BrihadAraNyaka 4.3.19 and Aitareya 1.3.12

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

in BrihadAraNyaka BhAshya 4.3.19, BhagvAn BhAshyakAra makes a reference to Aitareya 1.3.12. He says - 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 ।

In Aitareya 1.3.12, He says -  त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव । कथम् ? परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च ।

Thus, a complete identity of waking and dream states is posited on account of "darshana of non-existent vastu" i.e. asat-vastu-darshana. As Shruti elsewhere says that there are no chariots in dream and that it is created then. न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथान्रथयोगान्पथः सृजते.

That identity of waking and dream is intended by Shruti is spoken in unambiguous manner by AchArya - जागरितेऽपि यत् दर्शनम् , तदपि स्वप्नं मन्यते श्रुतिः. 

Incidentally, it also proves that there is asat-vastu-darshana in deep sleep. And that is quite clear because in advaita siddhAnta, sAkshi-anubhava of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, which is a mithyA vastu, is accepted in sushupti.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Incidentally, it also proves that there is asat-vastu-darshana in deep sleep. And that is quite clear because in advaita siddhAnta, sAkshi-anubhava of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, which is a mithyA vastu, is accepted in sushupti.

 

Ø     It is year end hectic at office, due to severe time constraints had to ignore several mails though wanted to say lot of things. And this is the one too, i.e. asat vastu ‘darshana’ in deep sleep, sAkshi anubhava of positive existence of ajnAna etc.  If in sushupti asat vastu darshana is possible then sAdhana to get rid of that asat vastu darshana is also possible 😊 So in the absence / upashanti stithi of karaNa-s these vyavahAra-s (asat vastu darshana and sAdhana to get rid of it) possible.  And sushupti like jAgrat and Svapna another state of ‘complete’ vyavahAra 😊 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Sudhanshu ji, what else is this other than drishti srishti... 

regards

subbu

--
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%2BBB8tvAHq-Tmn%3Dq5NgiDdYfdoY5ijm%2BrzVdBHvnFfaD0HA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Thanks Sudhanshu ji, what else is this other than drishti srishti... 

Indeed. In fact, yesterday while going through SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha edited by R Krishnamurti Shastri ji, I noticed the following statement by him on page 268 - ब्राह्मलौकिकपदार्थानां स्वरूपविचारावसरे 'अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते जाग्रद्विषयाऽपि मानस प्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव' इत्यादि छान्दोग्याष्टमपञ्चमभाष्यमपि श्रुतेः दृष्टिसृष्टिपरत्वे प्रमाणम्. He says that ChhAndOgya bhAshya 8.5.4 is also an evidence that Shruti intends drishTi-srishTi. I checked the bhAshya which says - ननु जाग्रद्वासनारूपाः स्वप्नदृश्याः, न तु तत्र स्त्र्यादयः स्वप्ने विद्यन्ते । अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते । जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम् ।

Though DSV is less in number, it is very emphatic in clear understanding. KrishnAlankAra says on page 268 - ये त्वधिकारिणो बहुविधज्ञानकर्मानुष्ठान साधितनिरतिशयपरमेश्वरप्रसादमहिना नितान्त निर्मलीकृतान्त:- करणाः सन्तो जागरेऽपि स्वप्नाद्विशेषं न पश्यन्ति तान् ब्रह्मविद्याकामान् अधिकृत्य प्रवृत्तां कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रबोधस्वापावस्थयोः प्रभवप्रलयप्रतिपादिकां 'श्रुतिं अनुसृत्य दृष्टिसृष्टिवादः पूर्वाचार्यैर्निरूपितः । Those eligible aspirants, who are of absolutely pure antah-karaNa on account of grace of Ishwara obtained through the performance of several jnAna and karma, who do not see any distinction between waking and dream; to those aspirants desirous of Brahma-vidyA, the AchAryAs describe drishTi-srishTi following the (KaushItakI 3.3) Shruti which propounds the origin and dissolution of entire world in waking (dream) and sleep (sushupti).

This is the clear and emphatic assertion in our sampradAya. Therefore, DSV should be approached with extreme respect and humility. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

> asat vastu ‘darshana’ in deep sleep, sAkshi anubhava of positive existence of ajnAna etc.

The words "positive existence" are wrong. The word is "bhAvarUpa" which means bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. The usage "bhAva-rUpa" is to highlight abhAva-vilakshaNatA.

 
> If in sushupti asat vastu darshana is possible then sAdhana to get rid of that asat vastu darshana is also possible

Not necessary. There is no such rule.

