Does SSSS subscribe to drsti-srsti vada?

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

some keen insights from ABD Smt Manjushree Hegde, Sankara's Two Truths as Pedagogy, 11 May 2026 in J. of Hindu Studies, OUP

This assertion, articulated from the stance of the sākṣin, is categorically different from the same assertion if/when articulated from the stance of an individual, embodied and embedded in the vyāvahārika-world. Comans claims that SSS (absurdly) asserts that the vyāvahārika-world—a shared, public domain—is intrinsically linked to myy [an individual’s] waking state. Such an assertion leads to the (undesirable) conclusion that the external world, like the world of dreams, is private, subjective and idiosyncratic to each individual. This is the doctrine of dṛṣtisṛṣti—the creation of the world is concomitant with its perception—which Śaṅkara (certainly) does not subscribe to (Comans 2000, p. 262). Doherty makes the same accusation: ‘[dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭivāda] is, however, consistent with the rest of Satchidānandendra’s thought. Even if he had not named it, dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda is the inevitable consequence of several of his views…’ (Doherty 1999, p. 123). SSS does not, in fact, assert that the ‘common world of experience’ ‘vanishes when a person is in dream or sleep’. To say that a person is awake/dreams/sleeps within a common world of experience is the lokadṛṣṭi. From this stance, SSS asserts the reality of the dualistic world, its continuance through the three states, etc; uncompromisingly, he upholds the logic of the vyāvahārika. It is from the śāstradṛṣṭi—as awareness only—that SSS discusses the sublation of the waking state—and with it, the waking world—in dream/deep sleep. From the stance of the sākṣin/awareness, the “shared” world of experience is, in its entirety, simply contents/objects presented to awareness; its consistency/intersubjectivity—features that appear intrinsic to it—are no evidence of its independence/autonomy. SSS’ argument is echoed in Dalal’s observation: ‘The world is independent of mind, but dependent on the witnessing observer. Thus, he [Śaṅkara] is able to collapse the contents of experience into witnessing consciousness without necessarily reducing the external object to mere cognition and as being wholly created by cognition’ (Dalal 2022, p. 411).

Doherty observes, ‘[SSS’ argument] is all true, of course, from the absolute standpoint (pāramārthika-dṛṣṭyā) and Satchidanandendra’s opponents would not contest this’ (Doherty 2005, p. 227). The key point is that SSS’ sākṣin-stance is different from the PSA’s pāramārthikadṛṣṭi; the latter is achieved post-gnosis, and is not immediately accessible. The PSA posit the sublation of the phenomenal world as a future “event” of “awakening” to the ultimate reality (Hirst 2005, p. 92). In contrast, to take the sākṣinstance is to notice what is available in direct experience—the irrefutable absence of the waking world in the dream (svapne vipratipadyate) and deep sleep states—to understand its ultimate reality (tasmādādyantavatvena mithyaiva khalu te smṛtāḥ) (GKB 2.7). It is therefore that SSS argues—that Śaṅkarācārya argues—that the world is incontestably real from the vyāvahārika perspective; from the sākṣin standpoint, on the other hand, the vyāvahārika-world is illusory for its sublation (in dream/deep sleep) is directly cognised (Saraswati 2009b, p. 90). From the perspective of absolute non-dual reality, there is nothing to be said at all. SSS is clear that the śāstradṛṣṭi does not undermine the lokadṛṣṭi: it is an epistemic standpoint to understand the ultimate reality. Comans’ (and Doherty’s) criticism conflates the two.

This conflation/confusion stems from a very valid concern: how is the examination of the contents of awareness of the waking state—as experienced by the (contemplating) individual—not constrained by their subjectivity; how, in other words, a clearly subjective starting point of inquiry can be called as a universal, trans-personal perspective; for indisputably, it is an individual who must undertake the inquiry— the epistemic shift from lokadṛṣṭi to śāstradṛṣṭi—to examine the contents of awareness—of ‘their’ waking/dream/deep-sleep states—as the disinterested Witness. SSS argues that the stance of the Witness is a heuristic tool of inquiry that allows us to see that despite the appearance of the immediate point-of-access to awareness as subjective, awareness itself is prior to the I-notion, and also ‘subjectivity’, and is therefore, trans-subjective.41 The critical move from lokadṛṣṭi to śāstradṛṣṭi allows the critical insight that the very notion of individuality, the sense of ‘my’ experience, is itself a content of awareness. By rigorously analysing our ‘subjective’ experience from the standpoint of awareness, we are forced to re-evaluate ‘subjectivity’ itself; the inquiry progressively unravels the limitations of our habitual, individualised perspective and points towards a more fundamental reality; it employs our ‘subjective experiences’ to show their limitations.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 6:06 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

some keen insights from ABD Smt Manjushree Hegde, Sankara's Two Truths as Pedagogy, 11 May 2026 in J. of Hindu Studies, OUP

This assertion, articulated from the stance of the sākṣin, is categorically different from the same assertion if/when articulated from the stance of an individual, embodied and embedded in the vyāvahārika-world. Comans claims that SSS (absurdly) asserts that the vyāvahārika-world—a shared, public domain—is intrinsically linked to myy [an individual’s] waking state. Such an assertion leads to the (undesirable) conclusion that the external world, like the world of dreams, is private, subjective and idiosyncratic to each individual. This is the doctrine of dṛṣtisṛṣti—the creation of the world is concomitant with its perception—which Śaṅkara (certainly) does not subscribe to (Comans 2000, p. 262). Doherty makes the same accusation: ‘[dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭivāda] is, however, consistent with the rest of Satchidānandendra’s thought. Even if he had not named it, dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda is the inevitable consequence of several of his views…’ (Doherty 1999, p. 123). SSS does not, in fact, assert that the ‘common world of experience’ ‘vanishes when a person is in dream or sleep’. To say that a person is awake/dreams/sleeps within a common world of experience is the lokadṛṣṭi. From this stance, SSS asserts the reality of the dualistic world, its continuance through the three states, etc; uncompromisingly, he upholds the logic of the vyāvahārika. It is from the śāstradṛṣṭi—as awareness only—that SSS discusses the sublation of the waking state—and with it, the waking world—in dream/deep sleep. From the stance of the sākṣin/awareness, the “shared” world of experience is, in its entirety, simply contents/objects presented to awareness; its consistency/intersubjectivity—features that appear intrinsic to it—are no evidence of its independence/autonomy. SSS’ argument is echoed in Dalal’s observation: ‘The world is independent of mind, but dependent on the witnessing observer. Thus, he [Śaṅkara] is able to collapse the contents of experience into witnessing consciousness without necessarily reducing the external object to mere cognition and as being wholly created by cognition’ (Dalal 2022, p. 411).

