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

[Aditya Kumar]

Thank you for sharing the interpretation of Shankara. So Shankara is categorically advocating SDV and it is consistent throughout all his other works. The interpretation of DSV from Shankara/Gaudapada's works by various people differs variously and sometimes contradictory (One DSVadin contradicts another DSVadin at many places). Hence also, there is absolutely no clarity as in which particular view is without ambiguity. 
Further, many scholars like P M Modi(not the minister) opine that Madhusudana clearly deviate from Shankara, quite boldly, which can be verified by reading his works like Gudarthadipika. 
Quoting P M Modi from the Introduction part of 'Siddhantabindu' English translation :-"To illustrate briefly, in Advaitsiddhi, Madhusndana has at various places differed from Sankaaracharya in his interpretation of the Brahmasutras which he has quoted. He is the only exception from among the Aeharyas of the Sankara Sehool of Vedanta, to differ from Sankara in this manner."
"But in the Gndharthadipika he goes further and rejeets the view of Sankara altogether whenever , he found that it was not in harmony with the Bhaktimarga of the Gita."
Here the author is talking about the fact that Madhusudhana Saraswati considers Bhakti Marga as a legitimate 3rd marga other than Jnana and karma. However, Shankara and the mainstream Advaita does not consider Bhakti marga as a path in itself like Jnana and Karma. Considering this, it is perhaps not surprising to see this interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi. 
Further, if we compare Madhusudana Saraswati and/or Prakasananda Saraswati with the likes of Vachaspati Mishra, in terms of how they explain the unreality of the world, it is clear that there is some radical difference in the approach. Where Misra focuses solely on Maya/Ajnana and proceeds to elaborate it in line with Shankara's explanation of Maya, MS and PS (needlessly) attempt to explain the unreality of the world purely from a logical stand point. For instance, the world which we perceive is because Ajnana projects the world and hides our intrinsic nature. The dream examples are mere illustrations to explain the concept of maya/ajnana. 
But MS and PS try to take the examples/illustrations itself as the proof or stretch them beyond it's sphere of application(as originally intended by the authors) and try to arrive at unreality logically. However, it is clear that whenever the logic fails or reaches it's limit, they inevitably rely on the Sruti statements of abheda nature. When eventually, you had to rely solely on sruti, what was the need to explain it solely from a logical point of view? In doing so, both these persons have stretched the illustrations beyond it's application and used the same as proof. This is same like various schools of Buddhists. 

      From: Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 To: "advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Cc: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
 Sent: Friday, 21 July 2017 10:26 AM
 Subject: [Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1
   
>Can the phrase 'Tat Tvam Asi' be interpreted based on our personal
preference or should it be interpreted based on what Uddalaka said to
Shvetaketu in the context of Chandogya? Can the Mahavakyas have multiple
implied meanings? Aren't the two interpretations >different from each
other? Did Shankara interpret 'Tat Tvam Asi' in this fashion?
>Isn't it clear that Madhusudana Saraswati, in an attempt to prove DSV
re-interpreted the mahavakya, thus thereby differing from Shankara?

This goes back to the fundamental question whether GaudapAda and Shankara
support DSV or not, and has been answered in the affirmative before. Please
consult the archives and posts in this thread too. Regarding the
interpretation of "tattvamasi" mahAvAkya, Shankara has alluded to
jahadajahallakShaNa (without mentioning the term) as per SDV in the
brahmasUtra bhAShya, for example 2.1.22. ‘ तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येवंजातीयकः ; कथं
भेदाभेदौ विरुद्धौ सम्भवतः ? नैष दोषः, महाकाशघटाकाशन्यायेनोभयसम्भवस्य तत्र
तत्र प्रतिष्ठापितत्वात् । अपि च यदा ‘ तत्त्वमसि’
इत्येवंजातीयकेनाभेदनिर्देशेनाभेदः प्रतिबोधितो भवति ; अपगतं भवति तदा जीवस्य
संसारित्वं ब्रह्मणश्च स्रष्टृत्वम् , समस्तस्य मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितस्य
भेदव्यवहारस्य सम्यग्ज्ञानेन बाधितत्वात् ; तत्र कुत एव सृष्टिः कुतो वा
हिताकरणादयो दोषाः । Shankara says the creatorship of Brahman, (the
"tat"pada) and the saMsAritva and other defects of the jIva, (the
"tvam"pada) will be removed through the "tattvamasi" vAkya. Obviously, the
tatpada cannot be associated with creatorship in the context of DSV, since
the jIva is the creator, nor can the tatpada be associated with any of the
attributes such as sarvajnatva, etc., since it is admitted that the jIva
imagines Ishvara and the world as in a dream. This is what Madhusudana
describes.

Anand
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org