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

[Aditya Kumar]

​Kindly do not partially quote me, that would be to misquote me, if you did understand what I said. To reinforce: I said that Bhamatikara agrees with NJV DSV not EJV DSV. A : Yes, I meant that there is difference nonetheless. That was the point.  


​No, as above, Bhamatikara agrees with one version of DSV. Even if he did not, he is not the end of tradition and that in NO WAY means it is alien to Shankaracharya. It is alien to whosoever's books you are reading with great commitment against the traditional perspective. Please understand that traditional stance is even one example of traditional Acharya stating something is taken as supporting a view. Shankaracharya says in Mandukya 4th chapter that "anumodAmahe, we joyfully approve" Vijnanavadins approach of refuting the reality of this world as a mere perception. Then he goes ahead and refutes the momentariness of their consciousness. We're done there. So no amount of selectively quoting BSB will work.A : Yes I am aware of that part which you are referring to. But if we read the commentary fully, Shankara says external objects are unreal because their cause cannot be determined with certainty. This means that even the cognizer of these objects is not the cause whereas the Vijanavadin goes on to say that Vijnana matra- vijana alone is the cause, which Gaudapada clearly rejects. So this half-verse taken out of context cannot support DSV, imho. 


​Discussed incorrectly as already clarified by Chandramouliji. tattvamasi is not the only mahAvAkya, nor is it limited to four.A : But SDV does not face the same inconvenience. It is consistent. ​ 


​Again, there's no earlier or later in tradition. If there is, it is asmadAchArya paryantAm to each traditional student. To an anything-goes-as-Vedanta self-styled researcher​, it may not be. Thats called ardhajaratInyAya.A : Fine, fair point.
So? Sureshvaracharya wrote an independent Naishkarmyasiddhi. ​Do you know what is the praise reserved for MS in the sampradAya, which is not even said about anyone else, including Bhamatikara? You should look up what is said of the limits of his knowledge. A : That MS knows the limit of Saraswati but she doesn't? Their respective students praise their teachers. How is it universally valid?



​Its his prerogative. That you or I do not ​understand what need was there doesn't mean there was no need. I'd like to know if you are willing to answer: what are your qualifications for assessing the need of MS' work(s)?A : I don't think I need to have a qualification to pose a simple question. My question can be regarded as silly, unwarranted or too stupid, anything. But qualification does not matter. The Vedas declare : Even if a child speaks the truth, it should be regarded. But if nonsense is spoken even by self-create Brahma, it should be rejected. That is what objective thinking is all about.
​Oh, you are actively doing so!​ It may not be direct, but it is actively being done, else I wouldn't be pulled back in the discussion.
A : Please let me know where I have done so?  




How many orthodox traditions do you know of? Go to Kailashashram, Rishikesh where both have been taught by the mahAmaNDaleshvara. My own Acharyaji has studied them there. You will find many places in Kashi where it is taught. Mani Dravid Shastriji and others in the tradition regularly teach it. These are just some examples. Others may point out more please.
A : The ones started by Shankara himself. ​
​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen