References to drishTi-srishTi-vAda in Shruti, BhAshya and works of sampradAya-vit-AchAryAs
Sudhanshu Shekhar
A dedicated list in separate e-mail heading is created for noting the references to drishTi-srishTi-vAda in Shruti, BhAshya and works of sampradAya-vit-AchAryAs. Corroborating statements of AchAryAs can also be added.
1. ChhAndOgya Upanishad 8.5.4 bhAshya: अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते । जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम्.
Reference: R Krishnamurti Shastri ji writes in page 268 of SLS that ChhAndogya Upanishad 8.5.4 refers to drishTi-srishTi-VAda. He says “ब्राह्मलौकिकपदार्थानां स्वरूपविचारावसरे 'अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते जाग्रद्विषयाऽपि मानस प्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव' इत्यादि छान्दोग्याष्टमपञ्चमभाष्यमपि श्रुतेः दृष्टिसृष्टिपरत्वे प्रमाणम् ।”.
2. BSB 1.3.30 - स्वापप्रबोधयोश्च प्रलयप्रभवौ श्रूयेते — ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३ । ३) इति
7. Kaivalya Upanishad says - स्वप्ने स जीवः सुखदुःखभोक्ता स्वमायया कल्पितजीवलोके । सुषुप्तिकाले सकले विलीने तमोऽभिभूतः सुखरूपमेति ॥
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Posts such as this could actually be very useful – if a reliable translation into English were added for each quotation and a reference to the source of the translation. I seem to recall that the List owner posted a request that all Devanagari quotations should be accompanied by a translation (and ideally a transliteration). It is a pity that such erudite posts should be useful only for a minority.
--
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%2BBAf6kc8Q93ydFH69Mw4ZQkxDdqHUCdZKZp4ty2JvpGdZA%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sanju Nath
Here is the transliteration and English translation for the important references you’ve listed, all relating to Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda (DSV) in Advaita Vedānta.
1. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.5.4 Bhāṣya
Sanskrit:
अत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते । जाग्रद्विषया अपि मानसप्रत्ययाभिनिर्वृत्ता एव, सदीक्षाभिनिर्वृत्ततेजोबन्नमयत्वाज्जाग्रद्विषयाणाम्।
Transliteration:
atyalpam idam ucyate | jāgrad-viṣayā api mānasa-pratyaya-abhinirvṛttā eva, sadīkṣā-abhinirvṛtta-tejobannamayatvāt jāgrad-viṣayāṇām.
Translation:
“This is said to be extremely limited. Even waking objects are nothing but constructions of mental impressions, because the waking objects consist of light (tejas), food (anna), etc., which themselves are manifested through will (saṅkalpa).”
Note: Śaṅkara here implies that waking experience too is mentally projected, just like in dreams — a strong point in favor of Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda.
2. Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya 1.3.30
Sanskrit (with Kaushītakī 3.3 ref):
स्वापप्रबोधयोश्च प्रलयप्रभवौ श्रूयेते — ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यति… एवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते…’
Transliteration:
svāpa-prabodhayoś ca pralaya-prabhavau śrūyete — ‘yadā suptaḥ svapnaṁ na kañcana paśyaty athāsmin prāṇa evaikaḍhā bhavati… evam evaitasmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇā yathāyatanaṁ vipratiṣṭhante…’
Translation:
“Sleep and waking are respectively the dissolution and the re-creation (of the world). ‘When a person sleeps and sees no dreams, then the vital forces become unified, and upon waking, all prāṇas (vital functions) emerge from the Self and settle in their respective abodes’ — just as sparks emerge from fire.”
Note: This passage is used by Vidyāraṇya and others to indicate that creation arises from the perceiving jīva, aligning with DSV.
3. Aitareya Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 1.3.12
Sanskrit:
त्रयः स्वप्नाः — जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव । कथम् ? परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च।
Transliteration:
trayaḥ svapnāḥ — jāgrat-svapna-suṣuptyākhyāḥ | nanu jāgaritaṁ prabodha-rūpatvān na svapnaḥ | naivam; svapna eva | katham? paramārtha-svātmā-prabodha-abhāvāt svapna-vad-asad-vastu-darśanāc ca.
Translation:
“There are three dreams: waking, dream, and deep sleep. One may object: waking cannot be a dream because it involves actual awareness. No, even waking is a dream — why? Because of the absence of true Self-realization and the perception of unreal objects just like in a dream.”
Note: Waking is also treated as illusory like dream, again aligning with DSV.
4. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 4.3.19
Sanskrit:
‘न कञ्चन कामम्’ इति स्वप्नबुद्धान्तयोः अविशेषेण सर्वः कामः प्रतिषिध्यते… ‘न कञ्चन स्वप्नम्’ इति — जागरितेऽपि यत् दर्शनम् , तदपि स्वप्नं मन्यते श्रुतिः…
Transliteration:
‘na kañcana kāmam’ iti svapna-buddhāntayoḥ aviśeṣeṇa sarvaḥ kāmaḥ pratiṣidhyate… ‘na kañcana svapnam’ iti — jāgarite’pi yat darśanam, tad api svapnaṁ manyate śrutiḥ…
Translation:
“‘He sees no desire at all’ — this negates all desires equally in both dream and waking states… Even waking perceptions are considered as dream-like by the śruti.”
Note: Śruti equates waking perception to dream, confirming non-distinction of reality across states.
5. Praśna Upaniṣad 4.7–4.8
Sanskrit:
स यथा सोम्य वयांसि वासोवृक्षं सम्प्रतिष्ठन्त… एवं ह वै तत्सर्वं पर आत्मनि सम्प्रतिष्ठते ॥
Transliteration:
sa yathā somya vayāṁsi vāsovṛkṣaṁ sampratiṣṭhanta… evaṁ ha vai tat sarvaṁ para ātmani sampratiṣṭhate.
Translation:
“As birds return to a tree at night, so too all experiences and functions settle into the supreme Self.”
Note: Swami Paramārthānanda takes this to mean everything collapses into the Self, just like a dream ends on waking — pointing to DSV.
6. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.20
Sanskrit:
स यथोर्णनाभिः तन्तूनोच्चरेत् यथाग्नेः क्षुद्राः विस्फुलिङ्गाः… एवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः… व्युच्चरन्ति…
Transliteration:
sa yathorṇanābhiḥ tantūn uccaret yathāgneḥ kṣudrāḥ visphuliṅgāḥ… evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ… vyuccaranti…
Translation:
“Just as a spider emits threads, or sparks emerge from a fire, so too all prāṇas, beings, and worlds emanate from the Self.”
Note: Used by Advaita Siddhi to support DSV, where creation is from the viewpoint of the waking jīva.
7. Kaivalya Upaniṣad
Sanskrit:
स्वप्ने स जीवः सुखदुःखभोक्ता स्वमायया कल्पितजीवलोके। सुषुप्तिकाले सकले विलीने तमोऽभिभूतः सुखरूपमेति॥
Transliteration:
svapne sa jīvaḥ sukha-duḥkha-bhoktā sva-māyayā kalpita-jīvaloke | suṣupti-kāle sakale vilīne tamo’bhibhūtaḥ sukha-rūpam eti.
Translation:
“In dream, the jīva enjoys pleasure and pain in a self-projected world. In deep sleep, everything dissolves, and he is enveloped by darkness and attains the form of bliss.”
8. Anubhūti Prakāśa 1.17
Sanskrit:
स्वप्नः स्वकाले एव अस्ति न अन्यदा सुप्तिजागरौ। तथा-एव-इति स्वप्न-साम्यात् त्रयः स्वप्नाः उदीरिताः।।
Transliteration:
svapnaḥ sva-kāle eva asti na anyadā supti-jāgarau | tathā-eveti svapna-sāmyāt trayaḥ svapnāḥ udīritāḥ.
Translation:
“Dream exists only in its own time, not in waking or sleep. Hence, due to similarity, all three states are referred to as dreams.”
9. Anubhūti Prakāśa 8.67
Sanskrit:
दृष्टिसृष्टिमिमां ब्रह्मानुभवी बहुमन्यते । स्वप्रबोधात्स्वसंसारो लीयते स्वप्नवद्यतः ॥
Transliteration:
dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭim imāṁ brahmānubhavī bahumanyate | sva-prabodhāt sva-saṁsāro līyate svapnavat yataḥ.
