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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> Madhusudana Saraswati, at the very first invocation to his Gudarthadipika
> says:
>
> भगवत्पादभाष्यार्थमालोच्यातिप्रयत्नतः । प्रायः प्रत्यक्षरं कुर्वे
> गीतागूढार्थदीपिकाम् ॥ १
>
> He has at the very outset said that he is lookig into the Śānkara bhāṣyam
> with great effort shed light on almost each letter (word) of the Gita's
> deep meaning.
>
> When such is his commitment to Shankara's bhashya, it is only strange that
> such allegations are made against MS.
>
> A : Even the Devil quotes the scriptures. I am obviously not implying that
> MS was a devil or he had malicious intent! I am just saying that this
> proves nothing, specially when there are other empirical evidence present.
>

There is simply no empirical evidence present for those who think so are
only deluded and have no understanding of the Vedanta shāstra. With
misguided and malicious intent such people come up with ideas that have no
basis in the Vedanta.


>
>
> Can any specific instances from the MS's commentary be shown to
> substantiate the above claims?
>
> A : Please refer to Appendix III from the book 'Siddhantabindu' Eng
> translation by P M Modi.
>
>
> Shankara's bhashya-s are full of instances of  explaining
> maya/avidya/unreality of the world on sound logical terns.  Those who have
> not studied the bhashyas under the guidance of traditional Acharyas alone
> make such claims as above.
>
> A : Sir, I have already mentioned what Shankara says in BSB 2-2-29 :
> Unreality established with reasoning like : 1) unreal like dreams or 2)
> Completely asat like hare's horns cannot be accepted. Only abheda Srutis
> are a proof of it.
>

Shankara has himself followed only logic that is shruti-friendly.
shrutyanugrihīta tarka is his forte. So all the above observations simply
lose their punch.


> In other words, unreality cannot be proved by any stretch of logic. Why
> else would Anirvachaniya khyati stand aprt from asat/atma/a-kyati.
>

Khyāti vāda is only how various schools account for the bhrama experience.
Anirvachaniya khyati is also based on pure logic of the superimposed object
is neither sat nor asat and hence anirvachaniya. Shruti does not come into
the khyati vada. Even bauddha has a khyati for him. So, people of the likes
of Modi can never succeed in breaching the sampradaya.

vs

>
> regards
> vs
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>