 are DSV. To recall, 2 was "What I
see is an appearance",  3  was "Therefore there is no creation". 2
(drishyatvam) is the hetu for mithyAtva. Saying 2+3 = DSV is tantamount to
saying the concept of mithyAtva is only possible within DSV. I do not agree
with this view.

Thus unless you are saying that the concept of mithyAtva itself is
untenable within SDV, SDV can lead to mokshA too. Just like the DSV
ultimately says there is no drishya, and thus no jIva who has created this
drishya, the SDV ultimately says there is no drishya and no Ishvara who has
created this drishya, and a jIva who sees this drishya.

Thus the subequent denial of the satyatva of drishya and srishTi (ie 3) is
common to both SDV and DSV.

>
> Once I conclude that what is seen is an appearance,
>>
> ​When you conclude that it is an appearance, you are really saying it is
> *only* an appearance. Then, it logically follows that creation did not
> precede. By saying its is a mere appearance, you will have said that the
> creation is not really there.
>

Indeed. I am saying it is only an appearance. It also logically follows
that creation did not precede. I also agree that creation is not really
there.

All I am saying is that an apavAda of creation is accepted within SDV also.
No SD vAdin is arguing that there is a pAramArthika satya creation that is
seen. He starts off with a view that he is seeing an adhyAropita srishTi
created by Ishvara. Later when shruti itself says that what he sees is only
an appearance (vAcaramabhaNAm vikAro nAmadheyam), he denies the srishTi of
a non-existent thing.

Thus I think what you are calling DSV is merely apavAda. That I am the only
jIva who has created this universe (which is where the DSV starts with), is
not a necessary step for moksha when the jIvatvam, creation and universe
are all going to be sublated before the attainment of moksha.

Further, DSV is more than just apavAda. There is adhyAropa of srishTi too.
It says my perception of the world has created it. If the prakriyA was only
an apavAda of srishTi, then there would no need to call this drishTi
srishTi vAda, merely drishTi vAda would have sufficed. It is because there
is an adhyAropa of creation in DSV that there are two strands to DSV -
drishTi sama kAla srishTi and drishTireva srishTi.

>
> why is it
>> > necessary to attribute an causal agent for that appearance?
>>
> ​An appearance without basis is not possible. The basis is the kalpita
> jIva​, who is the first to make an appearance who then has kalpita jagat.
> This is the "as-though" sequence that Karikarakara talks of in VP.
>

By basis do you mean a) adhishThAna, or b) srishTi kartA or c) the drik? In
SDV, during adhyAropa kAla, the adhishThAna is Brahman, the srishTi kartA
is Ishvara, the drik is jIva. In DSV, during adhyAropa kAla, the
adhishThAna is Brahman, the srishTi kartA and the drik are the jIva. In
both cases, the "as-though"-ness of the sequence talked about by the kArika
kAra is possible,as I said, apavAda is common to both.


If no causal
>> > agency is needed, there is no necessity for drishTa srishTi to follow
>> > srishTa drishTi before moksha.
>>
> ​In that case, you will have to attain mokSha without saying it is only an
> appearance/ dRShTi.
>

Only if drishyatva hetu leading to mithyAtva sAdhya is somehow not tenable
SDV, which is not correct in my view.

>
>
>>
>> It is not necessary that every aspect of the drishTAnta will match every
>> aspect of the dArshTAnta. All the person using this anumAna relies on is
>> that the hetu that exists in svapna exists in the dArshTAnta too, in order
>> to establish that the sAdhya (mithyAtva) that exists in svapna exists in
>> the dArshTAnta also.
>>
> ​True, you have the answer to that yourself which is in the unstated hetu.
> If sAdhy​a is mithyAtva, what is the singular aspect used as hetu in the
> example?
>

drishyatvam.


> Thus, to postulate that the svapna jagat sriShTi kartritvam that exists in
>> the dream is an absolute necessity as a stepping stone to moksha.
>>
> ​Each time you use the dream example
> ​ in what you say is SDV​
> , you are using the same hetu which is the only hetu used in DSV. What
> else can it be then, but DSV!
>

Even if what you are saying is correct, it just means that the same hetu is
used in both the prakriyAs, that's all. If A is a set of all colours and B
is a singleton set containing only the colour white, it does not mean that
in order for A to be complete, the set B has to be included within A. If
there are two instances of the colour white, one in set A and one in set B,
then A can be complete even without B. The same logic applies here. Just
because the common hetu is used in both, and DSV, in your view has only one
hetu, it does not mean that DSV has to necessarily follow SDV for moksha.
Both can independently lead to the result.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan