request for PTB support for DSV and EJV

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste, 

Would our esteemed members kindly contribute Prasthanatraya Sankara bhasya references/citation that support Drsti Srsti vada and/or Eka jiva vada. 

[Bhaskar YR]

Would our esteemed members kindly contribute Prasthanatraya Sankara bhasya references/citation that support Drsti Srsti vada and/or Eka jiva vada. 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

No, I doubt we can find any supporting statements of DSV in shankara’s PTB.  At the best the advocators of this theory may find some solace in the kArika-s of gaudapAda and kArika bhAshya (where the similarities of waking and dreaming world explained) to develop the theory of DSV which is more or less vijnAnavAda of Buddhism which shankara himself taken it for refutation in sUtra bhAshya.  Yes world has been explained as mental (brahma mAnasa pratyaya) at some places but definitely not in the sense that jagat is the mental creation of conditioned mind of eka jeeva like I am so and so, creating this whole world including chetanaachetana vastu out of my own whims and fancies 😊The direct refutation of these fanciful arguments can be found in sUtra (2^nd adhyAya) and Mundaka shruti bhAshya. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Would our esteemed members kindly contribute Prasthanatraya Sankara bhasya references/citation that support Drsti Srsti vada and/or Eka jiva vada. 

Entire MANDUkya is predominantly DSV/EJV. So, I am not giving any reference from there. You may treat entire MANDUkya as DSV reference.

Wherever Shruti/bhAshya describe the following, DSV is understood to have been propounded:

(a) merger of entire world (including prANa) during deep sleep, 

(b) Identity of waking/dream,

(c) Waking is treated not as vyAvahArika, but as prAtibhAsika,

(d) Only one jIva is propounded

Reference from prasthAna-trayI-bhAshya (other than MANDUkya):

1. ChhAndOgya Upanishad 8.5.4 bhAshya: अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते । जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम्.

Reference:  R Krishnamurti Shastri ji writes in page 268 of SLS that ChhAndogya Upanishad 8.5.4 refers to drishTi-srishTi-VAda. He says “ब्राह्मलौकिकपदार्थानां स्वरूपविचारावसरे 'अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते जाग्रद्विषयाऽपि मानस प्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव' इत्यादि छान्दोग्याष्टमपञ्चमभाष्यमपि श्रुतेः दृष्टिसृष्टिपरत्वे प्रमाणम् ।”.

2. BSB 1.3.30 - स्वापप्रबोधयोश्च प्रलयप्रभवौ श्रूयेते — ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३ । ३) इति

Reference: KaushItakI 3.3 has been held to propound DSV by VidyAraNya SwamI ji, Anandagiri and RatnaprabhA.  

3. Aitareya Upanishad BhAshya 1.3.12 states - त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव । कथम् ? परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च ।

4. BrihadAraNyak BhAshya 4.3.19 says -  ‘न कञ्चन कामम्’ इति स्वप्नबुद्धान्तयोः अविशेषेण सर्वः कामः प्रतिषिध्यते, ‘कञ्चन’ इत्यविशेषिताभिधानात् ; तथा ‘न कञ्चन स्वप्नम्’ इति — जागरितेऽपि यत् दर्शनम् , तदपि स्वप्नं मन्यते श्रुतिः, अत आह — न कञ्चन स्वप्नं पश्यतीति ; तथा च श्रुत्यन्तरम् ‘तस्य त्रय आवसथास्त्रयः स्वप्नाः’ (ऐ. उ. १ । ३ । १२) इति ।

5. Prashna Upanishad 4.7 and 4.8 - स यथा सोम्य वयांसि वासोवृक्षं सम्प्रतिष्ठन्त एवं ह वै तत्सर्वं पर आत्मनि सम्प्रतिष्ठते ॥  

Just as a bird sits on the tree where its nest is there, similarly, this entire world situates in Supreme Atman in sushupti.

Reference: Swami Paramarthananda in his Vichara Sagara book, page 1445, says that Prashna Upanishad 4.8 propounds DSV. Basically, in SDV, the entire world does not merge during sushupti, but in DSV, the entire world merges and there is fresh creation during waking.

6. BrihadAraNyaka Shruti 2.1.20: स यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद्यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति तस्योपनिषत्सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ २० ॥

As a spider moves along the thread it produces, and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this AtmA emanate all prANa, all lOka, all deva and all bhUta. Its secret name (Upanishad) is “the Truth of truth”. The prANa is truth and It is the Truth of that.