The above highlighted observation is contradicted by Shankara and Gaudapada:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/the-world-is-mind-alone-shankaracharya/   (the details of the bhashya are there in this post)

In both the Mundaka Upanishad bhashya and the Mandukya Karika bhashya, Shankara asserts that the world is dependent on the mind by default and even reasons: when the mind is active, the world is cognized and when the mind is not active, in deep sleep and samadhi, the world is not cognized. Hence, cognition is creation - dristi sristi vāda - is explicitly accepted as the śāstra dristi by Shankara and Gaudapada. The loka drishti is denied by them as avidya kalpita and the shastra drsti is accepted as the one contradicting the loka dristi.  In fact in the Bh.Gita verse 2.69 bhashya says it all: the distinction between the loka drsti and sastra dristi, that is, the sastra dristi contradicting/negating the loka dristi. There are many more instances of such a view of Shankara. 

warm regards

subbu 

 

Doherty observes, ‘[SSS’ argument] is all true, of course, from the absolute standpoint (pāramārthika-dṛṣṭyā) and Satchidanandendra’s opponents would not contest this’ (Doherty 2005, p. 227). The key point is that SSS’ sākṣin-stance is different from the PSA’s pāramārthikadṛṣṭi; the latter is achieved post-gnosis, and is not immediately accessible. The PSA posit the sublation of the phenomenal world as a future “event” of “awakening” to the ultimate reality (Hirst 2005, p. 92). In contrast, to take the sākṣinstance is to notice what is available in direct experience—the irrefutable absence of the waking world in the dream (svapne vipratipadyate) and deep sleep states—to understand its ultimate reality (tasmādādyantavatvena mithyaiva khalu te smṛtāḥ) (GKB 2.7). It is therefore that SSS argues—that Śaṅkarācārya argues—that the world is incontestably real from the vyāvahārika perspective; from the sākṣin standpoint, on the other hand, the vyāvahārika-world is illusory for its sublation (in dream/deep sleep) is directly cognised (Saraswati 2009b, p. 90). From the perspective of absolute non-dual reality, there is nothing to be said at all. SSS is clear that the śāstradṛṣṭi does not undermine the lokadṛṣṭi: it is an epistemic standpoint to understand the ultimate reality. Comans’ (and Doherty’s) criticism conflates the two.

This conflation/confusion stems from a very valid concern: how is the examination of the contents of awareness of the waking state—as experienced by the (contemplating) individual—not constrained by their subjectivity; how, in other words, a clearly subjective starting point of inquiry can be called as a universal, trans-personal perspective; for indisputably, it is an individual who must undertake the inquiry— the epistemic shift from lokadṛṣṭi to śāstradṛṣṭi—to examine the contents of awareness—of ‘their’ waking/dream/deep-sleep states—as the disinterested Witness. SSS argues that the stance of the Witness is a heuristic tool of inquiry that allows us to see that despite the appearance of the immediate point-of-access to awareness as subjective, awareness itself is prior to the I-notion, and also ‘subjectivity’, and is therefore, trans-subjective.41 The critical move from lokadṛṣṭi to śāstradṛṣṭi allows the critical insight that the very notion of individuality, the sense of ‘my’ experience, is itself a content of awareness. By rigorously analysing our ‘subjective’ experience from the standpoint of awareness, we are forced to re-evaluate ‘subjectivity’ itself; the inquiry progressively unravels the limitations of our habitual, individualised perspective and points towards a more fundamental reality; it employs our ‘subjective experiences’ to show their limitations.

--
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/CAAz9PvF4Xzqva3f5dD25TNeX_7NmYrZ8%2B_Rjsuv0AAmK7T9Syg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbhuji, Thanks for your response. I will forward your link and comment to Smt Hegdeji who hopefully will respond despite being thoroughly involved in writing her dissertation

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0Wg%2BNciQ8%3DWrffKQyWDFtpKncWfayAxbDs2UGDZoKibw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji, Smt. Hedgeji reply and link to her recent paper: 

Namaste, sir,

Thank you for your very kind words. My thanks also to V. Subramanian ji for his comments.

Um, maybe you could share the  complete paper with him? The arguments are designed to be understood holistically. The paper carefully examines how the terms vyāvahārika and pāramārthika dṛṣṭi carry different meanings when used by SSS verses the PSA. The challenge lies in that while these terms are identical, they are interpreted differently by both. This has led to arguments where both sides miss each other's intended meanings. Understanding what each tradition means by these same terms is crucial for productive discourse.  

I would like to clarify that adhyāropa-apavāda is an approach to reading texts.  When Śaṅkarācār̥ya makes a claim in one place, he always—without exception—contradicts it elsewhere. If he says "the world depends on the mind" somewhere, he will definitely deny this same point in another passage. The second statement (apavāda) is meant to correct or qualify the first one (adhyāropa). My main argument is that we must read these statements together as pairs, not cherry-pick one statement and present it as Śaṅkarācārya's final position. This dialectical approach is how the texts are designed to be understood.  The critical error in contemporary scholarship lies in isolating individual statements, interpreting them independently, and then reifying these partial readings as Śaṅkarācārya's definitive position. 

We misunderstand Śaṅkarācārya when we isolate just one of these statements. The true teaching emerges from reading both the provisional statement and its later qualification together, as a deliberate pedagogical pair. This is why I respectfully suggest that citing isolated passages doesn't fully capture his teaching—I'm fairly certain that given time, one could locate the corresponding contradictory statement for any single quote presented.  

If you ask, what is the purpose of making a statement only to contradict it later? Each statement serves a specific function in its momentary existence before being negated - it is designed to refute some particular misconception that a seeker holds. So, rather than focusing solely on what Śaṅkarācārya positively affirms, we should examine what erroneous notion each positive (but provisional) statement is meant to refute. The teaching moves in stages, systematically clearing away layers of misunderstanding.  

I'd like to add another important point: The PSA are certainly aware that Śaṅkarācārya systematically contradicts his own statements—they also recognize this as the adhyāropa-apavāda method. However, where I believe they've taken a problematic turn is in how they categorize these statements. They've essentially mapped these contradictory pairs onto separate ontological realms: they treat the initial statements (adhyāropa) as "vyāvahārika" definitions that represent relative truth before mokṣa, while considering the contradicting statements (apavāda) as "pāramārthika" definitions that only become relevant after mokṣa. This interpretation creates an artificial division where the apavāda statements are relegated to some future state of realization—as though they're not immediately relevant to the seeker's current understanding. The practical consequence is that they primarily work with the adhyāropa statements to construct their philosophical system, effectively sidelining half of Śaṅkara's dialectical method. This approach fundamentally misunderstands the pedagogical immediacy of the dialectic. Both parts of the contradiction are meant to work together in the present moment of understanding, not be assigned to different reality levels.  This is precisely why a thorough clarification of the terms "vyāvahārika" and "pāramārthika" is absolutely essential—which is exactly what my paper undertakes. These terms serve as the conceptual hinges upon which the entire interpretative framework turns. Until there's engagement with these terms, a meaningful dialogue on these interpretative differences is quite impossible.

Regarding dr̥ṣṭi-sr̥ṣṭi - the book I've attached nicely demonstrates how this is a PSA development. 

Thank you,

Manjushree. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/179YcpOFTuMImrG0JTNuuTmsVU1EqWFlK/view?usp=sharing

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:48 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0Wg%2BNciQ8%3DWrffKQyWDFtpKncWfayAxbDs2UGDZoKibw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, 14 May 2025, 7:29 pm Michael Chandra Cohen, <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji, Smt. Hedgeji reply and link to her recent paper: 

Namaste, sir,

Thank you for your very kind words. My thanks also to V. Subramanian ji for his comments.

We misunderstand Śaṅkarācārya when we isolate just one of these statements. The true teaching emerges from reading both the provisional statement and its later qualification together, as a deliberate pedagogical pair. This is why I respectfully suggest that citing isolated passages doesn't fully capture his teaching—I'm fairly certain that given time, one could locate the corresponding contradictory statement for any single quote presented.  