Translation:
“The knower of Brahman highly esteems this Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi view; for, upon waking (Self-realization), one’s entire saṁsāra dissolves like a dream.”
10. Anubhūti Prakāśa 9.46
Sanskrit:
अल्पा सा महती वास्तु सदद्वैतं विबुद्ध्यते । प्रौढस्य राजगेहस्य द्वारं स्यात्पुरतो महत् ॥
Transliteration:
alpā sā mahatī vāstu sad-advaitaṁ vibuddhyate | prauḍhasya rāja-gehasya dvāraṁ syāt purato mahat.
Translation:
“That which appears small is actually vast — the Reality of Non-duality is realized. Just as the doorway of a great palace may appear small from afar.”
11. Ratnaprabhā on BSB 1.3.30
Sanskrit:
स्वप्नवत्कल्पितस्याज्ञातसत्त्वाभावात् दर्शनं सृष्टिः अदर्शनं लय इति दृष्टिसृष्टिपक्षः श्रुत्यभिप्रेत इति भावः।
Transliteration:
svapnavat kalpitasya ajñāta-sattva-abhāvāt darśanaṁ sṛṣṭiḥ, adarśanaṁ laya iti dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-pakṣaḥ śruty-abhipreta iti bhāvaḥ.
Translation:
“Just as in a dream, the imagined world has no existence apart from the seer. Thus, perception itself is creation; absence of perception is dissolution — this is the Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda supported by the śruti.”
--
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%2BBCoSX-HeD2vD-xbvXgv7TEB1KY1vr3QKqfcLJUFKaxr6A%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Just like the magician and others, (Om is the) beginning (adi), middle (madhya), and end (anta)-the origination, continuance, and dissolution; sarvasya, of all-of the whole phenomenal universe, consisting of space and the rest which originate like a magic elephant, a snake superimposed in a rope, a mirage, a dream, etc. (from the magician and the rest).
2. जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् । [2.4]
The proposition to be established is the illusoriness of the objects seen in the waking state. 'Being perceived' is the ground of inference (hetu). And the illustration (drishTAnta) is 'like an object seen in a dream'. And the assertion of the presence of the hetu term in the minor term is made thus: Tatha tatra svapne, as (objects 'perceived') there in a dream, are illusory; so also are they illusory in the waking state; the fact of 'being perceived' being equally present. And the concluding reiteration is: TasmAt jAgarite smritam, therefore illusoriness is admitted of objects in the waking state as well.
3. स्वप्नदृश्यवज्जागरितदृश्यानामप्यसत्त्वमिति …. अतो मन्यामहे तेषामप्यसत्त्वं स्वप्नदृश्यवदनाशङ्कनीयमिति । [2.7]
Just as dream-seen-objects are non-existent (asat), similarly waking-seen-objects are non-existent….. Therefore, we hold that one should not doubt that (how can) waking-seen-objects are non-existent like dream-seen-objects.
4. अतः कल्पिता एव जाग्रद्भावा अपि स्वप्नभाववदिति सिद्धम् ॥ [2.15]
Therefore, it is established that objects-in-waking-world are imaginary just as the objects-in-dream-world.
5. स्वप्नश्च माया च स्वप्नमाये असद्वस्त्वात्मिके सत्यौ सद्वस्त्वात्मिके इव लक्ष्येते अविवेकिभिः । यथा च प्रसारितपण्यापणगृहप्रासादस्त्रीपुञ्जनपदव्यवहाराकीर्णमिव गन्धर्वनगरं दृश्यमानमेव सत् अकस्मादभावतां गतं दृष्टम् , यथा च स्वप्नमाये दृष्टे असद्रूपे, तथा विश्वमिदं द्वैतं समस्तमसद्दृष्टम् । [2.31]
Dream and MAyA are non-existent in their swarUpa. The are held as existent by persons devoid of discrimination. Just as a gandharva-nagara, replete with shops, homes, women, men, transactions is seen to suddenly vanish into non-existence from being seen, and just as non-existent (objects of) dream and MAyA are seen, similarly this entire world and duality is seen to be non-existent.
