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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Adityaji,


On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
wrote:​
>
> 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.
>
Please do not mix up any hetu with any sAdhya, which I did not talk of. In
fact the full verse is rejecting creation and therefore SDV:
ख्याप्यमानामजातिं तैरनुमोदामहे वयम् ।
विवदामो न तैः सार्धमविवादं निबोधत ॥ ४.५ ॥
We happily approve the absence of birth indirectly by them (Vijnanavadins).
We do not argue with them along with the half (opponent). May you know the
अस्पर्शयोग as free from opposition.


> A : But SDV does not face the same inconvenience. It is consistent.
>
​Nor does DSV. If not, SDV doesn't either. shuShka tarka can prove
anything, hence it should be guided by tradition.
​

​


> 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.
>
​Yes, if its a question. "Why did he write?"​

​would have been a question. "What was the need for him to write which led
to dualists popping up!"​ is a rhetoric. So qualification matters immensely.

The Vedas declare : Even if a child speaks the truth, it should be
> regarded.
>
​Which Veda? There is a subhAShita that says that युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं
बालादपि ​शुकादपि। Please note the word yuktiyuktam. A child may speak the
truth without knowing the logic, but it should fit into logic. However, you
are using shuShkatarka, logic as used by non-traditionalists to prove
something is logically established and accepted in the tradition already.



> A : The ones started by Shankara himself.
>
​Pray tell in what definition of tradition of yours will a Giri of
Kailashashram, several scholars at Kashi associated various maThas, Mani
Dravid Shastriji awarded and respected by Sringeri, Kanchi, etc, and others
of similar stature would not belong to the tradition started by
Bhagavatpadacharya himself? And also note with that statement of yours, you
will have put Vachaspati Mishra outside the tradition, whereas he would fit
well within the definition of tradition for me.

​
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --praveen
>
>
>