I would wait to see the corresponding contradictory statement from not just Shankara but also from Gaudapada in this instance and then assess whether that statement is for the apavada, negating the one I pointed out. 

Warm regards 

subbu 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The above highlighted observation is contradicted by Shankara and Gaudapada:

 

• No not at all really!!  Both shankara and gaudapAda clearly says jagat is NOT just jeeva mAnasa pratyaya…OTOH Ishwara hetuka srushti is vedAnta maryAda insists bhAshyakAra.  Seeing IT in ‘in’ and ‘out’ is what gaudapAda too emphasizes. 

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/the-world-is-mind-alone-shankaracharya/   (the details of the bhashya are there in this post)

In both the Mundaka Upanishad bhashya and the Mandukya Karika bhashya, Shankara asserts that the world is dependent on the mind by default and even reasons: when the mind is active, the world is cognized and when the mind is not active, in deep sleep and samadhi, the world is not cognized.

 

• But don’t you prabhuji-s are the vociferous advocators of mithyA vastu darshana in sushupti also??  And unconditionally accepting the existence of bhAva rUpa / kAraNAvidyA in sushupti??  You have place for avidyA but you don’t have the place for Ishwara srushti!!??  Quite strange indeed!!  Please note shankara refuted the buddhist’s vijnAnavAda (the school which says ‘mind all” and nothing outside).  In one of his works Sri SSS clearly says :  the universe is NOT an illusion according to bAdarAyana as explained by shankara.  vyavahAra (human procedure in common life) has its own criterion for testing the reality and unreality.  It is the Buddhists who deny reality to external objects.  The vijnAnavAdin says that the object is identical with the idea, since both of them are experienced to gether.  But shankara draws our attention to the principle :  it is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge that we have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and NOT vice versa.  (sUtra bhAshya 2-2-28).  It is no doubt bhAshyakAra every now and them insisted to realize the essential identity of the jagat with brahman. 

 

Hence, cognition is creation - dristi sristi vāda - is explicitly accepted as the śāstra dristi by Shankara and Gaudapada. The loka drishti is denied by them as avidya kalpita and the shastra drsti is accepted as the one contradicting the loka dristi.  In fact in the Bh.Gita verse 2.69 bhashya says it all: the distinction between the loka drsti and sastra dristi, that is, the sastra dristi contradicting/negating the loka dristi. There are many more instances of such a view of Shankara. 

 

Ø     There is nothing to prove in 2.69 geeta verse that world is mere construction, OTOH, how pramAtru, prameya and pramANa distinctions are avidyA Kalpita, how shAstra being the untya pramANa removes the very knowership etc.  there is absolutely nothing to prove Ishwara srushti is mental construction of tiny jeeva’s mind.  I am really surprised to see this totally irrelevant reference from geeta bhAshya!!.  It deals mainly about ajnAni-s rAga dvesha and jnAni-s dvandvaateeta stable mind. 

 

Hari  Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, 15 May 2025, 5:12 pm 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The above highlighted observation is contradicted by Shankara and Gaudapada:

 

• No not at all really!!  Both shankara and gaudapAda clearly says jagat is NOT just jeeva mAnasa pratyaya…OTOH Ishwara hetuka srushti is vedAnta maryAda insists bhAshyakAra.  Seeing IT in ‘in’ and ‘out’ is what gaudapAda too emphasizes. 

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/the-world-is-mind-alone-shankaracharya/   (the details of the bhashya are there in this post)

 

In both the Mundaka Upanishad bhashya and the Mandukya Karika bhashya, Shankara asserts that the world is dependent on the mind by default and even reasons: when the mind is active, the world is cognized and when the mind is not active, in deep sleep and samadhi, the world is not cognized.

 

• But don’t you prabhuji-s are the vociferous advocators of mithyA vastu darshana in sushupti also??  And unconditionally accepting the existence of bhAva rUpa / kAraNAvidyA in sushupti??  You have place for avidyA but you don’t have the place for Ishwara srushti!!??  Quite strange indeed!!  Please note shankara refuted the buddhist’s vijnAnavAda (the school which says ‘mind all” and nothing outside).  In one of his works Sri SSS clearly says :  the universe is NOT an illusion according to bAdarAyana as explained by shankara.  vyavahAra (human procedure in common life) has its own criterion for testing the reality and unreality.  It is the Buddhists who deny reality to external objects.  The vijnAnavAdin says that the object is identical with the idea, since both of them are experienced to gether.  But shankara draws our attention to the principle :  it is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge that we have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and NOT vice versa.  (sUtra bhAshya 2-2-28).  It is no doubt bhAshyakAra every now and them insisted to realize the essential identity of the jagat with brahman. 

See how Shankara contradicts SSS:

In the sandhyadhyadhikarana where dream is discussed in the BSB, at the end Shankara says:

न च वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति । प्रतिपादितं हि ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । १ । १४) इत्यत्र समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम् । प्राक् तु ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनात् वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति । सन्ध्याश्रयस्तु प्रपञ्चः प्रतिदिनं बाध्यते — इत्यतो वैशेषिकमिदं सन्ध्यस्य मायामात्रत्वमुदितम् ॥ ४ ॥

This means: The creation of the world made of akasha, etc. (Atmana akashah sambhutah, akashaad vaayuh...Ishwara srushti) does not have absolute reality. This has been established in the BSB 2.1.14 Arambhanadhikaranam that the entire world is nothing but mere maya. Before samyag jnana the world of akasha etc does have an order. But the world of the dream undergoes negation everyday. For this reason alone the unreality of the dream world has been especially stated by the sutrkara to be unreal. (What this means is the world of the waking made of akasha etc. will undergo baadha upon samyag jnana.)

From the above commentary of Shankara what comes out is:

The Upanishad, based on the chandogya statement: vacharambhanam vikaro namadheyam, mrittiketyeva satyam, holds the world, a product of upadana kaaranam Brahman, as mithya.

Badarayana, Veda Vyasa, the sutrakara, based his sutra stated above, on this Upanishad and therefore holds the world of akasha etc to be mithya. The sandhyadhikarana also implies this as we know from Shankara's statement. 

Gaudapada has cited copious shruti passages to hold that the creation shrutis do not teach a real differentiated creation, but they are only aids to teach the Ajaativaada of no creation ever took place. He uses the term ajaati.