Reference: Advaita Siddhi says - दृष्टिसृष्टौ च ‘एवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे वेदाः सर्वाणि भूतानि सर्व एत आत्मनो व्युच्चरन्ती'ति श्रुतिः सुप्तोत्थितजीवात् प्राणादिसृष्टिं प्रतिपादयन्ती प्रमाणम् ।

Hari Om BhAskar prabhu ji.

//No, I doubt we can find any supporting statements of DSV in shankara’s PTB.//

You certainly then are contradicting Anandagiri Swamiji and other AchAryAs of sampradAya who have expressly stated Shruti/PTB portions to refer to DSV.    

//theory of DSV which is more or less vijnAnavAda of Buddhism which shankara himself taken it for refutation in sUtra bhAshya.//

Sir, portions of vijnAnavAda are admissible in VedAnta. BhAshyakAra says - ‘प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्’ (मा. का. ४ । २५) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् । The rejection of existence of external object is accepted in both VijnAnavAda and Advaita VedAnta/DSV/SDV. While DSV says that the waking objects are prAtibhAsika, SDV holds them to be vyAvahArika. That much is the difference. However, both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika are illusory. 

//but definitely not in the sense that jagat is the mental creation of conditioned mind of eka jeeva like I am so and so, creating this whole world including chetanaachetana vastu out of my own whims and fancies// 

The notion of "I" is also created along with chetanAchetana vastu. Just take the dream-example and equate it completely to waking. All doubts will be resolved. 

Regards

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

In this old post, a Mundaka Upanishad Bhashya observation is explained:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/the-world-is-mind-alone-shankaracharya/ 

warm regards

subbu

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 7:30 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste, 

Would our esteemed members kindly contribute Prasthanatraya Sankara bhasya references/citation that support Drsti Srsti vada and/or Eka jiva vada. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEbyKeQCoYXu4mopf4jti8h0sCuo5KdUZSLwXkb-tbMig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste all, thanks for the helpful responses. A response just concerning mandukya from a post elsewhere

1. **Dream–waking equivalence in Gauḍapāda is epistemic, not explanatory.**

GK 2.4 and 2.6 indeed establish *vaitathya* by parity of *dṛśyatva*: both dream and waking objects lack independent reality. But this functions **negatively**, to dislodge naïve realism—not to posit a positive doctrine that *perception itself produces objects*. The verses negate objectivity; they do not install a constructive causal thesis.

2. **“Mind-based” does not mean “mentally produced” in a DSV sense.**

Terms like *manasa kalpitam* and *manodṛśyam idaṃ sarvam* (GK 3.31) deny extra-mental objecthood; they do **not** assert a psychological or quasi-causal projection theory. To move from “nothing is perceived apart from mind” to “the mind creates the world” is a further step—one not made by Gauḍapāda himself.

3. **Ajātivāda blocks ‘perception = creation’.**

GK 3.48 / 4.71 explicitly deny origination *altogether*. If nothing is ever born, then nothing is produced—not by Īśvara, not by mind, not by perception. Any formula like “perception is creation” risks reintroducing origination at precisely the level Ajātivāda is meant to cancel.

4. **Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya (esp. GK 4.64–67) remains strictly pedagogical.**

Śaṅkara uses perceptual language to **undo doership, experiencership, and objecthood**, not to explain how a world comes to be. The apparatus is *adhyāropa-apavāda*, not ontology. Once negation has done its work, perception itself is not retained as a metaphysical principle.

5. **The ‘sharpened dream’ trope is post-Gauḍapāda.**

The idea that waking is a clearer dream due to the senses is a later explanatory gloss. Gauḍapāda’s point is simpler and more radical: **both collapse under the same negation**. No residual theory of projection is required—or permitted.

**In short:** Gauḍapāda establishes *non-objectivity*, not *perceptual production*.

DSV-style slogans like “perception is creation” belong to later systematic reconstructions, not to Gauḍapāda’s own Ajātivāda when read in Śaṅkara’s methodological key.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te27Oq23a7m%3DCKpEx2OYA76DFZ%3DNHF%2BcsAmVKBe4boXw0g%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 1:35 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaste all, thanks for the helpful responses. A response just concerning mandukya from a post elsewhere

Dear Michael ji,

// **In short:** Gauḍapāda establishes *non-objectivity*, not *perceptual production*.//

Can we interpret this as 'non-objectivity' is the other way of saying 'subjectivity'?  For, as we have discussed before, in the Bh.Gita 2.16 bhashya, at the end, Shankara summarizes the message to Arjuna thus:

You too, on the lines of the Knowers, look upon the transformations, as 'that which does not exist, appears to exist' and practice forbearance. 