 
> So in the absence / upashanti stithi of karaNa-s these vyavahAra-s (asat vastu darshana and sAdhana to get rid of it) possible.  And sushupti like jAgrat and Svapna another state of ‘complete’ vyavahAra  

Not possible on account of absence of any vyApti which has darshana as vyApya and vyavahAra as vyApaka.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 
>
>  
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>  
>

> --
> 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/AM7PR06MB6625F5E505F29E5DE16CE59B84A02%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.



--
Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji and Namaste Sri Sudhanshu ji

It is  interesting that Sri Sudhanshu ji quotes from fourth adhyAya, third brAhmaNa of Brihadaranyaka.

This is the one location where AchArya denies avidyA in deep sleep at many places.

Best Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

This is the one location where AchArya denies avidyA in deep sleep at many places.

It is a misunderstanding to infer so in bhAshya vAkya.

As it has been explained, it is the vyaktA-avidyA which is absent in deep sleep. And thus, sushupti becomes an illustration for mOksha. Anandagiri Swami explains - BrihadAraNyak BhAshya – यद्यपि सुषुप्तेऽविद्या विद्यते तथाऽपि न साऽभिव्यक्ताऽस्तीत्यनर्थपरिहारोपपत्तिरित्यर्थः । You can also check Naiskarmya Siddhi in this respect wherein AchArya says - तस्मात् सुषुप्तौ अज्ञानम् अवश्यम् अभ्युपगन्तव्यम्।

To hold absence of avidyA in deel sleep is a sampradAya-bAhya incorrect understanding.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 4:30 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed. In fact, yesterday while going through SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha edited by R Krishnamurti Shastri ji, I noticed the following statement by him on page 268 - ब्राह्मलौकिकपदार्थानां स्वरूपविचारावसरे 'अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते जाग्रद्विषयाऽपि मानस प्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव' इत्यादि छान्दोग्याष्टमपञ्चमभाष्यमपि श्रुतेः दृष्टिसृष्टिपरत्वे प्रमाणम्. He says that ChhAndOgya bhAshya 8.5.4 is also an evidence that Shruti intends drishTi-srishTi. I checked the bhAshya which says - ननु जाग्रद्वासनारूपाः स्वप्नदृश्याः, न तु तत्र स्त्र्यादयः स्वप्ने विद्यन्ते । अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते । जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम् ।

Though DSV is less in number, it is very emphatic in clear understanding. KrishnAlankAra says on page 268 - ये त्वधिकारिणो बहुविधज्ञानकर्मानुष्ठान साधितनिरतिशयपरमेश्वरप्रसादमहिना नितान्त निर्मलीकृतान्त:- करणाः सन्तो जागरेऽपि स्वप्नाद्विशेषं न पश्यन्ति तान् ब्रह्मविद्याकामान् अधिकृत्य प्रवृत्तां कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रबोधस्वापावस्थयोः प्रभवप्रलयप्रतिपादिकां 'श्रुतिं अनुसृत्य दृष्टिसृष्टिवादः पूर्वाचार्यैर्निरूपितः । 

Thanks for these references from SLS editor, etc. for DSV.

Kind rgds,
--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]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 4:30 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Though DSV is less in number, it is very emphatic in clear understanding. KrishnAlankAra says on page 268 - ये त्वधिकारिणो बहुविधज्ञानकर्मानुष्ठान साधितनिरतिशयपरमेश्वरप्रसादमहिना नितान्त निर्मलीकृतान्त:- करणाः सन्तो जागरेऽपि स्वप्नाद्विशेषं न पश्यन्ति तान् ब्रह्मविद्याकामान् अधिकृत्य प्रवृत्तां कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रबोधस्वापावस्थयोः प्रभवप्रलयप्रतिपादिकां 'श्रुतिं अनुसृत्य दृष्टिसृष्टिवादः पूर्वाचार्यैर्निरूपितः । Those eligible aspirants, who are of absolutely pure antah-karaNa on account of grace of Ishwara obtained through the performance of several jnAna and karma, who do not see any distinction between waking and dream; to those aspirants desirous of Brahma-vidyA, the AchAryAs describe drishTi-srishTi following the (KaushItakI 3.3) Shruti which propounds the origin and dissolution of entire world in waking (dream) and sleep (sushupti).