Sureswaracharya in both the Bhashyavartikas has held the world to be mithya:

Brihadaranyaka vartika: There is simply not end to the vartika shlokas that establish the mithyatva of the Ishwara created world. There are many shruti passages cited in these sample verses, apart from reasoning:

तदेवानुप्रविश्येति तत्त्वं यत्पारमार्थिकम् ।।
सच्च त्यच्चादिकां भित्तिं मोहात्प्रापदिति श्रुतिः ।। ४४५ ।।

 

न चापि त्रयसद्भावे मिथ्याज्ञानं जगत्यपि ।।
मोहमात्रप्रयुक्तत्वान्न सामान्यात्स्मृतेश्च तत् ।। ४४६ ।।

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

……… अयं मेयः प्रामातांऽहं मानमेतदितीक्षणे ।। 

मिथ्याज्ञाने जनस्तुष्टः स्वप्नमायेन्द्रजालवत् ।। ६४८ ।। …

अतस्तद्व्यभिचारेण नामरूपक्रियात्मनाम् ।।

अकृत्स्नव्यपदेशेन मिथ्याज्ञानत्वमुच्यते ।। ६७२ ।। 

…… तं परादादिति तथा प्रतीच्यज्ञानकल्पितम् ।।मिथ्याज्ञानापनुत्त्यर्थमात्मैवेत्यब्रवीच्छ्रुतिः ।। ६९७ ।। 

द्गष्टुर्दृष्ट्या न चानाप्तोऽनात्मा कश्चित्प्रसिध्यति ।।

मिथ्याज्ञानमतोऽनात्मा ह्यात्माज्ञानसमुत्थितेः ।। १३८३ ।।

ननु जाग्रत्स्थलोकानां मिथ्यात्वं प्राक्प्रपञ्चितम् ।।अविद्यामात्रहेतुत्वं पाणिपेषप्रबोधनात् ।। २८८ ।। ………

अन्तर्यामी तथा साक्षी सर्वज्ञश्चेत्यविद्यया ।।मिथ्याध्यासैश्च तत्कार्यैरप्रमेयं प्रमीयते ।। १० ।। ………

यत्राज्ञातात्मतत्त्वात्माऽविद्यासंवीतशेमुषिः ।।तत्र मिथ्याग्रहग्रस्तो द्रष्टृदृश्यादिभेदधीः ।। ४५३ ।।

अज्ञातं संशयज्ञातं मिथ्याज्ञातमिदं जगत् ।।तदेतदित्यनूद्यैतत्तत्तत्त्वमवबोध्यते ।। १३७ ।। ……

स्वतोऽनानात्मकेऽज्ञानाद्यन्नानात्मसमीक्षणम् ।।मिथ्याज्ञानमनात्माभं मोह इत्युपदिश्यते ।। ६२ ।

साक्षितत्त्वापरिज्ञानात्तद्विरुद्धार्थकल्पनम् | साक्षिसाक्ष्यादिमिथ्याधीस्तत्त्वज्ञानान्निवर्तते || ४४४ || …

अतस्मिंस्तद्ग्रहात्सर्वं मिथ्या स्यात्सविकल्पकम् | असंपृक्तस्य सम्यक्त्वं स्वरूपेणावभासते ||………

मिथ्यादर्शनदोषित्वान्मिथ्यादर्शनकारणम् || मृत्योर्मृत्युमसावेति यो नानेवेह वीक्षते ||………

हि द्वैतमित्येवं यत्र त्वस्येति च श्रुतिः || नानात्वदृष्टेर्मिथ्यात्वं स्वयमेवावदत्पुरा || ६७८ 

 

Hence, cognition is creation - dristi sristi vāda - is explicitly accepted as the śāstra dristi by Shankara and Gaudapada. The loka drishti is denied by them as avidya kalpita and the shastra drsti is accepted as the one contradicting the loka dristi.  In fact in the Bh.Gita verse 2.69 bhashya says it all: the distinction between the loka drsti and sastra dristi, that is, the sastra dristi contradicting/negating the loka dristi. There are many more instances of such a view of Shankara. 

 

Ø     There is nothing to prove in 2.69 geeta verse that world is mere construction, OTOH, how pramAtru, prameya and pramANa distinctions are avidyA Kalpita, how shAstra being the untya pramANa removes the very knowership etc.  there is absolutely nothing to prove Ishwara srushti is mental construction of tiny jeeva’s mind.  I am really surprised to see this totally irrelevant reference from geeta bhAshya!!.  It deals mainly about ajnAni-s rAga dvesha and jnAni-s dvandvaateeta stable mind. 

It's not mere knowership that is removed, but also the prameya, knowables, the world, that's also negated by samyagjnana:

यस्यां ग्राह्यग्राहकभेदलक्षणायामविद्यानिशायां प्रसुप्तान्येव भूतानि जाग्रति इति उच्यन्ते, यस्यां निशायां प्रसुप्ता इव स्वप्नदृशः, सा निशा अविद्यारूपत्वात् परमार्थतत्त्वं पश्यतो मुनेः ॥ 2.69 yaa nishaa sarvabhutaanaam...

Graahya = the world. Graahaka = pramana and pramatru.  All are avidya kalpita. 

This is the Siddhanta of the Upanishads Badarayana, Gaudapada, Shankara and Sureshwara. 

Om tat sat

subbu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

//Regarding dr̥ṣṭi-sr̥ṣṭi - the book I've attached nicely demonstrates how this is a PSA development. //

Equating waking, dream and sushupti is drishTi-srishTi-vAda.

This is present in Shruti, Smriti and BhAshya. त्रयः स्वप्ना: of Aitareya Shruti decimates all objections against DSV. Those who are keen to give some special reality to waking vis-a-vis dream are taught by AchArya - स्वप्नवत् असत्-वस्तु-दर्शनात् च. 

To aver that DSV is post-Shankara phenomena displays lack of understanding of the writer.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Sudhanshuji, THe book you've attached?? 

From the Sri Swami Paramarthanandaji Bot containing 15000 pages of transcribed talks of the venerable swamiji, DSV is rejected for the reasons below. Additionally, how will DSV account for sAkshi and Eshwara? 

Swami Paramarthananda rejects *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda* (the theory that the world is created by individual perception) as the *final teaching* of Advaita Vedanta for **philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons**, rooted in Śaṅkara's works and the *Brahma Sūtras*. Here’s a detailed breakdown of his critique:

---

### **1. Philosophical Inconsistencies**
#### **A. Contradicts Śruti’s Graded Teaching**
- Śruti (*Upaniṣads*) first presents *sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi vāda* (Īśvara creates the world → individuals perceive it) to establish a framework for inquiry.  
  - Example: *Taittirīya Upaniṣad* (2.1) describes Brahman creating the world before individual perception arises.  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* skips this preparatory step, risking misinterpretation of Vedanta as solipsism.  

#### **B. Undermines Īśvara’s Role**
- *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* reduces Īśvara to a mental construct (*avidyā-kalpitam*), negating the need for devotion (*bhakti*) and grace (*kṛpā*).  
  - Swamiji stresses that *saguna Brahman* (Īśvara) is essential for *upāsana* (worship) until the mind is ripe for *nirguṇa Brahman*.  

#### **C. Conflicts with Śaṅkara’s *Adhyāsa Bhāṣya***
- Śaṅkara defines ignorance (*avidyā*) as *superimposition* (*adhyāsa*), not *creation*.  
  - The world is *mithyā* (dependent on Brahman), not a projection of individual perception.  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* implies the world is *prātibhāsika* (illusory like a hallucination), but Śaṅkara affirms its *vyāvahārika* (empirical) reality.  

---

### **2. Pedagogical Pitfalls**
#### **A. Premature Negation**
- Teaching *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* too early can lead to:  
  - **Nihilism** (*śūnyavāda*): Denying the world’s transactional reality.  
  - **Ethical Laxity**: Ignoring *karma yoga* and *dharma* ("If the world is my projection, why act morally?").  

#### **B. Incompatible with *Sādhana Catuṣṭaya***
- A seeker must first develop:  
  1. *Viveka* (discrimination) → Requires accepting empirical reality to contrast it with Brahman.  
  2. *Vairāgya* (dispassion) → Needs a real-seeming world to renounce.  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* shortcuts this process, fostering intellectual arrogance.  

#### **C. Misleads About *Māyā***
- *Māyā* is *Brahman’s power* (not the individual’s), making the world appear *as if* real.  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* mislocates *māyā* in the individual mind, contradicting *Brahma Sūtra* 1.4.3 (*"Māyā is Īśvara’s śakti"*).  