Here Shankara says this is the way the Jnanis view the world. In fact the literal meaning of the verse 2.16 itself is this. In an earlier verse it was said: the dualities like heat, cold, etc. are ephemeral, not permanent and on this basis, forbear them. 

In 2.16 there is a shift to an even higher level: forbear them since they don't even exist (but thought to be existent by the un-enquiring person).

warm regards

subbu   
 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

//सर्वं ह्यन्तःकरणविकारमेव जगत् , मनस्येव सुषुप्ते प्रलयदर्शनात् //

Though MuNDaka 2.4 appears to apply to cosmic person - this line is intriguing. Because the statement appears to be made in reference to mind of vyashTi-jIva. "मनस्येव सुषुप्ते प्रलयदर्शनात्" this refers to everyday experience of vyashTi-jIva and taking it as the hetu, the siddhAnta is postulated-  सर्वं ह्यन्तःकरणविकारमेव जगत् - this entire world is vikAra of mind.

Does the word antah-karaNa referred here apply to that of vyashTi-jIva or the cosmic person?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te27Oq23a7m%3DCKpEx2OYA76DFZ%3DNHF%2BcsAmVKBe4boXw0g%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

As I have said (on numerous occasions), I do not want to participate in prolonged discussions on topics such as this – they often seem to deteriorate into vitaNDa and I simply do not have the time. But, in case it might be helpful to some of the non-participants, here is what I said on the topic in Vol. 1 of ‘Confusions’:

 

d) Who is it who is enlightened?

The creation theory of dŗṣṭi-sŗṣṭi-vāda says that the seeming existence of the world is simultaneous with our perception of it. I.e. there is no real external world; it exists in our mind and is ‘as if’ brought about in accordance with our thoughts and desires. [dŗṣṭi means ‘seeing’; sŗṣṭi means ‘creation’; vāda means ‘thesis’ or ‘doctrine’. So this theory effectively says that we mentally create our world in the act of perception.] This, of course, is in agreement with the vācārambhaņa śruti which will be discussed in the section on creation of the world in Volume 3. [vācārambhaņa means ‘depending on mere words or verbal difference’. It occurs in the chāndogya upaniṣad and suggests that we create the seeming duality by mentally separating out forms and giving them names.] This theory also has further implications in that it implies that all the (other) jīva-s, too, are ‘imagined’ by us; that in fact there is only one jīva. This theory is called eka-jīva-vāda [eka means ‘one’]. It is what would be called ‘solipsism’ in Western philosophy.

 

This theory, objectionable though it might seem at first sight, has clear advantages over the normal view of things. If it is assumed that there are many jīva-s (that theory is called aneka-jīva-vāda or nānā-jīva-vāda), then there arises a thorny problem as regards the successive enlightenment of these jīva-s. [nānā means ‘various, different, distinct.] The traditional teaching is that unenlightened jīva-s are reborn and the bodies into which they are born are determined by accumulated karma and may be vegetable or animal. Once a human attains enlightenment, he or she is not reborn. Therefore, the total number of jīva-s on the earth will gradually diminish over time as they become enlightened. Logically, there will come a time when there are so few jīvas-s remaining that there will be insufficient food to keep them alive, because all of the vegetable and animal jīva-s will have graduated to human form and ultimately dropped out of saṃsāra!

 

Under the one-jīva theory, as soon as that jīva gains Self-knowledge, all other (imaginary) jīva-s will disappear and creation will immediately come to an end, in the same way that the characters in our dream disappear when we wake up. Precisely how the one jīva attains Self-knowledge, when the scriptures are quite clear that one needs to approach a teacher (who is presumably another, separate jīva) and undertake śravaņa-manana, is not at all clear!

 

Gaudapada shows in his kārikā-s on the māņḍūkya upaniṣad that there is no creation at all, so there is not even a single jīva. Arguing whether there is one or many is ultimately of no more interest than discussing whether one was paid the correct salary for the work one did in last night’s dream. Both waking and dream worlds have only relative reality; one comes and the other goes. The dream is real in the dream; the waking world is real while I am awake. Both are mithyā and each derives its seeming reality from me, the turīya-ātman. All objects are mithyā; only the ultimate subject on which they all depend – I the ātman – is satyam.