Coincidentally, during my study, I came across Bhagavan Bhashyakara quoting this very mantra under Br. Su.1.3.30, explaining which Bhashyaratnaprabha says:

स्वप्नवत्कल्पितस्याज्ञातसत्त्वाभावात् दर्शनं सृष्टिः अदर्शनं लय इति दृष्टिसृष्टिपक्षः श्रुत्यभिप्रेत इति भावः । 

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya

[V Subrahmanian]

The Ratnaprabha for BSB 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation, transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]

warm regards

subbu

--

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/CACT7j-Gur7%3Dd7tpUkL_Pu6uux%3DDVqco4T5yOtRAccRDg8DheoA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

The verse is from Samkshepa ShArIraka 2.89.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for citing the source, Sudhanshu ji.

regards

--

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%2BBB%3DiW3Hn_z8rxjMi1R8YBsGpiy8gMXvA6TR480BrsLP2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Sudhanshu Ji cited Aitareya Bhashya 1-3-12   //  ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव । कथम् ? परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च ।

Thus, a complete identity of waking and dream states is posited on account of "darshana of non-existent vastu" i.e. asat-vastu-darshana //.

And concluded  // Incidentally, it also proves that there is asat-vastu-darshana in deep sleep //.

Sri Subrahmanian Ji stated  // what else is this other than drishti srishti //.

Subsequently  Sudhanshu Ji  affirmed this. But also  cited Kaushitaki Up 3-3 in support. Ananta Chaitanya Ji is citing  Bhashya BSB 1-3-30 wherein the same Kaushitaki mantra  is cited, along with Ratnaprabha commentary thereon

// Coincidentally, during my study, I came across Bhagavan Bhashyakara quoting this very mantra under Br. Su.1.3.30, explaining which Bhashyaratnaprabha says:

स्वप्नवत्कल्पितस्याज्ञातसत्त्वाभावात् दर्शनं सृष्टिः अदर्शनं लय इति दृष्टिसृष्टिपक्षः श्रुत्यभिप्रेत इति भावः । //.

Here, in Kaushitaki Up,  अदर्शनं लय (adarshanaM laya) , it is stated that there is अदर्शनं (adarshanaM) during sushupti , while earlier citation from Aitareya Up stated ** "darshana of non-existent vastu" i.e. asat-vastu-darshana ** during Sushupti. Are not these two contradictory ?

I am not contesting any claims. Just a genuine doubt. I might have made a mistake in understanding. Apologies in advance if so.

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1htRd0yx5U9kUXw%2B3LDB_X_-yrzDEivi5m5cRc-OVS0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Chandramouliji, 

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025, 6:11 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here, in Kaushitaki Up,  अदर्शनं लय (adarshanaM laya) , it is stated that there is अदर्शनं (adarshanaM) during sushupti , while earlier citation from Aitareya Up stated ** "darshana of non-existent vastu" i.e. asat-vastu-darshana ** during Sushupti. Are not these two contradictory ?

I am not contesting any claims. Just a genuine doubt. I might have made a mistake in understanding. Apologies in advance if so.

I think Aitareya is comparing darshana being of asatvastu of waking like dream, not adarshana of Kaushitaki, which is compared with pralaya. Darshana in waking is comparable to sRShTi.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya Ji,

I am sorry I could not understand the clarification. I may add that Sri SSS, in a Footnote to this part of the Bhashya, states that in the view of the Shruti, entire external Jagat, Creation, merges into ParamAtma (using same terminology as in the translation). In my understanding of the stand of Sri SSS, there is no avidyA in sushupti.

Regards

--
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/CACT7j-HA3mCtgJaHnT_CKmnFq9ACKGzt62ZBvGwSuvEnuyRu1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

When "अदर्शनं लयः" or "दर्शनं सृष्टिः" is spoken about, the darshan or adarshan is talked of avidyA-kArya and not of avidyA. This is so because for six anAdi entities, which include avidyA, there is no drishTi-srishTi. (अनाद्यतिरिक्तसृष्टिविषय एव दृष्टिसृष्टिस्वीकारात्).

So, in Aitareya 1.3.12, when sushupti, dream and waking are being equated on account of asat-vastu-darshan, sushupti satisfies the criterion on account of sAkshI-anubhava of avidyA. This does not violate KaushItakI regarding merger of everything, because KaushItakI talks of merger of everything in avidyA only. So, avidyA has to be appearing in sushupti.

SSSS Ji's claim of no ajnAna in sushupti is contradicted by SureshwarachArya's emphatic statement in NS - तस्मादवश्यं सुषुप्तेsज्ञानम् अभ्युपगन्तव्यम्. (3.57). 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 7:21 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sorry I could not understand the clarification. I may add that Sri SSS, in a Footnote to this part of the Bhashya, states that in the view of the Shruti, entire external Jagat, Creation, merges into ParamAtma (using same terminology as in the translation). In my understanding of the stand of Sri SSS, there is no avidyA in sushupti.