---

### **3. Practical Challenges**
#### **A. Loka-Vyavahāra (Daily Transactions)**
- If the world vanishes when unperceived:  
  - How do shared experiences (e.g., a classroom) exist?  
  - Why does the world follow consistent laws (e.g., gravity)?  
  - Swamiji: *"Vyāvahārika satya is the ‘operating system’ for liberation—don’t delete it prematurely."*  

#### **B. *Jñāni’s* Behavior**
- A *jñāni* continues interacting with the world (*jīvanmukti*).  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* would imply the *jñāni* "recreates" the world at will—which contradicts Śaṅkara’s examples (e.g., King Janaka ruling wisely).  

#### **C. *Śravaṇa-Manana-Nididhyāsana* Process**
- *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* shortcuts *śravaṇa* (scriptural study) by implying:  
  - "Just stop perceiving, and the world ends."  
  - Swamiji: *"Liberation comes from *knowledge* (Brahma jñāna), not perceptual gymnastics."*  

---

### **4. Swamiji’s Alternative: *Vivarta Vāda***
He advocates *vivarta vāda* (apparent transformation) as Śaṅkara’s core teaching:  
- **Brahman** appears as the world (*vivarta*) without real change (*pariṇāma*).  
- **Analogy**: Rope appearing as a snake. The snake isn’t "created" by perception but *misperceived* due to ignorance.  
- **Key Difference**:  
  - *Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi*: "The snake exists only when you see it."  
  - *Vivarta*: "The rope was always there; the snake was a false appearance."  

---

### **5. When *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* is Useful (and When It’s Not)**
Swamiji allows *limited* use of *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* for:  
1. **Advanced Students**: To illustrate how the *mind* projects individuality (*ahaṅkāra*).  
2. **Debating Materialists**: To show that all experience is consciousness-dependent.  

**But he warns**:  
- It’s a *teaching aid*, not the *siddhānta* (final conclusion).  
- Overuse leads to *vāsanā* of negation (*neti-neti* addiction), blocking positive realization (*Brahma ānanda*).  

---

### **Key Quotes from Swamiji’s Discourses**  
1. *"Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi is like saying, ‘My dream creates the dreamer.’ No—the dreamer is *prior* to the dream."*  
2. *"If the world were *prātibhāsika*, you could wish it away. Try wishing away a tsunami!"*  
3. *"Vivarta vāda is the bridge between *vyāvahārika* and *pāramārthika*; *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* burns the bridge."*  

For deeper study, he directs students to:  
- *Brahma Sūtra* 2.1.14 (refuting subjective idealism).  
- *Upadeśa Sāhasrī* 18.1–10 (on perception’s dependent nature).  

In essence, Swamiji’s rejection of *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi* preserves Vedanta’s *empirical rigor* and *devotional heart*, aligning with Śaṅkara’s balanced approach.

from: https://www.yesvedanta.com/search/

--
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%2BBAaqr3ue9vMYSYmAO-AwGXssVUaZTud5YT9OUQO%2BUQRfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Michael-ji,

You can perhaps include the question you posed to the yesvedanta ai tool.

I asked: does shankara accept drishti-srishti?

Its response:

Adi Śaṅkarāchārya's position on **Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi Vāda** (Perception-Creation Theory) is nuanced and often misunderstood. Let’s clarify his stance with precise textual evidence and logical reasoning:

---

### **1. Śaṅkara’s Primary Framework: Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi Vāda**

- **Brahma Sūtra Commentary (2.1.14, 2.1.33):**  

  Śaṅkara explicitly adopts **Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi Vāda** (creation precedes perception) as the *vyāvahārika* (empirical) model to explain:  

  - **Īśvara’s Role:** The world is a *real* (though dependent) creation by Īśvara through *māyā* before individual perception arises .  

  - **Shared Reality:** This ensures ethical consistency (e.g., karma applies to all beings in a common world) .  

- **Why?**  

  - To counter Sāṅkhya (which denies Īśvara) and Vaiśeṣika (atomism), Śaṅkara needs a *provable* creation model .  

  - *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* aligns with śruti passages like *"Tat tvam asi"*, where a pre-existing Brahman manifests multiplicity .  

---

### **2. Where Śaṅkara *Implies* Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi Vāda**

Though he never explicitly endorses it, Śaṅkara’s arguments **logically necessitate** Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi at the *pāramārthika* (absolute) level:  

#### **a) Refutation of External Reality (Brahma Sūtra 2.2.28-32)**

Śaṅkara dismantles the notion of an independently real world by showing:  

- Objects are **only known through perception** (vṛtti-jñāna), which depends on consciousness (*cidābhāsa*) .  

- Without a perceiving mind, the world *as we know it* dissolves (like a dream) .  

#### **b) Analogy of the Rope-Snake (Upadeśa Sāhasrī 18.44)**

- The snake *appears* only when misperceived—it has no prior existence. Similarly, the world arises *with* ignorance (*avidyā*) and vanishes in *jñāna* .  

- This mirrors *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi*’s core premise: **Perception itself manifests the appearance** .  

#### **c) Dream-World Parallel (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 2.1-4)**

- Gaudapāda (Śaṅkara’s guru) states the waking world is as unreal as a dream. Śaṅkara echoes this:  

  > *"The dreamer creates the dream world merely by imagining it. Likewise, the waking world is a projection of the mind."*  

- Here, *creation* and *perception* collapse into one process—a hallmark of *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* .  

---

### **3. Why Śaṅkara Doesn’t *Explicitly* Teach Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi**

1. **Pedagogical Risk:**  

   - For unprepared students, *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* can lead to solipsism ("Nothing exists but my mind") or neglect of ethics .  

   - *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* safeguards against this by affirming Īśvara’s orderly creation.  

2. **Scriptural Harmony:**  

   - Śruti verses like *"Sarvam khalv idam Brahma"* (Chāndogya 3.14.1) imply Brahman *precedes* manifestation—aligning with *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* .  

3. **Final Truth Transcends Both:**  

   - In *paramārthika*, even *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* is provisional—Brahman is beyond "creation" *and* "perception" .  

---

### **4. Later Advaitins Clarify the Link**

- **Vidyāraṇya (Pañchadaśī 6):**  

  Explicitly teaches *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* as the *ultimate* view but retains *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* for beginners .  

- **Swami Paramarthananda’s Insight:**  

  > *"Śaṅkara’s *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* is the staircase; *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* is the realization that the staircase too was imagined."*  

---

### **Conclusion: Śaṅkara’s Implicit Acceptance**

- **No:** He never *formally* advocates *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* as a standalone theory.  

- **Yes:** His metaphysics *requires* it to resolve the *apparent* world into *mithyā*.  

**Key Takeaway:**  

Śaṅkara’s genius lies in using *Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi* to lead seekers *toward* the *Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi* insight—without destabilizing their spiritual journey.  

thollmelukaalkizhu 

On Fri, 16 May, 2025, 5:03 pm Michael Chandra Cohen, <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaste Sudhanshuji, THe book you've attached?? 

From the Sri Swami Paramarthanandaji Bot containing 15000 pages of transcribed talks of the venerable swamiji, DSV is rejected for the reasons below. Additionally, how will DSV account for sAkshi and Eshwara? 