 

Possibly because it avoids the intransigence of the problem discussed above, the eka-jīva-vāda theory has become more popular in recent times. It was addressed by Vimuktatman, who lived around 1000 CE, in his work iśṭasiddhi. M. Hiriyanna gives a brief summary of this work, which is quoted in Ref. 141. (The complete work is given in this but is so convoluted as to be virtually unreadable.) He summarizes Chapter 7 as:

 

“This deals with the question whether there is only one jīva or many and in this connection reviews the materialistic doctrine that denies the soul altogether, pluralistic doctrines like the nyāya that recognizes many souls, all being viewed as other than the Supreme, and that school of Vedanta which assumes a relation of identity-in-difference (bhedābheda) between the jīva and Brahman. The conclusion reached is that there is only one jīva, which is no other than Brahman itself associated with māyā.”

 

The theory is also associated with the 15^th-16^th century author Prakashananda and was specifically advocated by a highly respected writer, Appayya Dikshita, in his work siddhānta lesha saṃgraha, round the 16^th Century CE. [The work is a collection of the views of different followers of Shankara on some of the most important points of Advaita – Ref. 245.] It is sometimes also associated these days with the teaching of Ramana Maharshi. One notable aspect of the theory is that it obviates the need for īśvara as creator of the universe; so it might appeal particularly to those who find the notion of a god difficult to accept. But it was never a theory advocated by Shankara, who remains, in my mind at least, the authority on all topics relating to the optimal teaching of Advaita. The non-dual Consciousness, which is the only reality, has nothing to do with realism or idealism; it is beyond such mithyā concepts.

 

Swami Satchidanandendra points out (Ref. 117) that this discussion is pointless. In vyavahāra [empirical reality; normal worldly interactions], it is indisputable that we experience many jīva-s – we perceive them and we interact with them. From the pāramārthika perspective [absolute reality], we know that there is only Brahman so the question does not arise. And that is really all that needs to be said!

 

Shankara, in the brahmasūtra bhāṣya (1.1.2), describes the universe as “the sphere of action of numerous agents and experiencers of the fruits of action”. Also, in brahmasūtra bhāṣya 3.2.9, Shankara explains at some length why it is that a person who wakes up is the same one that went to sleep. The opponent compares this with putting a drop of water into the ocean and then expecting to take the same drop out again. Shankara says: “In the analogy, it is quite in order to say that the (selfsame) drop of water cannot be singled out, since there is nothing to mark out its individuality. But here we have karma and ignorance as the factors making the (individual) distinction. The two cases are thus different.” (Ref. 5)

 

Shankara also effectively, although incidentally, refutes the notion of there being only one jīva in his bhāṣya on muņḍaka upaniṣad 3.2.6. He is explaining why the word ‘brahmalokeṣu’ – the plural of the word brahmaloka, but meaning ‘Brahman’ in this mantra. He says:

 

“The jīvanmukta-s (sādhaka-s) are many in number, and therefore even though the brahma caitanya is only one, it appears as though there are many brahma caitanya-s, and attained also as though there are many. This is why brahma caitanya is here mentioned in the plural gender as brahmalokeṣu.” (Ref. 10)

 

Accordingly, it is clear that Shankara accepts nānā-jīva-vāda (the theory of many jīva-s). (See also the discussion on the ‘witness’ in 6e below.)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

//But it was never a theory advocated by Shankara, who remains, in my mind at least, the authority on all topics relating to the optimal teaching of Advaita. The non-dual Consciousness, which is the only reality, has nothing to do with realism or idealism; it is beyond such mithyā concepts.//

Shankara's and other texts primarily deal with SDV. Being suitable for the higher stage of evolution of an adhikArI, DSV is rarely dealt with in detail. This does not mean that Shankara did not advocate DSV. As responded to Michael ji, specific statements from bhAshya have been held to refer to DSV in sampradAya.

One of the most important feature of DSV is the merger of prANa during sushupti. This cannot be explained by SDV. And Shruti specifically points out that after waking up, prANa is born.