I didn't think that the Q was from SSS' interpretation of suShupti. Perhaps, I misunderstood your question, sorry. 

I see that Sudhanshuji already responded to your Q on his interpolation between Shrutis.

 

Kind rgds,

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

If Aitareya 1.3.12 is concerning  asat-vastu-darshan of avidyA in Sushupti, then this part of  Aitareya cannot be considered to be DSV since for six anAdi entities, which include avidyA, there is no drishTi-srishTi. But it was stated in your earlier posts that this part of  Aitareya is DSV.

Regards

--

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%2BBBujBtkrtZjL%2BLRE00XAT%2BG3V47Z77dMBjRhWNEKzy8YQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya Ji,

No no. I did not intend my Q to be from the view point of SSS' interpretation of suShupti. It was just for info.

I have responded to the post by Sudhanshu Ji separately.

Regards

--

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/CACT7j-HLcV2x4OgY8z_zqPgYDabSpuFF8Jc92p8ny8LhQ3U_HA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

asat-vastu-darshan is a feature of svapna which is accepted by both siddhAntI and the opponent. It is a संप्रतिपन्न feature. 

Aitareya Shruti says that both jAgrat and sushupti are also svapna.

Therefore, clearly, both jAgrat and sushupti have asat-vastu-darshana.

In case of sushupti, since there is merger of the entire avidyA-kArya in avidyA, the darshana can be only of avidyA. And thus, it satisfies asat-vastu-darshana. 

In case of jAgrat, since there is also darshana of avidyA-kArya, which is identical to that in svapna, it also satisfies asat-vastu-darshana.

If Aitareya 1.3.12 is concerning  asat-vastu-darshan of avidyA in Sushupti, then this part of  Aitareya cannot be considered to be DSV since for six anAdi entities, which include avidyA, there is no drishTi-srishTi. But it was stated in your earlier posts that this part of  Aitareya is DSV.

DSV implies complete identity between dream and waking. In SDV, a distinction between waking and dream is maintained, which is elaborated in वैधर्म्यात् च न स्वप्नादिवत्. It is maintained, inter alia, that in svapna, there is simultaneous creation, but in waking, there is sequential creation. The Aitareya verse indicates identity between dream and waking. Hence, it can be understood to refer to drishTi-srishTi. BhAshyakAra referring to this Aitareya Shruti, in BrihadAraNyaka, clearly says that waking-darshana is identical to dream-darshana. 

So, in my humble view, it clearly demonstrates drishTi-srishTi.

The asat-vastu-darshana in sushupti is not repugnant to drishTi-srishTi. DS is about waking and dream. For sushupti, it is the laya.

The Shruti can teach several ideas - by positing identity of dream and waking, it teaches DSV. By positing identity of dream and sushupti, it teaches bhAvarUpa-ajnAna in sushupti.

The same view is elucidated, even more clearly, by VidyAraNya Swami in anubhUti-prakAsha. He states:

स्वप्नः स्व-काले एव अस्ति न अन्यदा सुप्ति-जागरौ.

तथा-एव-इति स्वप्न-साम्यात् त्रयः स्वप्ना: उदीरिताः.

[The dream state does exist only at the time of its experience and not at other times (that is, during the time of the experience of deep sleep state or waking state). The states of deep sleep and waking too are similar to the state of dream. On this ground, the three states are referred to (in the Upanigad) as dream.]

This emphatic statement surely affirms drishTi-srishTi. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The issue is not about DSV per se or DSV vis-à-vis SDV. The question is about  whether the Aitareya mantra cited earlier by you reflects DSV or not. I have only drawn attention to the contradictions in your earlier posts on this issue. I am not extending it to cover DSV vs SDV.

It is upto you to deal with it in whatever way you want.

Regards

--

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%2BBAK-4T1sh4rRyp9XEQd55kjXAArtKYEmTZT9et2S1kKpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

The issue is not about DSV per se or DSV vis-à-vis SDV. The question is about  whether the Aitareya mantra cited earlier by you reflects DSV or not. I have only drawn attention to the contradictions in your earlier posts on this issue. I am not extending it to cover DSV vs SDV.

The issue raised by you is dealt specifically and is highlighted. I repeat the pin-pointed answer to your objection: 

The Shruti can teach several ideas - by positing identity of dream and waking, it teaches DSV. By positing identity of dream and sushupti, it teaches bhAvarUpa-ajnAna in sushupti.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 1:13 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

asat-vastu-darshan is a feature of svapna which is accepted by both
siddhAntI and the opponent. It is a संप्रतिपन्न feature.