Swami Paramarthananda rejects *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda* (the theory that the world is created by individual perception) as the *final teaching* of Advaita Vedanta for **philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons**, rooted in Śaṅkara's works and the *Brahma Sūtras*. Here’s a detailed breakdown of his critique:

---

### **1

from: https://www.yesvedanta.com/search/

[Rajhoou Upreti]

What's with this AI tool? Ai cannot be relied upon ,especially on philosophical matter

--
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/CAKqm3-oHp4YDvkUsqsBLC%2Baj2tViM7j0i%2BC70yo5M19cA2018A%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In this case, there is a greater reliability that the responses are according to the teachings (as understood by 'Andre') coming from acharyas associated with Swami Dayananda Saraswathi. Of course, that should mean it will not be reliable always for followers of Sri SSS who seem to be strictly against DSV.

From About:

Trained content is based on Andre's lessons which are meticulously researched and strictly based on teachings of Swami Dayananda (Arsha Vidya), Swami Paramarthananda and Chinmaya. Also trained on PDF's:

Bhagavad Gita Home Study Course (8 volumes with 4000+ pages) by Swami Dayananda Saraswati 

Brahma Sutra (1500 pages) by Swami Paramarthananda

Upadesha Sahasri (Adi Shankara's best works – 2000 pages) by Swami Paramarthananda

Narada Bhakti Sutra (Non-dual devotion)

Dozens of articles by Swami Dayananda

Andre's Sanskrit course – containing all Panini's grammar and example sentences

…more books containing every model of Advaita Vedanta, comparative philosophies and religions, etc.

Advantage is the output sticks solely to above expert content, rather then being contaminated by notions of misguided spiritual seekers – an issue when relying on public LLM's like Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, etc.

-------

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B_usDx6FHR%2BNO0%2BqPmAYtvjg5MPPPO9WR-q8fm2XsUONANKbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear All 

The concerns raised by the AI sources are genuine. But they are adequately taken care of by the sampradaya. The system has an internal well built method of leading an aspirant from A to Z in sadhana. A sadhana has to be under the guidance of a responsible informed Guru. 

The very first Brahma Sutra enjoins the prepared mind to embark upon the Vedanta enquiry. All bhakti sadhana is included in the chitta shuddhi required.

The path is: Karma > Bhakti / Upasana > Jnana. All Upanishads, Gaudapada and Shankara have this in built carefully crafted path. 

So, there is no room for the concerns of arrogance, rejection of Ishwara, etc.when the sampradaya is properly adhered to.

The Kaivalya Upanishad is a typical example. Gaudapada has this:

Please read the Mandukya Karika 4.42 and 4.44 along with the bhashya with a good translation. 

Regards 

subbu 

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

namaste Sudhanshuji, THe book you've attached?? 

I was responding to the statement of Ms Hegde wherein she is referring to the book attached by her.

From the Sri Swami Paramarthanandaji Bot containing 15000 pages of transcribed talks of the venerable swamiji, DSV is rejected for the reasons below.

SP ji does not reject DSV. Rather he quotes Shruti such as Prashna 4.7, 4.8 as propounding DSV. Please check Vichara Saagar, page 1445. 

I am not concerned with what Bot says. It is a waste of time to engage with Bot to understand VedAnta. 

In any case, whether DSV is rejected by SPji can be answered by disciples of SPji as well.

Additionally, how will DSV account for sAkshi and Eshwara? 

SAkshI and Ishwara are same in DSV and that is avidyA-upahita-chaitanya. JIva is avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is a line from the Sankshepa shariraka of Sarvajnatman, a PSA:

कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम् 

 [‘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.’]

Note that the requirement of a purified mind to appreciate vivarta and by extension DSV. So the Acharyas have taken enough care to avoid pitfalls in Vedanta sadhana.

Regards 

subbu 

[V Subrahmanian]

विभूतिं प्रसवं त्वन्ये मन्यन्ते सृष्टिचिन्तकाः । 

स्वप्नमायासरूपेति सृष्टिरन्यैर्विकल्पिता ॥ ७ ॥ 

This is a Gaudapada karika in the first chapter 1.7

Some subscribe to the doctrine that creation of the universe is a glory of Ishwara. Yet others hold creation is akin to a dream, a magician's display. 

Commenting on this Shankara says: It means that those who are given to enquire into the ultimate reality, do not hold creation to be of any purport. ...A section of those stated above hold that creation is akin to......

Shankara can be seen here to hold the latter group also as those who are not really after the ultimate upanishadic Truth. Shankaracharya concludes by saying: Therefore aspirants after liberation are concerned with the Turiya alone and not with the creation that is of no use, consequence. See the last part of the commentary.

This is not to deny the invaluable benefit of imbibing aasthikya, bhakti, etc. that can be had from looking upon Brahman as the creator.

भाष्यम्

विभूतिर्विस्तार ईश्वरस्य सृष्टिरिति सृष्टिचिन्तका मन्यन्ते ; न तु परमार्थचिन्तकानां सृष्टावादर इत्यर्थः, ‘इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९)इति श्रुतेः । न हि मायाविनं सूत्रमाकाशे निःक्षिप्य तेन सायुधमारुह्य चक्षुर्गोचरतामतीत्य युद्धेन खण्डशश्छिन्नं पतितं पुनरुत्थितं च पश्यतां तत्कृतमायादिसतत्त्वचिन्तायामादरो भवति । तथैवायं मायाविनः सूत्रप्रसारणसमः सुषुप्तस्वप्नादिविकासः ; तदारूढमायाविसमश्च तत्स्थप्राज्ञतैजसादिः ; सूत्रतदारूढाभ्यामन्यः परमार्थमायावी । स एव भूमिष्ठो मायाच्छन्नः अदृश्यमान एव स्थितो यथा, तथा तुरीयाख्यं परमार्थतत्त्वम् । अतस्तच्चिन्तायामेवादरो मुमुक्षूणामार्याणाम् , न निष्प्रयोजनायां सृष्टावादर इत्यतः सृष्टिचिन्तकानामेवैते विकल्पा इत्याह — स्वप्नमायासरूपेति । स्वप्नसरूपा मायासरूपा चेति ॥

Om Tat Sat

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Putranji, Much appreciated, I did not know about 'Andre.'  YesVedanta might be preferable however as there can be inconsistency in the Vedanta of three teachers as opposed to one strotiya teacher who has assimilated the prior two. Also, as I recall, Dayanandaji's Gita is geared to lay practitioners without much mimamsa.

Regards, Michael

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rhL4umto1n6PjLq0wXZQgBPdciSP-pK_NCxGEeK1UJAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji, First, I might have thanked you before but it's worth repeating: thanks for all your seva. 

It is helpful to know the reasoning behind the algorithm is fine Vedanta even to SSSS, thanks. 

MaK 4.42-3 are also accepted by SSSS -  all our issues deal with manifestation and sadhana/causation. 

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/CAKk0Te0of2bV1oiFOqSuApjX_%2BwgQvRsEbx1Xjn1KxYeV7HTPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,  It was an article, I believe, not a book. It you get to it, I would be interested in your thoughts.

//I am not concerned with what Bot says. It is a waste of time to engage with Bot to understand VedAnta. //

I understand your objection to these Bot-s and I agree that caution is necessary in relying upon them but they have the ability to expand our understanding of technicalities. Would you or even Swami P's disciples have known to reference Vichara Saagar, page 1445 without the Bot? 