6. बाह्यं पृथिव्यादि तत्त्वमाध्यात्मिकं च देहादिलक्षणं रज्जुसर्पादिवत्स्वप्नमायादिवच्च असत् । [2.38]
The external elements like prithivI etc and internal elements like body etc are non-existent like illusory-snake-in-the-rope, dream and MAyA.
7. ननु उक्तं त्वयैव स्वप्नो जागरितकार्यमिति ; तत्कथमुत्पादोऽप्रसिद्ध इति उच्यते ? शृणु तत्र यथा कार्यकारणभावोऽस्माभिरभिप्रेत इति । असत् अविद्यमानं रज्जुसर्पवद्विकल्पितं वस्तु जागरिते दृष्ट्वा तद्भावभावितस्तन्मयः स्वप्नेऽपि जागरितवत् ग्राह्यग्राहकरूपेण विकल्पयन्पश्यति, तथा असत्स्वप्नेऽपि दृष्ट्वा च प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति अविकल्पयन् , च - शब्दात् । तथा जागरितेऽपि दृष्ट्वा स्वप्ने न पश्यति कदाचिदित्यर्थः । तस्माज्जागरितं स्वप्नहेतुरित्युच्यते, न तु परमार्थसदिति कृत्वा ॥ [4.39]
Objection: Hasn’t it been said by you yourself that a dream is a product of waking. How do you then say that origination is not a well-recognized fact?
Answer: Listen as to how the kArya-kAraNa-bHava is intended there. Non-existent objects, like an illusory snake in a rope, are seen in waking. Having seen them, and becoming mentally involved with them, one imagines objects in dream also like in waking segregated as perceiver and perceived. Similarly, unless resorting to imagination, one does not see the non-existent objects in dream after waking up. From the word “cha”, it follows that sometimes similarly even seeing an object in waking, one does not see it in dream. Therefore, waking is stated to be the cause of dream, but thereby it is not implies that the waking is real.
8. स्वप्नदृशश्चित्तं स्वप्नदृक्चित्तम् , तेन दृश्याः ते जीवाः ; ततः तस्मात् स्वप्नदृक्चित्तात् पृथक् न विद्यन्ते न सन्तीत्यर्थः । चित्तमेव ह्यनेकजीवादिभेदाकारेण विकल्प्यते । तथा तदपि स्वप्नदृक्चित्तमिदं तद्दृश्यमेव, तेन स्वप्नदृशा दृश्यं तद्दृश्यम् । अतः स्वप्नदृग्व्यतिरेकेण चित्तं नाम नास्तीत्यर्थः ॥ [4.64]
9. जाग्रतो दृश्या जीवाः तच्चित्ताव्यतिरिक्ताः, चित्तेक्षणीयत्वात् , स्वप्नदृक्चित्तेक्षणीयजीववत् । तच्च जीवेक्षणात्मकं चित्तं द्रष्टुरव्यतिरिक्तं द्रष्टृदृश्यत्वात् स्वप्नचित्तवत् । [4.66]
The jIvAs of dream are the drishya of the chitta of swapna-drik (seer-of-dream). Therefore, those jIvAs are not separate from the chitta of swapna-drik. The chitta-of-swapna-drik itself is imagined in the form of several jIvAs etc. Similarly, the chitta-of-chitta-drik is drishya of swapna-drik since the chitta-of-swapna-drik is seen by swapna-drik. Therefore, there is no object named as chitta-of-swapna-drik other than swapna-drik.
The jIvAs seen in waking are non-different from chitta, on account of being seen by chitta, like the jIvAs seen by chitta-of-swapna-drik. That chitta (of waking) is not different from drashTA, on account of being drishya of drashTA, like the swapna-chitta.
10. न हि स्वप्ने हस्ती हस्तिचित्तं वा विद्यते ; तथा इहापि विवेकिनामित्यभिप्रायः। [4.67]
In a dream, there exists neither the elephant nor the chitta-of-elephant. Similarly, here also is the case for people with discrimination. This is the purport.
11. यथा स्वप्नमयो जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च ।तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ [4.68]
Just as jIvAs in a dream take birth and also die, similarly all these jIvAs (in waking) appear and disappear.
12. यथा मायामयो जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च । तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ [4.69]
Just as jIvAs conjured by magic take birth and also die, similarly all these jIvAs (in waking) appear and disappear.
