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

[Aditya Kumar]

Asat-khyati :– what is being perceived is really non-existent, the error consists in the apprehension of the unreal or in the perception of non-existent entities. Hence world is unreal.
Objection by Vedantin : But can hare's horn be perceived just like a clay-pot?
Atma-khyati :- The inner cognition is apprehended as an external object. There are no external objects(apart from cognition of it), everything is consciousness. Hence the world is unreal.
Objection by Vedantin : But then the very nature of consciousness itself  proves the existence of external objects different from consciousness for men are conscious of things or objects  of perception, and nobody is conscious of his perception merely. The very fact that the Atma-khyatins say that the internal cognition appears 'as something external' shows that the external world is real. If it were not real, the comparison 'like something external' would be meaning less. No one says that Devadutta is like a son of a barren woman.
Other's objection to Vedantin : But even the Vedantins acknowledge the unreality of the external world.Vedantin's reply : Yes, but on the authority of the Vedas.
Other's objection to Vedantin : So what are the objects/ what about the world which we perceive?Vedantin's reply : It's indescribable. sad-asad vilakshana. 
Other's objection to Vedantin : We are not satisfied with this. Vedantin's reply : That's perfectly fine, but this is the extent of logic/rationale that could be given. This also means you are not satisfied with the abheda interpretation of Sruti, if you accept Sruti as the ultimate authority.
As you can notice, the interpretation of Sruti and the authority of Sruti is central to Shankara's Advaita. He never indulges in mindless logic.
---------------------


      From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 To: Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
 Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017 9:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Debunking Drishti-Srishti Vada and Eka Jiva Vada - part 1
   


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:

भगवत्पादभाष्यार्थमालोच्यातिप् रयत्नतः । 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.