dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda

[Guest guest]

dRiShTi

 

Namaste to all.

 

This is what Madhusudana

Sarasvati says about dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda in SiddhAntabindu:--

 

Pure consciousness which is the

original (which is what is reflected), with nescience as its limiting adjunct

is Isvara. The reflection of consciousness in nescience is the jiva. Or, pure

consciousness not limited by nescience is Isvara. Consciousness limited by

nescience is the jiva. This is the main Vedanta theory, known as the theory of

a single jiva This itself is called dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda. In this view the jiva

himself is the material and efficient cause of the universe through his own

nescience. All the objects perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream).

The delusion that there are  many jivas

is only due to there being many bodies. Liberation is attained by the single

jiva on realization of the self as a result of the perfection of hearing,

reflection, etc, with the help of the Guru and the scriptures which are all

conjured up by him. The statements about Suka and others having attained

liberation are only by way of eulogy.

 

It is thus seen that

dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda is the same as eka-jIva vAda. In this view everything

except the one jIva has only prAtibhAsika reality. Even the guru is only

imagined. Though MS says that this is the main Vedanta theory, what we are

following is not this, but the aneka-jIva vAda in which there are three levels

of reality. According to this vAda vyAyahArika objects exist even before they

are known.  The consciousness on which

they are superimposed is veiled by ajnAna. These objects have therefore ajnAta

satta, i.e., they exist even when they are not cognized. A mental state

(vRitti) caused by a pramANa such as the visual organ is necessary to remove

the veil of ajnAna.

 

But prAtibhAsika objects like

rope-snake come into existence only when they are cognized by some one. They

are not known through any of the sense organs because the eye, etc have no

contact with them. They are known by the witness consciousness through an

avidya-vRitti.  

 

Thus there is a clear difference

between vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika objects.

 

All objects in the world derive

their existence (satta) from brahman or pure consciousness. So it is correct to

say that they are dependent on consciousness. But this is not the same thing as

saying that their existence depends on the observer or knower. The knower is

the mind with the reflection of consciousness in it and not pure consciousness.

Of course we say that everything is a creation of the mind. But that only means

that we react to objects in the world according to our mental make-up. Even

after realization, when there is no mind in the sense that there is no mind of

the kind we the unenlightened have, the jnAni still sees the world of objects,

though he does not react to them and consider them to be good or bad.

 

Panchadasi makes a distinction

between Ishvara sRiShTi and jIva sRiShTi. It is only the latter that is created

by the mind. As pointed out there, a gem is the creation of God, but different

people react to it differently. One person is eager to have it, another person

is indifferent. A spiritual aspirant avoids even the thought of it. These

reactions are jIva sRiShTi and these alone are created by the mind. The gem

exists even before any one sees it.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 1/21/10, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

All objects in the world derive their existence (satta) from brahman or pure

consciousness. So it is correct to say that they are dependent on consciousness.

But this is not the same thing as saying that their existence depends on the

observer or knower. The knower is the mind with the reflection of consciousness

in it and not pure consciousness. Of course we say that everything is a creation

of the mind. But that only means that we react to objects in the world according

to our mental make-up. Even after realization, when there is no mind in the

sense that there is no mind of the kind we the unenlightened have, the jnAni

still sees the world of objects, though he does not react to them and consider

them to be good or bad.

 

 

Sastriji - PraNAms

 

Iswara sRiShTi and Jiiva sRiShTi in terms of vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika is

accounted in terms of support for the existence coming from Iswara vs jiiva.

 

The question that was raised concerning the unknown object. Every transactional

object with their attributive content comes from Iswara sRiShTi with supported

by pure existence-consciousness. But the object existence is ESTABLISHED by

conscious entity alone - here we are referring to jiiva that I am.. Until it is

known its existence is not known -therefore it may exist may not exist -

Uncertainty is removed by conscious entity becoming conscious of its existence.

Hence I call it as indeterminate.

 

 

Shree Ramakrishnaji - I have never d to the statement the mind creates

the object and then perceives. Even the snake that one sees has samskaara coming

real or false snake from waking world only. The mind via senses perceives the

attributes but those attributes mind does not create -They are from iswara

sRiShTi - why rose smells like rose and lily smells like lily..

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastriji and others,

 

Thank you for your beautiful quotation from Siddhantabindu!

 

(To all list members: Sri Sastriji has in fact translated Madhusudana

Saraswati´s Siddhantabidhu into English. The book is available from Sri Adi

Shankara Advaita Research Centre in Chennai. Highly recommended!)

