[Advaita-l] jIva sRShTi and Ishvara sRShTi

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Bhaskarji
Maybe you have heard of the panchadashi verse which gels with what you
wrote.

IxaNAdi- praveshantA srishtir ishEna kalpitA;

 jagradadi-vimoxAntah samsaro jiva- kalpitaH


I vaguely remember this verse figures in one of the lesser known
upaniShads. Need to check it up.

>
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> My humble prostrations to this swamiji, long time back if I remember
> right, I had attended one of his discourses here in Bengaluru at prashanta
> gaNapati devasthAna.  And if I am right, like Sri SSS, he is not part with
> treating avidyA and mAya as synonyms, painting avidyA lesha to jnAni,
> avidyA is bhAva rUpa etc.
>
> And with regard to DS & SD vAda, one of the vedAnta discourser (forgot his
> name) was saying : seeing the sAmAnya in Ishwara srushti is srushti-drushti
> vAda, in this vAda there is no room to add any visheshaNa.  For example we
> have to look Ishwara srushti 'rose' as rose only without adding any
> attributes to it.  So that drushti will always be on srushti of Ishwara
> without adding anything of his own.  Whereas when one adds the visheshaNa
> to Ishwara srushti it becomes 'drushti-srushti', like rose is big/small,
> less petals / more petals, red/maroon, thick fragrance / less scented one
> etc.  this visheshaNa is srushti of an individual which is subjective
> varies from individual to individual gives room to drushti-srushti. So,
> according to him even drushti-srushti vAda is within the sphere of Ishwara
> srushti where visheshaNa added to already existing Ishwara srushti. He has
> not quoted any reference for this and the discourse was in Hindi (some
> North Indian swamiji it seems).   Do we find any reference for this type of
> definition in mUla / prakaraNa grantha-s??
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
>

AFAIK no Acharya from northern indian traditional shAnkara peethams and
maThams like the ancient daxiNAmUrti maTham of vArANasI or the brahmaleen
Swami rAmAnandaji of Markandeya sannyAsAshram, Omkareshwar or niranjanI
peeth, all of whom who are proficient in both prasthAnatrayam bhAShya and
also nyAya and brihatprasthAnam, have found fault with mUlAvidyA or
dRShTi-sRShTi prakriyas.

So the Acharya mentioned by you discoursing  in hindi was in all likelihood
merely teaching SDV without prejudice to DSV.

 It's interestingly only the Mattur-based Acharyas who have a different
take on mUlAvidyA and mAyA-avidyA difference etc. Only Nagesha Bhatta in
mediaeval times asserted abhAva-vAda.

Om
Raghav

>
>
>
>