So, not only bhAshya, but also Shruti advocates DSV. However, keeping manda-adhikArI as audience, SDV is taught. This point is explained by Yogendra Nath Bagachi ji in his commentary on Advaita Siddhi as under: भाष्यकारस्तु दृष्टिसृष्टिपक्षं नातिस्फुटयन् इमं ग्रन्थं व्याचख्यौ, मन्दाधिकारिजनानुजिघृक्षया इति न भाष्यादिविरोधः । [BAlabOdhinI, p. 1051]

//Swami Satchidanandendra points out (Ref. 117) that this discussion is pointless.//

It is not pointless because Shruti and bhAshya specifically refer to DSV also. The attribution of pointlessness would then squarely apply to Shruti as well.

//In vyavahāra [empirical reality; normal worldly interactions], it is indisputable that we experience many jīva-s – we perceive them and we interact with them.//

In DSV, they will be termed jIva-AbhAsa and not as jIva.

//From the pāramārthika perspective [absolute reality], we know that there is only Brahman so the question does not arise. And that is really all that needs to be said!//

Yes, from pAramArthika frame of reference, there is only ajAti. All prakriyAs are from the avidyA-frame-of-reference alone. And they are useful to different stage of evolution of the aspirant. [Please refer to Sankshepa Shariraka 2.84: परिणामबुद्धिमुपमृद्यपुमान् विनिवर्तयत्यथ विवर्तमतिम्। उपमृद्य तामपि पदार्थधिया परिपूर्णदृष्टिमुपसर्पति सः.।।    

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite Prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Accordingly, it is clear that Shankara accepts nānā-jīva-vāda (the theory of many jīva-s). (See also the discussion on the ‘witness’ in 6e below.)

 

• All these justifications can be pushed under the single carpet that is :  all these things said in shruti / bhAshya for the sake of mediocre students of Advaita those who are unable to elevate themselves to the teaching of EJV and ultimately ajAtavAda. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 2:13 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbu ji.

//सर्वं ह्यन्तःकरणविकारमेव जगत् , मनस्येव सुषुप्ते प्रलयदर्शनात् //

Though MuNDaka 2.4 appears to apply to cosmic person - this line is intriguing. Because the statement appears to be made in reference to mind of vyashTi-jIva. "मनस्येव सुषुप्ते प्रलयदर्शनात्" this refers to everyday experience of vyashTi-jIva and taking it as the hetu, the siddhAnta is postulated-  सर्वं ह्यन्तःकरणविकारमेव जगत् - this entire world is vikAra of mind.

Does the word antah-karaNa referred here apply to that of vyashTi-jIva or the cosmic person?

From the Bhashyam wording it can be said that this refers to the vuashTi jiva as sushupti is there for the jiva. 

warm regards

subbu 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

--

Commissioner of Income-tax,
Delhi.

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBuH1w8oH3C2dxtQKjFEmoC6G%3DAxkPArB01zBoEqADNXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Dennis, Thanks for your explanation regarding DSV and EJV. I agree that Shankara does not advocate DSV or EJV. The Karikas are the only place there can be a sustained argument for DSV and I believe my comments in this thread undermine that position.
Regards, Michael 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252906243BA5E30872FAE5848FA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

Thanks for these and the earlier excellent quotes from a wide range of texts establishing DSV, although clear in Shruti, perhaps hidden in bhAShya. They can be useful for some sAdhakas, if not all. Those who can't even agree to such a sambhAvana are being plain adamant, showcasing the adage: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Please see the clarity with which VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha explains:

तर्ह्यहङ्कारः किमुपादानः ? किंनिमित्तः ? किंस्वरूपः ? किम्प्रमाणकः ? किंकार्यः ? किमिति सुषुप्तौ नास्तीति चेत्, उच्यते – 

अहङ्कारस्याऽनाद्यनिर्वचनीयाऽविद्या उपादानम्, अविद्यायाः परमेश्वराधिष्ठितत्वं निमित्तम्, ज्ञानशक्तिक्रियाशक्तिद्वयं स्वरूपम्, कूटस्थचैतन्यं प्रमाणम्, कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिकं च कार्यम् । सुषुप्तेरन्तःकरणप्रलयरूपत्वान्न तत्र सद्भावः । यद्यपि क्रियाशक्तिरूपः प्राणः सुषुप्तौ वर्तते, तथापि प्राणस्याऽहङ्कारादन्यत्वे तल्लयो न विरुध्यते । अनन्यत्वे च प्राणांशं विहायाऽवशिष्टस्य लयः कल्प्यताम् । दृष्टिसृष्टिसमाश्रयणे तु सुप्तपुरुषं प्रति सर्वलयो मुख्य एव सेत्स्यति ।

(If ahamkAra is kArya) Then what is the material cause of ahamkAra? What is the nimitta thereof? What is its swarUpa? What is the pramANa for ahamkAra? What are the kArya of ahamkAra? Whether ahamkAra sustains during sushupti or not?

