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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveenji,
OK, let's leave it on that note. I think we both have stated our positions
and arguments.

Thanks for the discussion.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On 20 Jul 2017 8:41 a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavanji,


On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Firstly, thanks to you both for this illuminating discussion.

Ditto.


>
> Our two perspectives boil down to these two differences in our thinking
are:
> 1) Whether drishyatvam is a hetu exclusively reserved for DSV.

No, as I said in the end of my last mail, based on what is the commonness
shown in the dream-example  and the exemplified world. Fortunately or
unfortunately for SDV, the dream example has overreaching similarity
between example and exemplified, which DSV exploits. SDV should just say
that dependence existence on kAraNa is the mithyAtva of the kArya. Thats
all. But the gap of how can I be all this, which is the other part between
the example and the exemplified that gets established is the
bAdhasAmadhAkaraNam then by sarvaM nAsti, ahameva asmi, nothing [else] is
there, I alone am there. This is what I intended when I said that when one
uses the dream example, the part used is not dependent existence but saying
that creation is kalpita.

>
> 2) Whether paricChinnatvam can only be overcome via DSV.
>
> Re 1, yes svapna is drishya, rajjusarpa is drishya. It is also true that
the seer is the 'creator' of those things. It is also true that mithyAtvam
is established because of drishyatvam. However, drishyatvam is not because
of their creation by the seer, the two are independent factors.

I have covered this in point 1 above, but if you say that they are
independent factors, then there is no refutation of duality possible. SDV
would say that it is not dependent on the seer, but on the creator Ishvara.
The seers are many jIvas. That would be fair, but not at the stage we are
talking of, since, kindly recall that I am not talking of the dream example
to answer the question "how can Ishvara be this entire world?" for
jaganmithyAtva nishchaya, but the question "how can I be all this that the
Shruti says I am"? If one has no such doubt, great... SDV will have
resolved it. We are talking of the stage after tattvamasi shravaNa, where
Ishvara has already been equated to the seer jIva, when the sAdhaka is not
really thinking of the other jIvas for his liberation then. One will have
to go and say that the world has dependent existence on Ishvara, I the seer
am Ishvara, so I am the creator. This is the culmination of SDV unto DSV
since I am the creator of the creation that I see, I pre-exist creation and
creation is what I saw.


>
> If it was dependent on creation by the seer, then we should have simply
used drishTa-srishTitvam as hetu for mithyAtva.

It would mean the same in DSV, if you like.


> Further, there is vyabhichAra in redness seen in the crystal due to a
proximate flower. The redness is mithyA, it is seen, but it is not created
by the seer.

Not in DSV.

As I said in SDV, all that you are saying is right at a stage long before
that. I have been very particular to say that the dream example if used in
the end of SDV to the above question I proposed is necessarily DSV. Thats
all. As for your example, there is vaiShamya of what is being proved, the
redness in the flower is not created by the seer, but redness will be said
to be created by the seer due to his avidyA, even if the argument be that
the redness is seen there. Anyway, thats not our argument.


>
> Re 2, this is a compelling argument, but mainly because it is relevant to
me individually, not sure whether it can be extended as a general rule. The
nishedha of attributes like paricChinnatvam etc happens with shruti vAkya
like neti neti also.

We would likely loop back depending on what hetu is used in manana for this!


>
> The jahadajahallakshaNa employed during mahAvAkya vichAra drops the
paricChinnatvam during tvam pada shodhana.

I feel this is a different discussion, having other repercussions, so I
shall drop it.


>
> I am not fully convinced that one has to necessarily take on board DSV
after SDV for moksha.

I understand. To be fair, although I am convinced about this view of mine,
I would still not be insistent on it unless someone says that DSV is not a
prakriyA. :)

gurupAdukAbhyAm