13. यथा निर्मितको जीवो जायते म्रियतेऽपि च । तथा जीवा अमी सर्वे भवन्ति न भवन्ति च ॥ [4.70]
Just as jIvAs conjured by medicines and charms take birth and also die, similarly all these jIvAs (in waking) appear and disappear.
14. मायामयः मायाविना यः कृतो निर्मितकः मन्त्रौषध्यादिभिर्निष्पादितः । स्वप्नमायानिर्मितका अण्डजादयो जीवा यथा जायन्ते म्रियन्ते च, तथा मनुष्यादिलक्षणा अविद्यमाना एव चित्तविकल्पनामात्रा इत्यर्थः ॥ [4.70]
MAyAmayah (of 4.69) means that which is created by a magician. Nirmitakah (of 4.70) means that which is created by mantra and medicine. Such jIvAs created by dream, magic, medicine or charms, born of eggs etc take birth and die. Similarly, these jIvAs such as humans etc are non-existent and are merely the vibrations of mind.
15. न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः सम्भवोऽस्य न विद्यते । एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किञ्चिन्न जायते ॥ [4.71]
No jIva whatsoever is ever born. There is no source of it. This is that highest truth where nothing whatsoever is born.
16. व्यवहारसत्यविषये जीवानां जन्ममरणादिः स्वप्नादिजीववदित्युक्तम् । उत्तमं तु परमार्थसत्यं न कश्चिज्जायते जीव इति । उक्तार्थमन्यत् ॥ [4.71]
The birth and death etc of (waking) jIvAs was stated to be like the birth and death of jIvAs created by dream-magic-medicine. That was stated only within the ambit of vyAvahArika-satya. The highest pAramArthika-satya is this alone that no jIva whatsoever is born.
17. हेयानि च लौकिकादीनि त्रीणि जागरितस्वप्नसुषुप्तानि आत्मन्यसत्त्वेन रज्ज्वां सर्पवद्धातव्यानीत्यर्थः । ज्ञेयमिह चतुष्कोटिवर्जितं परमार्थतत्त्वम् । [4.90]
All these three ordinary namely waking, dream and deep sleep should be rejected like illusory snake in the rope on account of their non-existence in AtmA. The jneya, object to be known, is devoid of four categories and is supreme truth.
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
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%2BBC%3Dkqnr-gcNDt%2Bu2bCFGdU0y-v4VvLgVUu4Z8iwHwGQjw%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
I asked ChatGPT to succinctly synthesize and respond to your list of 17 Karikas supportive of DSV, following SSS guidelines. Siddhantabindu is mentioned as it has been on my radar. 🙏🙏🙏
------------------------------------------------------
The Māṇḍūkya Kārikās employ dream analogies, dṛśyatva-based inference, and citta-vikalpa language solely to negate the reality and origination of the waking world (MK 2.4–2.38), explicitly denying both physical and mental causation (MK 4.39, 4.71), and therefore do not support a dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi doctrine but culminate instead in uncompromising ajātivāda (MK 2.32; 4.71).
- Waking objects are illusory
because they are perceived, not because they are mentally produced.
Gauḍapāda establishes dṛśyatva (being perceived) only as a mark of falsity (vaitathya), using dream as the illustrative case—not as a causal principle of origination.
Citations: MK 2.4, 2.7, 2.15, 2.31, 2.38 - Dream–waking parity functions
exclusively as a negation of waking’s privileged reality.
The analogy shows that waking objects are no more real than dream objects; it does not assert that perception brings objects into existence.
Citations: MK 2.4–2.7, 2.15, 2.31 - Calling waking the ‘cause’ of
dream does not grant waking ontological reality.
Here Gauḍapāda concedes causal language only to immediately neutralize it, stating that waking is called the cause of dream without thereby being real. This preserves explanatory usefulness while blocking ontological commitment. Siddhānta-bindu, however, operationalizes this causal talk, folding it into a DSV framework that treats cognition as a functional origin-point rather than a merely didactic posit.
Citation: MK 4.39 - Jīvas are compared to
dream-beings, magical beings, and conjured beings to deny real birth, not
to affirm perceptual creation.