Aitareya Shruti says that both jAgrat and sushupti are also svapna.

Therefore, clearly, both jAgrat and sushupti have asat-vastu-darshana.

In case of sushupti, since there is merger of the entire avidyA-kArya in
avidyA, the darshana can be only of avidyA. And thus, it satisfies
asat-vastu-darshana.

This is a wonderful analysis with a very usable conclusion. Thanks.

Kind rgds,

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Thank you Ananta Chaitanya ji.

If we can consolidate the references to DSV in Shruti, BhAshya and works of sampradAya-vit AchAryAs, it will be be of great help. I just begin it, and learned members, if they deem fit, can add:

1. Brihadaaranyak 4.3.19

2. Brihadaaranyak 2.1.20

2. Aitareya 1.3.12

3. KaushItakI 3.3/4.19 

4. ChhAndOgya 8.5.4

6. BSB/RatnaprabhA/NyAya NirNaya 1.3.30

7. anubhUti prakAsha 1.17

8. anubhUti prakAsha 8.67

9. anibhUti prakAsha 9.46

Advaita Siddhi states that Brihadaaranyak 2.1.20 is pramANa for DSV - दृष्टिसृष्टौ च ‘एवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे वेदाः सर्वाणि भूतानि सर्व एत आत्मनो व्युच्चरन्ती'ति श्रुतिः सुप्तोत्थितजीवात् प्राणादिसृष्टिं प्रतिपादयन्ती प्रमाणम् ।

I request the learned members to add further references which are in their knowledge.

There are umpteen references in MANDUkya. 

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

I don't think DSV, per se,  is a problem to HH SSSSji purvapaksa if it just equate jagrat with svapna. What is the problem is the idea of a bhava-abhava vilakshana presupposed to DSV.  If such a proposition existed prior to mind, then mind's negation would leave that which is presupposed AND Brahman, no? What exactly is this BAV? 🙏🙏🙏

--

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%2BBD5rJdz92C1COXFSSCBK%2BA7WPv9PU48cijRCxAtqqrt9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

What is drishTi? Pot-drishTi, cloth-drishTi are being stated to co-appear with pot and cloth.

They involve a fluctuation, a modification, a change.

That cannot be of chaitanya. As it is changeless.

So, a bav needs to be accepted. Otherwise, drishTi word will be meaningless.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGkJFsWXiszO%3Dz-O_4cOvUVTPpFJkOQ9VpE7x8YjS257A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

Why consider pot and pot drsti as separate entities? Both are imaginations of Consciousness just like dream, no?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB0Fe1krAHbo8KZbQP9keAK8Z6Bwo-ARQRs7ZK%2BAejxTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Why consider pot and pot drsti as separate entities? Both are imaginations of Consciousness just like dream, no?

Yes indeed Michael ji. That is one view in DSV wherein drishTi itself is accepted as srishTi.

The another view, wherein srishTi co-appearing with drishTi is accepted, also finds support from Shruti.

BrohadAraNyak Shruti 4.3.10 says that then, in dream, there are no chariots, animals, roads, rivers, tanks. He creates them then.

Thus, the Shruti talks of creation in dream.

So, based on this and other Shruti, a srishTi other than drishTi, is accepted.

But, the other approach of treating drishTi itself as srishTi is also equally fruitful as VedAnta SiddhAnta MuktAvalI shows.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

Yes, I get SDV and need to posit a distinction between seer and seen. But with DSV, drk/drsyam bhava there is no need to posit distinction nor 'a fluctuation, a modification, a change' as drk is sAkshi imagined as other ... just like dream is sAkshi imagined as dream phenomenon. Is BAV the proposed "force" that accounts for fluctuation etc? If so then it is something positive rather than BAV, no?

--

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%2BBAe6p5Py2MwiP_U2mJQmuPp3jviYJXD7PpH-Vk7RMuwJQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

> But with DSV, drk/drsyam bhava there is no need to posit distinction nor 'a fluctuation, a modification, a change' as drk is sAkshi imagined as other ... just like dream is sAkshi imagined as dream phenomenon.

The very word "imagination" implies a change. Some fluctuation, some vibration! A singular inactive entity cannot accommodate imagination. So, imagination entails vibration and that would require avidyA.

> Is BAV the proposed "force" that accounts for fluctuation etc? If so then it is something positive rather than BAV, no?

avidyA, which is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa, is the material which modifies and gives rise to drishTi as well as srishTi. DrishTi on account of (avidyA-vritti) being a delimiting factor (upAdhi) of chaitanya, and srishTi on account of modifying in the form of object of drishTi.