In response, it is said - the upAdAna of ahamkAra is beginning-less anirvachanIyA avidyA. The fact that avidyA has Supreme Lord as the substratum is the nimitta for ahmakAra. This ahamkAra has twin-swarUpa in the form of jnAna-shakti and kriyA-shakti. The pramANa for ahamkAra is immutable consciousness Itself. Doership and enjoyership are its kArya.

IMPORTANT

During deep sleep, there is merger of antah-karaNa (in avidyA). Hence, there is no existence of ahamkAra in deep sleep. Even though prANa, in the form of kriyA-shakti (of ahamkAra) continues during sushupti, still if prANa is accepted as different from ahamkAra, then it is no contradiction to aver that ahamkAra merges during sushupti. If on the other hand, one holds that prANa is not different from ahamkAra, then accept the merger of ahamkAra during sushupti leaving the prANa-portion behind.

[This all so far is said in srishTa-drishTi-vAda.] In case of drishTi-srishTi-vAda, however, with respect to the asleep jIva, the primary merger of entire world (including prANa) stands accepted/proved. 

This gives us a very important parameter to know as to whether Shruti is talking about DSV or SDV. If the creation of prANa in waking, after sushupti, is being spoken by Shruti -- it is 100% sure that DSV is being spoken because in SDV, prANa does not merge in sushupti.

With this touchstone, the following Shruti irrefutably proves DSV:

KaushItakI 3.3 ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३ । ३)

BrihadAraNyaka Shruti 2.1.20: स यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद्यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति तस्योपनिषत्सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ २० ॥

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[HRH Jayesh Bhagwanji Chitroda]

Would the Kind Bhakt Please Specify whom is understood as Sankara as he was part of the Prasthanatraya. I am in agreed with with the many that he made made dwellings for his Constituency namely Bhakts globally.

Could I also remind the fellow Bhakh of the understanding of Sanskrit into practice as Drsti, refers to Vision and Sristi is found everywhere. 

Also let it be understood that the Vada of free housing has also been Manifested under the professional recordings of Bhagwan Gigha to Bhagwan Gogha Maharaj within Gujarat India. The Eka Nova has seen from forest dwelling to the more secure brick and cement building types...So the Vada or Promise of sheltered homes or Ashrams have also been concluded...

The Hinduism Historical Govt Records so complete in there achievement.

The progress of Sikandar was very concluding from 1736 onwards, as detailed within the SkandaPuran.

JBC

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662562A3B64E75D43340CD0B848FA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:25 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please see the clarity with which VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha explains:

तर्ह्यहङ्कारः किमुपादानः ? किंनिमित्तः ? किंस्वरूपः ? किम्प्रमाणकः ? किंकार्यः ? किमिति सुषुप्तौ नास्तीति चेत्, उच्यते – 

अहङ्कारस्याऽनाद्यनिर्वचनीयाऽविद्या उपादानम्, अविद्यायाः परमेश्वराधिष्ठितत्वं निमित्तम्, ज्ञानशक्तिक्रियाशक्तिद्वयं स्वरूपम्, कूटस्थचैतन्यं प्रमाणम्, कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिकं च कार्यम् । सुषुप्तेरन्तःकरणप्रलयरूपत्वान्न तत्र सद्भावः । यद्यपि क्रियाशक्तिरूपः प्राणः सुषुप्तौ वर्तते, तथापि प्राणस्याऽहङ्कारादन्यत्वे तल्लयो न विरुध्यते । अनन्यत्वे च प्राणांशं विहायाऽवशिष्टस्य लयः कल्प्यताम् । दृष्टिसृष्टिसमाश्रयणे तु सुप्तपुरुषं प्रति सर्वलयो मुख्य एव सेत्स्यति ।

Undoubtedly so. There has been so much of in-depth analysis by the vyAkhyAnakAras, they have hardly left for us to do than understand. If we can't, it is not their fault. Then, to say, we know better is sheer arrogance that helps no one.