These analogies are cumulative and decisive: dream-beings, magical beings, and conjured beings all appear without ever being born. The emphasis is not on how they appear, but on the fact that appearance does not imply origination. Siddhānta-bindu shifts the force of these examples toward mind-dependent projection, thereby reintroducing a subtle form of production that the Kārikās are at pains to deny.
Citations: MK 4.68, 4.69, 4.70 - Jīvas and objects are reduced to
citta-vikalpa only to negate independent existence.
Reduction of objects and jīvas to citta-vikalpa serves to dissolve their independent ontological status, not to elevate mind into a creative principle. The citta itself is immediately shown to be non-separate from the seer, preventing its reification. Siddhānta-bindu nonetheless treats citta as the site where appearance is generated, thereby granting it an explanatory role foreign to Gauḍapāda’s strictly eliminative use.
Citations: MK 4.64, 4.66, 4.67 - Ajātivāda decisively precludes
any dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi causal thesis.
The declaration that “no jīva whatsoever is ever born” functions as a global constraint on interpretation, ruling out physical, mental, and perceptual origination alike. Ajātivāda leaves no conceptual space for even a momentary arising dependent on cognition. Siddhānta-bindu affirms ajāti verbally, yet retains DSV explanatory language, creating an unresolved tension between denial of birth and accounts of perceptual emergence.
Citation: MK 4.71 - The final purport is universal
non-origination, not perceptual idealism.
All prior analogies and inferences culminate in the denial of origination altogether, not in the assertion that perception creates the world.
Citations: MK 2.32, 4.71
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I asked ChatGPT to succinctly synthesize and respond to your list of 17 Karikas supportive of DSV, following SSS guidelines. Siddhantabindu is mentioned as it has been on my radar. 🙏🙏🙏
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Michael-ji and Sudhanshu-ji,
When I wrote ‘A-U-M – Awakening to Reality’, which is an analysis and commentary on the Māṇḍūkya and Kārikās, I studied every English translation and commentary then available. (There have been a couple more published since then.) The only kārikā that contained an inkling of DSV was 2.16, and it was in connection with that that I made the only reference in the book to DSV and EJV (in an Appendix!). Gauḍapāda was really only interested in going straight for AJV, not on making diverting detours along the way!
Incidentally, I see that ChatGPT does not even mention 2.16! I think maybe it still has serious problems. Yesterday, answering a query, it referenced the book ‘The Essence of Enlightenment’ by Dennis Waite. When I replied that I did not recall ever writing such a book, it apologized for the mix up and said that it was a different Dennis Waite, born in 1938! I pointed out that, in my long association with the internet for tracking website, teachers and books, I had never encountered such a person, it only then conceded that it must have been confused: “it appears to have been a mistaken recollection or a working manuscript title rather than a formally published one.”
Best wishes,
Dennis
.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
The only kārikā that contained an inkling of DSV was 2.16, and it was in connection with that that I made the only reference in the book to DSV and EJV (in an Appendix!).
Gauḍapāda was really only interested in going straight for AJV, not on making diverting detours along the way!
When I replied that I did not recall ever writing such a book, it apologized for the mix up and said that it was a different Dennis Waite, born in 1938!
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis prabhuji
Hare Krishna
When I wrote ‘A-U-M – Awakening to Reality’, which is an analysis and commentary on the Māṇḍūkya and Kārikās, I studied every English translation and commentary then available.
- Fortunately I have the copy of your book…quite amazed about the depth of the study and presentation without any other fabricated spices 😊
(There have been a couple more published since then.) The only kārikā that contained an inkling of DSV was 2.16, and it was in connection with that that I made the only reference in the book to DSV and EJV (in an Appendix!).
- Even from this kArika also no one can push their theory of jagat is just an imagination of conditioned jeeva…it is just saying jagat is brahma mAnasa pratyaya (Atmadeva/hiraNyagarbha/prajApati). Hence we find the declarations like : ahOrAtre vai prajApatiH, mAsO vai prajApatiH, ahOrAtrAdi sarvaM ‘sataH’ kAryaM etc. in shruti and smruti-s. Definitely not a valid source to propagate bhrAnti vAda of Buddhism.
Gauḍapāda was really only interested in going straight for AJV, not on making diverting detours along the way!