It is neither bhAva nor abhAva because there is presence of contradicting factors if it is postulated either as bhAva or abhAva. So, it is held as bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.

Most important thing, as I understand in advaita, is not to go on discussing avidyA and its bhava-vilakshaNatA or abhAva-vilakshaNatA. The idea is to understand that it is illusory. And so is illusory the entire seen. Just like a dream. Thus, avidyA is superimposed in shuddha chaitanya.

So, the focus is to situate as the substratum, shuddha chaitanya, and not as the superimposed, avidyA and avidyA-kArya. Situating as the substratum, avidyA andavidyA-kArya cease to be termed as illusory. They are now termed tuchchha. Like hare's horn. This is real advaita. The whole discussion on illusoriness of avidyA and avidyA-kArya is intended to propel us to the frame of reference of substratum.

So, there are three approaches to avidyA. One, real. Second, illusory. And third, tuchchha (like hare's horn).

VidyAraNya SwAmiji summarizes it succinctly:

तुच्छा अनिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा ।
ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौत यौक्तिक लौकिकैः ॥

Regards,
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

//The very word "imagination" implies a change.// 

Bhasyakara calls adhyasa naisargika and anadi - If it exists innately and timelessly, there is no change, just error based on a lack of discrimination. 

//It is neither bhAva nor abhAva because there is presence of contradicting factors if it is postulated either as bhAva or abhAva. So, it is held as bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.// 

Contradiction is obvious, please:  Not existent, Not non-existent, yet something. Something, like what? There is no man in the stump nor snake in the rope- they are mistakes only. 

//The whole discussion on illusoriness of avidyA and avidyA-kArya is intended to propel us to the frame of reference of substratum.//

My understanding is that the teaching is ONLY to propel us to negate the illusion. The substratum stands on its own. But perhaps this is what you are indeed saying - I am not clear. If so, I ask how to negate an illusion taken as real? //there are three approaches to avidyA. One, real....//? How is the illusion real? How can a BAV illusion be a "material" covering nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta svabhava? How is a 'material covering' to be eliminated by knowledge alone? 🙏🙏🙏

--

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%2BBCcu4AD14%2B2d10RR-ur15vwa8V9wc-5pwA9x0Yp6uF2dA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

That looks good. There are some bhAShya sentences I found to be DSV as in Mundaka and of course in Mandukya. Some may call it an opinion, so be it. Entire Vedanta Siddhanta Muktavali is DSV, wherein the author shifts the onus of proving the reality of jagat onto the pUrvapakSha with a single example of dream.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

Any sentence which posits mithyAtva of seen is acceptable as propounding DSV.

In Advaita Siddhi, Neha nAnA asti kinchan, which propounds mithyAtva of seen, is accepted as the bAdhaka in accepting pratyabhijnA. The logic is as follows. Since seen is mithyA, it has to have pratIti-mAtra-sharIra like illusory snake and hence it cannot have sattva at any time other than that of its pratibhAsa. Therefore, A seen at time t1 and t2 will imply two different A1 and A2. This will imply that pratyabhijnA held to be a bhrAnti.  ‘नेह नाने'त्यादिश्रुतिभिः प्रपञ्चस्य मिथ्यात्वेऽवधृते रज्जुसर्पादिवत् प्रतिभासमात्रशरीरत्वमेव प्रतिभासकालातिरिक्तकालसत्त्वे बाधकम् , अतो भिन्नकालानामात्मभिन्नानां प्रत्यभिज्ञा भ्रान्तिः ।

Please share the sentences from MuNDaka which appear to you as DSV.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Bhasyakara calls adhyasa naisargika and anadi - If it exists innately and timelessly, there is no change, just error based on a lack of discrimination. 

If there is no change, there cannot be imagination. It is this simple. True that adhyAsa is present from beginningless time and that it is naisargika, but that does not imply non-requirement of change. Without change, adhyAsa itself is unexplainable. So, change is needed for the very conception of adhyAsa. And that is impossible if singular changeless entity is the premise. Per force, in order to make sense of what one is speaking, one has to admit an illusory second. Otherwise, it is a meaningless set of sentences.

//It is neither bhAva nor abhAva because there is presence of contradicting factors if it is postulated either as bhAva or abhAva. So, it is held as bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.// 

Contradiction is obvious, please:  Not existent, Not non-existent, yet something. Something, like what?