 

IMPORTANT

During deep sleep, there is merger of antah-karaNa (in avidyA). Hence, there is no existence of ahamkAra in deep sleep. Even though prANa, in the form of kriyA-shakti (of ahamkAra) continues during sushupti, still if prANa is accepted as different from ahamkAra, then it is no contradiction to aver that ahamkAra merges during sushupti. If on the other hand, one holds that prANa is not different from ahamkAra, then accept the merger of ahamkAra during sushupti leaving the prANa-portion behind.

[This all so far is said in srishTa-drishTi-vAda.] In case of drishTi-srishTi-vAda, however, with respect to the asleep jIva, the primary merger of entire world (including prANa) stands accepted/proved. 

This gives us a very important parameter to know as to whether Shruti is talking about DSV or SDV. If the creation of prANa in waking, after sushupti, is being spoken by Shruti -- it is 100% sure that DSV is being spoken because in SDV, prANa does not merge in sushupti.

With this touchstone, the following Shruti irrefutably proves DSV:

KaushItakI 3.3 ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३ । ३)

BrihadAraNyaka Shruti 2.1.20: स यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद्यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति तस्योपनिषत्सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ २० ॥

That is quite an interesting approach whereby all Shruti or bhAShya vAkyAs that talk of prANalaya in suShupti will automatically fall under to be DSV.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Undoubtedly so. There has been so much of in-depth analysis by the vyAkhyAnakAras, they have hardly left for us to do than understand. If we can't, it is not their fault. Then, to say, we know better is sheer arrogance that helps no one.

Pls read as:... they have hardly left #anything for us to do than understand...

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta ji.

That is quite an interesting approach whereby all Shruti or bhAShya vAkyAs that talk of prANalaya in suShupti will automatically fall under to be DSV.

Absolutely. This is what is explained in Advaita Siddhi also.

दृष्टिसृष्टौ च ‘एवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे वेदाः सर्वाणि भूतानि सर्व एत आत्मनो व्युच्चरन्ती'ति श्रुतिः सुप्तोत्थितजीवात् प्राणादिसृष्टिं प्रतिपादयन्ती प्रमाणम् । न च–सुषुप्तौ प्राणादिपञ्चकस्य सत्त्वात्किमर्थं पुनः सृष्टिरिति-वाच्यम्; ‘न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्ये 'दित्यादिना सुषुप्तौ सकलकार्यप्रपञ्चलयश्रवणात् ।

So, job is simple. We need to just check the Shruti/Smriti/bhAshya which says prANa merges during sushupti. If it says so, it is DSV. This is one of the crucial parameters.

Indeed. We merely need to understand what revered AchAryAs of sampradAya have taught. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

 

The merger of prANa (and everything else)  in sushupti is accepted by even SSSS. (Notwithstanding the fact that it’s sabīja and not  nirbīja as per mainstream Vedanta.

If the “merger of prANa” is the distinctive characteristic of DSV, we have to say SSSS unwittingly accepts DSV !)

I find SSSS ji to self-contradict himself. So, it is no surprise.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Michael ji,

Shankara starts with the experience everyone has: I am so and so, etc. This will go only if the discourse that is aimed at removing it is first put in place. That is the adhyāropa.  So, If the I's relation with the not-I is not demonstrated, there is no way the discourse takes off. The known bound state has to be taken up to the unknown ever-free state. For this, all the discourse is essential. Shankara makes it so perfect.   

//The challenge is that a bhavarupa avidya isn't subject to falsification by knowledge - only an error can be falsified - therefore, it doesn't work as a provisional teaching. That is SSS's reasoning..//

This is the fundamental, monumental misconception on the part of SSS.  No one ever has said that the bhavarupa avidya is equivalent to Brahman. 

warm regards

subbu  

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 4:37 PM Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

namaste Subbuji,
isn't vishayi namarupa? why would there be sunya is namarupa is dispelled
and nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa re-mains? vishaya/vishayi are
correlative terms, and if the object (vishaya) is negated, the subject
(vishayi) must also be negated <AI finished this sentence for me
unrequested - even AI knows the truth of that last sentence :) >

Chat can be long winded. All is agreed in your Chat response. The challenge
is that a bhavarupa avidya isn't subject to falsification by knowledge -
only an error can be falsified - therefore, it doesn't work as a
provisional teaching. That is SSS's reasoning..