//SAkshI and Ishwara are same in DSV and that is avidyA-upahita-chaitanya. JIva is avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya.//

Just to be sure, these terms are defined as, " pure consciousness (Brahman) conditioned by māyā" and pure consciousness (Brahman) reflected in avidyā (ignorance), respectively, by the Bot

 

The idea of asanga chaitanya with an upadhi and actual ignorance that can be a reflecting medium doesn't make much sense to me. Are they elaborations upon the notions of mula and tula avidya? Instead both terms are sastrika superimpositions intended to dissuade notions of individuality and objective realism intended to be ultimately withdrawn. Otherwise, what is the benefit of creating multiple avidyas? Do we find that in PTB or is it just another new theoretical elaboration?

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%2BBCqexjMVd8wB61jXh9tNSbYSJ4DmJ8m0h8EDi%2BQ6wCd-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Would you or even Swami P's disciples have known to reference Vichara Saagar, page 1445 without the Bot? 

The reference has come from my study of SPji's work Vichara Sagar and not from any bot.

Just to be sure, these terms are defined as, " pure consciousness (Brahman) conditioned by māyā" and pure consciousness (Brahman) reflected in avidyā (ignorance), respectively, by the Bot.

Upahita does not mean conditioned. Take from example face. When you put mirror in front of it, it becomes bimba. Nothing changes in face. But it becomes eligible to be called a bimba. This is what is upahita-chaitanya. It is shuddha chaitanya. But called as sAkshI/Ishwara from the frame of reference of avidyA/mirror.

 The idea of asanga chaitanya with an upadhi and actual ignorance that can be a reflecting medium doesn't make much sense to me.

Does the idea of buddhi as reflecting medium being the upAdhi of asanga chaitanya make sense to you? It has to. There are explicit statements in bhAshya for this.

And if that makes sense to you, then buddhi being avidyA-krita, avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya should also make sense. Nothing illogical or impractical.

Are they elaborations upon the notions of mula and tula avidya? Instead both terms are sastrika superimpositions intended to dissuade notions of individuality and objective realism intended to be ultimately withdrawn. Otherwise, what is the benefit of creating multiple avidyas? Do we find that in PTB or is it just another new theoretical elaboration?

MUlAvidyA is central to Advaita. Whenever Advaita says avidyA, it is mUlAvidyA.

The sum and substance is this -- whatever is seen, is illusory. The seer is non-illusory. Even I is illusory. The entity intended by the word I is non-illusory.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

//The reference has come from my study of SPji's work Vichara Sagar and not from any bot.//

a memorized verse or search result? if the latter, it's still a bot, no? If the former, you are one of a kind, ji. 

//Upahita does not mean conditioned. Take from example face. When you put mirror in front of it, it becomes bimba. Nothing changes in face. But it becomes eligible to be called a bimba. This is what is upahita-chaitanya. It is shuddha chaitanya. But called as sAkshI/Ishwara from the frame of reference of avidyA/mirror.//

Yes, I get sakshi/ishwara is namarupa only or a sastrika adhyaropa but I don't get how SSSS's correctives are different from PSA doctrine with MUC. Your bimba/maya must have a positive status SSSS doesn't like. 

//Does the idea of buddhi as reflecting medium being the upAdhi of asanga chaitanya make sense to you? It has to. There are explicit statements in bhAshya for this.//

makes sense as adhyaropa for the sake of deconstructing the notion of individual pramata/pramana/prameya. It's not buddhi reflecting but Chaitanya appearing as buddhi along with the entire prapanca rather than maya appearing as buddhi and prapanca. Is that the difference? . 

//And if that makes sense to you, then buddhi being avidyA-krita, avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya should also make sense. Nothing illogical or impractical.//

Makes sense I suppose unless you are positing causation with avidya krita and/or APC.  What then is the buddhi's substratum? Can't be maya as it is illusion and if it's asanga chaitanya then namarupa buddhi must be chaitanya perceived as other than chaitanya. Removing avidya means no pramata, pramana, prameya

//MUlAvidyA is central to Advaita. Whenever Advaita says avidyA, it is mUlAvidyA.

The sum and substance is this -- whatever is seen, is illusory. The seer is non-illusory. Even I is illusory. The entity intended  pby the word I is non-illusory.//

mUlAvidyA is not mentioned in all of PTB - it is central to Post-Sankara Advaita.  Otherwise, I agree with the rest of this excerpt causing me to be confused as to how PSA differs from SSSS understanding of Bhasya Advaita. Perhaps you can point this out to me - it will be much appreciated. 

Warm 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%2BBDpNrcX9ZnHtcA8pQmkBK_T08CVoJbF4H_nVB579USm8Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Malavidya is central to Advaita. Whenever Advaita says avidyA, it is mUlAvidyA.

 

• As per Sri SSS mUlAvidyA as explained by vyAkhyAnakAra-s and its implications and its influence over the Shuddha Chaitanya is just a dangerous tumor in Shuddha shankara vedAnta, not at all found an inch of space in shankara’s PTB, hence it should have been nipped in bud.  But unfortunately now this theory of mUlAvidyA become a big tree and we should atleast now try to understand shankara bhAshya without the taint of bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA.  And as per Sri SSS ( and as per adhyAsa bhAshya of shankara) whenever shankara’s bhAshya talks about avidyA primarily it talks about adhyAsa not vyAkhyAnakAras’ adhyAsOpadAna kAraNa, bhAvarUpa avidyA!!!

 

The sum and substance is this -- whatever is seen, is illusory.

 

• The sum and substance of whatever is seen is brahman not illusory…that is what shruti saying.  satyaMchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat, yadidaM kiMcha, yatOvA emAni bhUtAni jAyante yena jAtAni jeevanti, yatprayantyabhisaMvishanti, tad vijignAsasva “tadbrahmeti”.    So at the best your above statement holds water only in bhrAnti vAda or shUnya vAda not definitely vedAnta’s brahma kAraNa vAda. 

 

 

The seer is non-illusory. Even I is illusory. The entity intended by the word I is non-illusory.

 

• And why I should not treat your above statement itself is illusory and just born out of dry logic without any support from shruti and anubhava!!??

[Bhaskar YR]

what is the benefit of creating multiple avidyas? Do we find that in PTB or is it just another new theoretical elaboration?

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The benefit of introducing multiple avidyA-s is quite simple that it would help the promotion of anirvachaneeya bhAva rUpa, brahmAshrita avidyA.  But I don’t think vivaraNa would endorse the theory of multiple avidyA-s to multiple jeeva-s and I think it is bhAmati who says this.  As per vivaraNa mUlAvidyA is anAdi, have the Ashraya in brahman, it is sadasad vilakshaNa, anAdi coz. it has the ashraya of Shuddha Chaitanya. Will be there in sushupti also with vikshepa saMskAra, and in waking and dreaming projected in the form of ahamkara, and it is the material cause for the adhyAsa etc. etc.   Whereas bhAshyakAra very clearly says avidyA which is jnAnAbhAva is eka rUpa. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Commenting on this Shankara says: It means that those who are given to enquire into the ultimate reality, do not hold creation to be of any purport. ...A section of those stated above hold that creation is akin to......

 

• First of all it should be noted that those who are upholding the shruti siddhAnta i.e. Ishwara hetuka srushti, doing so coz. whenever there is talk of creation it is invariably from Ishwara / srushtikarta and understanding this shruti siddhAnta would help us avoid fancy theories of jeeva’s bhrAnti vAda.  That is the reason why bhAshyakAra accepting Ishwara srushti is VEDANTA MARYAADA.  So for all practical purposes Ishwara is the srushtikarta not this tiny jeeva.  All the vedAntic statements teach about the creation as that which has Ishwara as (the rationally valid and acceptable) kAraNa (hetu) the cause of srushti. That Ishwara is the kAraNa means, He creates the jagat

according to jeevas’ own Karma. 

 

Shankara can be seen here to hold the latter group also as those who are not really after the ultimate upanishadic Truth. Shankaracharya concludes by saying: Therefore aspirants after liberation are concerned with the Turiya alone and not with the creation that is of no use, consequence. See the last part of the commentary.

 

• Na nirOdhO nachOtpattiH…when the ultimate knowledge dawns the jnAni would realizes that sarvaM brahma mayaM…in that ekatva drushti there is neither sAdhaka, nor sAdhana nor mOksha nor bandha….It does not mean one can promote the erroneous theory that jagat is jeeva’s bhrAnti in conditioned state. 

 

This is not to deny the invaluable benefit of imbibing aasthikya, bhakti, etc. that can be had from looking upon Brahman as the creator.

 

• I don’t think those who are denying the sarvajnatva and sarvashaktitva of brahman / Ishwara can claim this!!  At the best it is just a hypocritical statement.  Because as per DSV even sarvajna / sarva shakta/nitya Shuddha, buddha mukta  Ishwara too just a mental creation of avidyA jeeva!!  A complete blasphemous conclusion by nAstika-s.  In Kannada for the above type of statements we say :  kevala kaNNoraso mAtu.  (just an eye-wash statement).

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Note that the requirement of a purified mind to appreciate vivarta and by extension DSV. So the Acharyas have taken enough care to avoid pitfalls in Vedanta sadhana.

 

• What is big pitfall in adhyAtma sAdhana is denying the Ishwara’s Ishwaratva, brahman’s inheritance nature of sarvajnatvaM and sarvashaktitvaM, those who we consider as brahma jnAni-s did not advocate the apasiddhAnta like Ishwara is just your mind creation or would become dummy character after your realize !!  And it can be noted that  the maNda and Madhyama adhikAri-s of brahma jnAna never ever shy to say even socalled uttama adhikAri-s  who achieved final goal did so through ONLY IshwarAnugraha.  Even to say there is no Ishwara, no jagat, no creation, no mukti etc. they need the paramAtmAnugraha.  This is how we have to approach the shankara’s Advaita jnAna mArga without pushing aside the divinity, spirituality in it. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The very first Brahma Sutra enjoins the prepared mind to embark upon the Vedanta enquiry. All bhakti sadhana is included in the chitta shuddhi required.

 

Ø     Yes and karma, karma yOga, nishkAma karma too advised for the chitta Shuddhi. 

 

The path is: Karma > Bhakti / Upasana > Jnana. All Upanishads, Gaudapada and Shankara have this in built carefully crafted path. 

 

• And the result of that ultimate jnAna is samyakjnAna, Atmaikatva jnAna, advaya jnAna where in the paramArtha jnAni realizes that nothing is subject to janana and maraNa including himself and also nothing is different from HIM. This experience of the world being not different from oneself is called sarvAtmabhAva. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

• The sum and substance of whatever is seen is brahman not illusory…

You have not appreciated bAdha-sAmAmAdhikaraNya. The ghost is post, the snake is rope ---- these statements mean that snake/ghost is illusory and rope/post is real.

"Seen is Brahman" means seen is illusory and Brahman is real.

You cannot say that "seen is Brahman" does not mean "seen is illusory".

Do you deny bAdha-sAmAmAdhikaraNya or do you not understand it?  Or do you advocate pariNAma-vAda? 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

You have not appreciated bAdha-sAmAmAdhikaraNya. The ghost is post, the snake is rope ---- these statements mean that snake/ghost is illusory and rope/post is real.

 

• I would like to rephrase this the post / rope itself is appearing as ghost / snake.  This appearance needs the substand i.e. post / rope.  This ghost / snake is avidyA Kalpita since there is a lack of what really existing there.  We need to have the post / rope to realize that there is no ghost / snake in that.  Is it not??  If the post / rope not create by Ishwara,  it would not have been possible to realize the true nature of this post/rope. 

 

"Seen is Brahman" means seen is illusory and Brahman is real.

 

Ø     The seen, seer the act of seeing etc. are all brahman only and there exists nothing but brahman is what is called sarvAtmabhAva.  Na cha bhOktru bhOgyayOritaretarabhAvApattirnacha parasmAd ‘brahmaNOnyatvaM bhavishyati clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra, the shewaashwatara too clarifies in one its mantra-s. ahamannaM ahamannAdaH ahaM shlOkakarta is the clarion call of the brahma jnAni.   It is because of the simple reason for the seen (nAma rUpa/the effect) brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNaM. 

 

You cannot say that "seen is Brahman" does not mean "seen is illusory".

 

Ø    Seeing the snake in place of rope is illusory (avidyA bhrAnti drushti / ayatArtha jnAna/jeeva mAnasa pratyaya / adhyAsa drushti / atasmin tadbuddhiH) seeing the rope in rope is yathArtha jnAna.  Seeing the jagat independently from brahman is avidyA drushti seeing the jagat non different from brahman is realizing the svarUpa of jagat i.e. brahman. 

 

Do you deny bAdha-sAmAmAdhikaraNya or do you not understand it?  Or do you advocate pariNAma-vAda? 

 

Ø     Whether it is brahma pariNAma vAda or vivarta vAda or bAdha sAmAnAdhikAraNya, the bottom line or ultimate siddhAnta is brahman is nirvikAri, nirvishesha, niravayava but the jnAni who realizes that this brahman is nirvishesha gets that knowledge  through sama darshana….sarveshu brahAdisthAvarAnteshu vishameshu sarvabhUteshu samaM nirvisheshaM brahmAtmaikatvavishayaM darshanaM jnAnaM yasya saH sarvatra samadarshanaH.  If one arrives / realized this knowledge the means of this realization is hardly a matter of concern to him. 

 

 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

Swami Paramarthananda rejects *dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi vāda* (the theory that the world is created by individual perception) as the *final teaching* of Advaita Vedanta for **philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons**, rooted in Śaṅkara's works and the *Brahma Sūtras*.

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am not familiar with this Swamiji’s work.  But DSV is plainly goes against shAstra / yukti / anubhava.  Dream srushti by individual can not be the justification to reject the Ishwara srushti especially bhAshyakAra saying that  the creation never ever possible by jeeva, the finite and limited individual being / tiny soul with qualified / conditioned mind.  In sUtra bhAshya he clarifies the jeeva who is not Ishwara (the sarva shakta) is not at all capable of making manifest the many and varied names and forms of mountains, rivers, oceans and the like. For that matter he further clarifies even the siddha purusha, yOgi-s, pavAda purusha-s who have acquired the siddhis (occult powers) of aNimAdi ashta siddhi-s. cannot effect the manifestation of the creation and manage its affairs.  It is possible ONLY by sarvajna, sarvashakta, nitya, Shuddha, buddha, mukta, avidyA vinirmukta Ishwara.  Again whenever there is any meaningful talk on jagat srushti we have to have Ishwara not the jeeva.