When it is said abhAva-vilakshaNa, then it does not mean "not non-existent". abhAva includes within its ambit asat (non-existent and non-perceptible) and abhAvAtmaka avidyA-kArya (the four abhAvAs). abhAva-vilakshaNa means different from these.

To clarify again, abhAva-vilakshaNa does not mean "not non-existent".

So, avidyA is non-existent, and yet perceptible. Like what? Like an illusory snake!!

 

There is no man in the stump nor snake in the rope- they are mistakes only. 

Certainly. However, a non-existent snake in the rope appears only from the frame of reference of the non-rope. From the frame of reference of the rope, the snake neither exists nor appears. So, from the frame of reference of non-rope, snake is mithyA BUT from the frame of reference of rope, snake is tuchchha.

Similarly, non-existent avidyA appears only from the frame of reference of non-Brahman. From the frame of reference of Brahman, avidyA neither exists nor appears. So, from the frame of reference of non-Brahman, avidyA is mithyA BUT from the frame of reference of Brahman, avidyA is tuchchha.

I would quote VArtika here:  नाविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।।ब्रह्मटृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथंचन युज्यते ।। (Sambandha BhAshya VArtika 176)

So, all talk of avidyA as material cause, as bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa etc are from the frame of reference of non-Brahman i.e. from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame of reference of Brahman, avidyA is nihswarUpa, tuchchha, nishpratiyOgika abhAva. I hope this clarifies the matter.

My understanding is that the teaching is ONLY to propel us to negate the illusion. The substratum stands on its own. But perhaps this is what you are indeed saying - I am not clear.

Yes. Negating the illusion is identical to situating as substratum. 

If so, I ask how to negate an illusion taken as real?

To know the illusion as an illusion. The moment there is conviction that seen is illusion, the reality posited earlier therein drops.  

 

//there are three approaches to avidyA. One, real....//? How is the illusion real?

When one does not know the illusion as an illusion, he treats it as real.

How can a BAV illusion be a "material" covering nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta svabhava?

On the contrary, the fact of covering establishes that it cannot be material-abhAva. So, I would not say that it is material. I would prefer to say that it is not material-abhAva. And I won't go on to find what it is. I would rest content by saying that it is neither bhAva nor abhAva. 

 

How is a 'material covering' to be eliminated by knowledge alone? 🙏🙏🙏

That is seen from experience that knowledge removes ignorance. And that ignorance is neither bhAva nor abhAva is proved through logic. So, our anubhava testifies to knowledge removing a bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa avidyA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu Ji, 

In this Gita Bhashyam Shankara gives the hetu jneyatvaat to determine something as kshetram, aka prakruti. This is not different from the hetu drishyatvaat. Anything that is object to the saakshi is kshetram, the whole of which has been determined in the last verse of this chapter to be mithya, abhavagamanam. 

This is a very eminent DSV statement from the Bhashyakaara.

Regards 

subbu

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम्त्रयोदशोऽध्यायःश्लोक ६ - भाष्यम्

………पुनः तज्जातीयमुपलभमानः तमादातुमिच्छति सुखहेतुरिति ; सा इयं इच्छा अन्तःकरणधर्मः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम् । तथा द्वेषः, यज्जातीयमर्थं दुःखहेतुत्वेन अनुभूतवान् , पुनः तज्जातीयमर्थमुपलभमानः तं द्वेष्टि ; सोऽयं द्वेषः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव । तथा सुखम् अनुकूलं प्रसन्नसत्त्वात्मकं ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव । दुःखं प्रतिकूलात्मकम् ; ज्ञेयत्वात् तदपि क्षेत्रम् । सङ्घातः देहेन्द्रियाणां संहतिः । तस्यामभिव्यक्तान्तःकरणवृत्तिः, तप्त इव लोहपिण्डे अग्निः आत्मचैतन्याभासरसविद्धा चेतना ; सा च क्षेत्रं ज्ञेयत्वात् । धृतिः यया अवसादप्राप्तानि देहेन्द्रियाणि ध्रियन्ते ; सा च ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम् । सर्वान्तःकरणधर्मोपलक्षणार्थम् इच्छादिग्रहणम् । 

--

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%2BBA2uy%3DH7b5k1O5MYvFC-HYV40wX06D-TpMLZC8bCduKjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Indeed  ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम्  and  दृश्यत्वात् वैतथ्यम् (माण्डूक्य 2.4) are two iconic statements by BhAshyakAra.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha posits eka-jIva-vAda as classified in several ways. First one is eka-sharIra-eka-jIva-vAda. Second is aneka-sharIra-eka-jIva-vAda. And the third version is a sub-classification of the second one.