I'd like to propose an experiment: would you copy my last response into
your chat and request a refutation? Given our discussion about how AI
responses can be shaped by user framing, I'm curious to see what
alternative perspective it might offer.
Regards, michael

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA5jJmVC0%2BcF_SEhD-TvVu0YWo_NFNk8fWcvPZ9zfxOxg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA5jJmVC0%2BcF_SEhD-TvVu0YWo_NFNk8fWcvPZ9zfxOxg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbu ji, 

There is no doubt avidya in some form must be taken for granted for the teaching to be relevant. It is as you say,  "So, If the I's relation with the not-I is not demonstrated, there is no way the discourse takes off." 

The issue however is the falsification of vishayi that you say will result in shunyavada, "Even when the adhyaropa world of body mind and all the bondage is negated, apavada, the entity is not negated; only its 'subject' label is negated. If that's done, then it would be no different from shunyavada, which Shankara terms nairātmya vada.  

However, here is Shankara in Adhyasa Bhasya negated all vishayitvam as avidya without implication of shunyatvam

"We explain (ucyate) (listen). “He who does not have any identification such as ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (ahaṃ mama abhimāna rahita) in the body, senses etc., cannot be a knower (pramātṛ). Thus, it is incongruous to say the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) function in him (who is not a pramātṛ). That is, without the assumption of senses (indriya-s) there could not be any pramāṇa-pramēya vyavahāra since the senses cannot transact without their substratum (adhiṣṭhāna, the body). In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. Moreover, without a knower (pramātṛ) the pramāṇa-s do not function. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) are objects of the ignorant But, even in the Adhyasa Bhasya Shankara states,  "

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Raja Krishnamurti, 
Unless I'm misunderstanding, you are saying the same thing as the Adhaysa Bhasya quote, am I right?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:34 PM Raja Krishnamurti via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Also I do have to add: The Self is not absence of knowing; it is beyond thoughts and action such as knowing. Anbsence of knowing is Ajnana and different from the realized state.With Prem,Raja Krishnamurti


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Thursday, January 15, 2026, 12:30 PM, Raja Krishnamurti via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Hari Om, Michael ji, One of the fundamental point in Vedanta is that objects like mind, body and intellect are superimposed - adhyaropa on the substratum - Brahman. As per your statement ‘In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. This statement is very much and differs from Advaitha. According to Advaitha, Self alone exists and unreality of body thought and mind as related to action is super imposed on the Atman also known as Brahman. With Om and Prem,Raja Krishnamurti


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, January 15, 2026, 11:54 AM, Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:


Namaste Subbu ji,
There is no doubt avidya in some form must be taken for granted for the
teaching to be relevant. It is as you say,  "So, If the I's relation with
the not-I is not demonstrated, there is no way the discourse takes off."
The issue however is the falsification of vishayi that you say will result
in shunyavada, "Even when the adhyaropa world of body mind and all the
bondage is negated, apavada, the entity is not negated; only its 'subject'
label is negated. If that's done, then it would be no different from
shunyavada, which Shankara terms nairātmya vada.

However, here is Shankara in Adhyasa Bhasya negated all vishayitvam as
avidya without implication of shunyatvam

"We explain (*ucyate*) (listen). *“He who does not have any identification
such as ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (aha**ṃ mama abhimāna rahita) in the body, senses
etc., cannot be a knower (pramāt**ṛ). Thus, it is incongruous to say the
means of knowledge (pramā**ṇa) such as direct observation and others
(pratyakṣādī) function in him (who is not a pramāt**ṛ). That is, without
the assumption of senses (indriya-s) there could not be any pramā**ṇa-pramēya

vyavahāra since the senses cannot transact without their substratum

(adhiṣ**ṭhāna,

the body). In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta
ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. Moreover,

without a knower (pramāt**ṛ) the pramā**ṇa-s do not function. Therefore,

the means of knowledge such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī)

are objects of the ignorant* But, even in the Adhyasa Bhasya Shankara

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Michael ji,

It's the vishayitva upalakshita Atman that's finally upheld by Shankara in the Adhyasa Bhashyam. In other words Vishayitvam is superposed, adhyaropa, on Atman and negated. Without doing this it's impossible for Shankara or the Upanishads to teach the true nature of the Atman. In that method it's the DSV alone and not SDV that helps Shankara. That's the reason why Shankara doesn't quote a single creation passage of the Upanishads. That's the sole undeniable proof of Shankara subscribing to the DSV EJV. Gaudapada too adopted this. The Bhagavadgita 2nd and 13th chapters are indeed this. The DSV EJV is rooted in the Upanishads.

Regards 

subbu