 

Regarding drshti-srsthi-vada (perception-is-creation view): Perhaps

Madhusudana Saraswati are referring to this as the " main vedanta theory " in

the sense that this is what everythings finally boils down to.

Drshti-shrsti-vada represents a more subtle and " advanced " prakriya, and

thereby is more difficult to grasp for many people. Some scholars even go to

the length of claiming that drshti-shrsti-vada is a rather extreme theory,

not really representating the general doctrine of advaita vedanta. Such a

prominent advaitin as Swami Prakashananda Saraswati (16th century), author

of the " Vedantasiddhantamuktavali " , is sometimes criticised on such grounds.

 

However, we should keep in mind that Gaudapada in his Mandukya-Karika, and

Shankara in his bhashya on this Mandukya-Karika, are presenting teachings

very similar to what was later to be known as drshti-shrsti-vada. In case

some readers are still unconvinced that this vada is in fact an important

part of the advaita tradition, I would like to quote what former Sringeri

Jagadguru HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamigal has to say on this subject. This

excerpt is from the book " Exalting Elucidations " (pp.280f):

 

Disciple:

Then, what is creation?

 

His Holiness:

Perception alone is creation. There is no creation other than perception.

Perception of a thing is its origination.

 

Disciple:

What about Ishvara?

 

His Holiness:

He too is a part of your dream. In reality, there is neither cause nor

effect. One has bondage as long as one considers that one has bondage. He

who feels that he is free is indeed free. That is why it has been said: " He

who considers himself liberated is a liberated one. He who feels that he has

bondage is bound " (Ashtavakra Gita 1.11.). Therefore, one should remove the

wrong impression that one has bondage.

 

Disciple:

Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has bondage the means to attain

moksha?

 

His Holiness:

Yes. So far, I was speaking with the drshti-srshti-vada

(perception-is-creation view) in mind. This, however, is not suitable for

many people because their minds are not pure enough to imbibe it. People

accept that the dream state is unreal. However, if told that the waking

state is equally unreal, they would feel disturbed. On hearing, " The waking

state is on par with the dream state " some may decide that dreams too are

real! That is why the shastra-s do not speak much of the drshti-srshti-vada.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

 

> Pure consciousness which is the original (which is what is reflected),

> with

> nescience as its limiting adjunct is Isvara. The reflection of

> consciousness

> in nescience is the jiva. Or, pure consciousness not limited by nescience

> is

> Isvara. Consciousness limited by nescience is the jiva. This is the main

> Vedanta theory, known as the theory of a single jiva This itself is called

> dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda. In this view the jiva himself is the material and

> efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects

> perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream).

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Stig Lundgren " <slu wrote:

 

 

Dear Sri Sastriji and others,

 

Thank you for your beautiful quotation from Siddhantabindu!

 

(To all list members: Sri Sastriji has in fact translated Madhusudana

Saraswati´s Siddhantabidhu into English. The book is available from Sri Adi

Shankara Advaita Research Centre in Chennai. Highly recommended!)

 

Regarding drshti-srsthi-vada (perception-is-creation view): Perhaps

Madhusudana Saraswati are referring to this as the " main vedanta theory " in

the sense that this is what everythings finally boils down to.

Drshti-shrsti-vada represents a more subtle and " advanced " prakriya, and

thereby is more difficult to grasp for many people. Some scholars even go to

the length of claiming that drshti-shrsti-vada is a rather extreme theory,

not really representating the general doctrine of advaita vedanta. Such a

prominent advaitin as Swami Prakashananda Saraswati (16th century), author

of the " Vedantasiddhantamuktavali " , is sometimes criticised on such grounds.

 

However, we should keep in mind that Gaudapada in his Mandukya-Karika, and

Shankara in his bhashya on this Mandukya-Karika, are presenting teachings

very similar to what was later to be known as drshti-shrsti-vada. In case

some readers are still unconvinced that this vada is in fact an important

part of the advaita tradition, I would like to quote what former Sringeri

Jagadguru HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamigal has to say on this subject. This

excerpt is from the book " Exalting Elucidations " (pp.280f):

 

Disciple:

Then, what is creation?

 

His Holiness:

Perception alone is creation. There is no creation other than perception.

Perception of a thing is its origination.

 

Disciple:

What about Ishvara?