Incidentally, I see that ChatGPT does not even mention 2.16! I think maybe it still has serious problems. Yesterday, answering a query, it referenced the book ‘The Essence of Enlightenment’ by Dennis Waite. When I replied that I did not recall ever writing such a book, it apologized for the mix up and said that it was a different Dennis Waite, born in 1938!
- Perhaps your alter ego might have written this which AI could able to trace it to surprise you😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
V Subrahmanian
Bhaskar YR
A few months ago, a Chat gpt conversation was posted here, containing a set of Sanskrit passages purportedly from Shankara's Bhashyas. Upon checking it turned out that none of the passages was from the Bhashyas
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I have a doubt, while providing the references and explanations whether AI will provide its source?? For example if it is providing some bhAshya reference and explanation there on, it also provides from which book, which commentary, which translation, which publisher it is drawing the references etc. ??
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
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/CAKk0Te3v92UQjhL_%2Bhur9KFEO5LCjj0URJOrXGbV%3DN2QYWFVmg%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
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/AM7PR06MB6625ED5F73D97D8456745649849AA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna
When the marks sheet itself is fake one why there is any need to talk on subjects and marks obtained?? Is the question will be posed by them…Sincerely I think it is legitimate query. Can we not present our clarifications without too much dependency on AI especially when it is not a proven credible source??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaksar
Bhaskar YR
AI Overviews can and will make mistakes. How to double-check responses: Always check important info in more than one place. Click the links to supporting information from the web and try other Google Search results too.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
That means it is NOT using its own (artificial) intelligence to provide accurate information!! it is just throwing whatever available in net based on biased prompts!! Suppose if I give the prompt like : how ‘atatvamasi’ is more logical, meaningful and true siddhAnta as per shruti as against ‘tattvamasi’, I will get all supporting arguments in favour of ‘atatvamasi’ right?? As it is biased prompt to uphold the dualistic theory…It does not categorically say : NO, atatvamasi is not the Upanishad siddhAnta from any point of view!! ?? Simply it does not want to hurt the sentiments of prompter 😊 it always tries to console the prompter by providing the reference that would satisfy his biased intentions.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Disappointing - Ignoring the arguments and attacking credentials.🙏
--
Michael Chandra Cohen
--
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%2BBA%2BFfNiDBzpofDYO_7SGcTSX-dmqFQUF7aO%3DnFi%3D3R7cA%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
Hare Krishna
I don’t think SSSS accepts mind as a dṛśya. That is the point of divergence.
> Again a gross misrepresentation of Sri SSS's stand and consequential baseless allegations on him. When he & bhAshyakAra say everything is due to adhyAsa where is the question of antaHkaraNa being entertained as not drushya etc. ?? I have said somany times in this list itself without antaHkaraNa you cannot do brahma jignAsa especially when you are asserting 'advaita jnAnam manOvrutti mAtraM' and shruti itself saying manasaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana...it is an instrument to have the Atma darshana says bhAshyakAra elsewhere ( saMskrutaM manaH Atmadarshane karaNaM)..The Atman is sAkshi chetaH kevalO nirguNascha, so the 'socalled' intellect itself one of the drushya (object) of that consciousness / sAkshi. Nevertheless, you cannot deny the fact that you have no other instrument of knowledge through which we can talk and give big discourses on Atmaikatva jnAna, or we can talk of ourselves as avidyAvanta or vidyAvanta. BTW, I don’t know, if you prabhuji-s are doing these exercises without using this instrument of yours😊And in adhyAsa bhAshya bhAshyakAra highlighted this very issue and clarifies that it is an innate tendency of the human mind to confound the AtmAnAtma. All human kriya and kriyAphala (anubhava) etc. presupposes intellection and intellection itself is based on this natural (svAbhAvika) error. And further clarifies that since avidyA is no actual concept of Atman, the socalled avidyA neither belongs to paramAtman (kUtastha parishuddha chaitanya nor pratyagAtman (kshetrajna / vijnAnAtma) in the pAramArthika sense and Atman can never be perceived and conceived by the mind and mind itself being a adhyArOpita / adhyastha on the self. But at the same time, as said above, the vidyAvidya vyavahAra cannot take place without the practical usage of this antaHkaraNa which is contextually different from entirely inert things like chair, table, ghata in which there is obviously no question of avidyA and related trauma nor there is any chance of jnAnOtpatti.