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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

I am not sure the comment below is applicable to me, as I don't recall
having a conversation with you about vichAra / upAsana:

 Considering that we have already disagreed on the more vital issue of
>> vichAra vis-a vis upAsana,
>>
>

Thanks for the clarification on whether the view presented was  Vasudeva
Brahmendra sarasvati's or yours:

> The addition  << and not DSV (either of the two versions >> is really my
>> conclusion and may be considered as deleted.
>>
>>

You are right - having read your email, I don't agree with the analysis
presented, very simply because

1) It involves a reinterpretation of the words of the text on a large
scale, which is neither necessary nor justifiable. For the interpretation
proposed to hold good, drishTi-srishTi needs to be reinterpreted as
srishTi-drishTi with a difference, prAtItiki reinterpreted as the view of a
jnAni, bAla reinterpreted as a jIvanmukta, etc. There appears to be no
reason in doing so, apart from proving that VidyAraNya did not endorse
drishTi sriShTi. It is facts twisted to fit the conclusion, as opposed to
deriving the conclusion from the facts.

2)  It is giving up the primary meaning of the words of the author, to take
up a secondary meaning - when there is neither anvaya anupapatti nor
tAtparya anupapatti in the mukhyArtha to justify taking the lakshaNA
meanings of terms such as drishTi-srishTi, prAtItiki, bAla etc.

3) It is incompatible with rest of the text:

a) The use of the word api in sloka 52, meaning "even a child" would be odd
if the sloka was directed only at a jnAni - vidyAraNya should have used
bAla: eva, not balo'pi - it is only a jnAni (a bAla) that would see the
world in this manner in your view.
b) The words kshaNAd budhyate in the same sloka would be rendered
meaningless, if the subject of the sentence was a jnAni - the jnAni has
already realised he is the paramAtma, the jagat kartA, there is no need to
say he instantly realises he is so.
c) It would render the words sA iyam prAtItiki srishTi, this creation which
is an appearance, meaningless - because there is no srishTi at all for the
jnAni, the adjective prAtItiki to srishTi would be superfluous as for the
jnAni there is no Ishvara srishTi either.
d) It would be incompatible with various slokas in this chapter which talk
of two different srishTis corresponding to the SDV and DSV prakriyas -
namely, sloka 40, which talks of a sarva sAdharaNa sarga and a prAtisvika
sarga, sloka 43 which talks of alpA and mahatI srishTis and sloka 54 (yA
kAcit sriShTi: sA mAyikI tata:, whatever sriShTi is considered, it is
mAyika only)
e) It is unclear what is the difference of such an SDV compared to the
regular SDV, and there is no explanation for why vidyAraNya considers this
SDV-with-a-difference a short cut, a chora mArga, compared to the usual SDV.
f) Finally, it is unclear why should such an SDV would be called DSV by
vidyAraNya.

Therefore, while they are inventive, I respectfully disagree with your
views.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan