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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,
To be honest, I have only read the slokas of Chapter 9 briefly, so if you
have studied them to a great extent, please correct any misunderstanding I
have.

I am unable to figure out the basis for your argument that the number of
sattAs of DSV and SDV (as elucidated in the anubhUti prakAsha) are the same.

After saying that there are two paths to mokshA, the chora dvAra (DSV) and
mahA dvAra (SDV) in slokas 44-47, sloka 48 says that drishTi srishTi is
going to be talked about. Slokas 49-52 give the details of DSV.

If you look at sloka 52 in particular, "seyam prAtItikI sriShTistasmaajAtA
tata: svayam | jagatkartA parAtmeti kshaNAd balOpi budhyate" - the
description of creation as prAtItiki clearly says that creation (and thus
the objects of creation also) is pratIti mAtram, ie prAtibhAsikam. There is
no reference to another vyAvahArika sriShTi. That being the case, why do
you say that this DSV has three sattAs - which is the basis for you
claiming that this DSV is really SDV?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan Ji,
>
>
>
> Reg  << It is not the same prakriyA though, it is two different prakriyAs
> in two different works. In the anubhUti prakAsha he is describing DSV, in
> panchadashi he is describing in SDV. The fact that he endorses SDV in
> panchadashi does not invalidate his endorsement of DSV in anubhUti prakAsha.>>,
>
>
>
>
> The title given in AP is no doubt DSV while that for Panchadashi it is
> SDV. However the details of the prakriyAs are practically the same,
> especially from the point of view of the number of sattAs. Sorry for
> seeking a very odd clarification, Have  you gone  through the details of
> the prakriyAs and come to the conclusion that they are different or are you
> going by the titles given. I have no doubt that you would have done so, but
> since our conclusions are so divergent on what should be a straightforward
> one, I thought I might as well seek the clarification instead of assuming.
> Please don’t mistake me. But if the answer is yes, then we just have to
> agree to disagree.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_-3664128171373584183_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>