From BAlabOdhinI, page 1058-1059, it is clear that the view in accordance with VivaraNa is that of eka-sharIra-eka-jIva-vAda. 

SLS says - अन्ये तु - अस्मिन्नेकशरीरैकजीववादे मनःप्रत्ययमलभमानाः ‘अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात्’ (ब्र.सू. २ । १ । २२) ‘लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्’ (ब्र.सू. २ । १ । ३३) इत्यादिसूत्रैः ‘जीवाधिक ईश्वर एव जगतः स्रष्टा, न जीवः, तस्य आप्तकामत्वेन प्रयोजनाभावेऽपि केवलं लीलाजगतः सृष्टिः’ इत्यादि प्रतिपादयद्भिः विरोधं च मन्यमानाः - हिरण्यगर्भ एको ब्रह्मप्रतिबिम्बो मुख्यो जीवः, अन्ये तु तत्प्रतिबिम्बभूताः चित्रपटलिखितमनुष्यदेहार्पितपटाभासकल्पाः जीवाभासाः संसारादिभाजः - इति सविशोषानेकशरीरैकजीववादमातिष्ठन्ते ।

BAlabOdhinI says on page 1059 - आचार्येण (by Advaita-Siddhi-kAra) पुनः विवरणप्रदर्शितप्रकारात् प्रकारान्तरमभ्युपगम्य पूर्वपक्षिशङ्कायाः परिहारमाह – समष्ट्यभिमानिनो मुख्यजीवस्य असुप्तत्वाद् एकस्मिन् जीवे सुप्ते न जगदप्रतीत्यापत्तिः । मुख्यामुख्य-जीवकल्पनं पूर्वपक्षी शंका-परिहार-सौकर्याय । अयमपि पक्षः शास्त्रे निर्दिष्टः । विवरण-प्रदर्शिते एकजीववादे मनः प्रत्ययमलभमाना केचिदाचार्याः एवं कल्पयन्ति - हिरण्यगर्भ एको ब्रह्मप्रतिबिम्बो मुख्यो जीवः, अन्ये तु तत्प्रतिबिम्बभूताः चित्रपटलिखितमनुष्यदेहार्पितपटाभासकल्पाः जीवाभासाः संसारादिभाजः - इति 

The relevant portion from VivaraNa is in ninth varNaka -  स्वप्नादिवच्च तत्त्वज्ञानेन सर्वोपाधिविनिर्मोक्षश्च युज्यते; वामदेवादिमुक्त्येदानीं संसारानुपलब्धिः स्यादिति चेत्, एकैकमुक्तावप्यनन्तैरेव युगैरनन्तानां जीवानां मुक्तत्वात्तुल्येदानीं संसारानुपलब्धिः। इदानीं संसारदर्शनं तु परस्यापि तुल्यम्। अनुपपत्तिश्चावयोः समाना। अतो निरुपाधिकचैतन्ये त्वयि ब्रह्मणि प्रत्यक्षे बन्धावभासे सोपाधिकचैतन्येषु तव मुक्ततावभासो विभ्रमः। तद्विषयश्रुत्यादीनां प्रत्यक्षाविरुद्धतयाऽर्थवादत्वाद् निरुपाधिकचैतन्यप्रतिभासे त्वयि सोपाधिकचैतन्यभेदानां कल्पितत्वात् कस्यैकस्य बन्ध-मोक्षाविति तव तावत्संदेहो न जायते; सोपाधिकचैतन्येषु मुक्तताभ्रमात्, तद्वचनानां चार्थवादत्वात्। एवं प्रत्येकमात्मनो न संदेहः।

These references make it clear that the eka-jIva-vAda in accordance with VivaraNa is that of eka-sharIra-eka-jIva-vAda. And its description is as follows - एको जीवः । तेन चैकमेव शरीरं सजीवम् । अन्यानि स्वप्नदृष्टशरीराणीव निर्जीवानि । तदज्ञानकल्पितं सर्वं जगत् । तस्य स्वप्नदर्शनवद्यावदविद्यं सर्वो व्यवहारः । बद्धमुक्तव्यवस्थापि नास्ति जीवस्यैकत्वात् । शुकमुक्त्यादिकमपि स्वाप्नपुरुषान्तरमुक्त्यादिकमिव कल्पितम् । अत्र च सम्भावितसकलशङ्कापङ्कप्रक्षालनं स्वप्नदृष्टान्तसलिलधारयैव कर्तव्यम् − इति । (SiddhAnta Lesha Sangraha)

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.