 

His Holiness:

He too is a part of your dream. In reality, there is neither cause nor

effect. One has bondage as long as one considers that one has bondage. He

who feels that he is free is indeed free. That is why it has been said: " He

who considers himself liberated is a liberated one. He who feels that he has

bondage is bound " (Ashtavakra Gita 1.11.). Therefore, one should remove the

wrong impression that one has bondage.

 

Disciple:

Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has bondage the means to attain

moksha?

 

His Holiness:

Yes. So far, I was speaking with the drshti-srshti-vada

(perception-is-creation view) in mind. This, however, is not suitable for

many people because their minds are not pure enough to imbibe it. People

accept that the dream state is unreal. However, if told that the waking

state is equally unreal, they would feel disturbed. On hearing, " The waking

state is on par with the dream state " some may decide that dreams too are

real! That is why the shastra-s do not speak much of the drshti-srshti-vada.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

 

> Pure consciousness which is the original (which is what is reflected),

> with

> nescience as its limiting adjunct is Isvara. The reflection of

> consciousness

> in nescience is the jiva. Or, pure consciousness not limited by nescience

> is

> Isvara. Consciousness limited by nescience is the jiva. This is the main

> Vedanta theory, known as the theory of a single jiva This itself is called

> dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAda. In this view the jiva himself is the material and

> efficient cause of the universe through his own nescience. All the objects

> perceived are illusory (like things seen in dream).

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 1/21/10, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

All objects in the world derive their existence (satta) from brahman or pure

consciousness. So it is correct to say that they are dependent on consciousness.

But this is not the same thing as saying that their existence depends on the

observer or knower. The knower is the mind with the reflection of consciousness

in it and not pure consciousness. Of course we say that everything is a creation

of the mind. But that only means that we react to objects in the world according

to our mental make-up. Even after realization, when there is no mind in the

sense that there is no mind of the kind we the unenlightened have, the jnAni

still sees the world of objects, though he does not react to them and consider

them to be good or bad.

 

 

Sastriji - PraNAms

 

Iswara sRiShTi and Jiiva sRiShTi in terms of vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika is

accounted in terms of support for the existence coming from Iswara vs jiiva.

 

The question that was raised concerning the unknown object. Every transactional

object with their attributive content comes from Iswara sRiShTi with supported

by pure existence-consciousness. But the object existence is ESTABLISHED by

conscious entity alone - here we are referring to jiiva that I am.. Until it is

known its existence is not known -therefore it may exist may not exist -

Uncertainty is removed by conscious entity becoming conscious of its existence.

Hence I call it as indeterminate.

 

 

Shree Ramakrishnaji - I have never d to the statement the mind creates

the object and then perceives. Even the snake that one sees has samskaara coming

real or false snake from waking world only. The mind via senses perceives the

attributes but those attributes mind does not create -They are from iswara

sRiShTi - why rose smells like rose and lily smells like lily..

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 21/1/10, Stig Lundgren <slu wrote:

Stig Lundgren <sluRe: dRiShTi-sRiShTi vAdaadvaitin Date: Thursday, 21 January, 2010, 9:50 PM

Dear Sri Sastriji and others,Thank you for your beautiful quotation from Siddhantabindu!(To all list members: Sri Sastriji has in fact translated Madhusudana Saraswati´s Siddhantabidhu into English. The book is available from Sri Adi Shankara Advaita Research Centre in Chennai. Highly recommended! )Regarding drshti-srsthi- vada (perception- is-creation view): Perhaps Madhusudana Saraswati are referring to this as the "main vedanta theory" in the sense that this is what everythings finally boils down to. Drshti-shrsti- vada represents a more subtle and "advanced" prakriya, and thereby is more difficult to grasp for many people. Some scholars even go to the length of claiming that drshti-shrsti- vada is a rather extreme theory, not really representating the general doctrine of advaita vedanta. Such a prominent advaitin as Swami Prakashananda Saraswati (16th century), author of the

"Vedantasiddhantamu ktavali", is sometimes criticised on such grounds.However, we should keep in mind that Gaudapada in his Mandukya-Karika, and Shankara in his bhashya on this Mandukya-Karika, are presenting teachings very similar to what was later to be known as drshti-shrsti- vada.

 

--- Is Madhusudhana Saraswathi is saying the same Drishti Srishti Vaada of Gauapada and Shankara ? In the MSS's view, I read that there are about 7 beginninless categories, but for the Revered Acharyas only avidya is anAdi.

Your Mail works best with the New Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!.