Dristhti-shristi and Dvaita (The Great Derailment)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

> > The understanding of Advaita that I get from Sri

> > Shankaracharya's bhashya is not so easy to refute

> > as the one given in the Dvaita text books. It is

> > a darshana revealed by Adi Shankara that remains

> > untouched by that polemical work of Dvaita called

> > 'Drishyatva Anumana of Advaita'.

>

> Sir, we can discuss this point if moderator agree. Else we

> can take up on forums dedicated for this purpose such as

> vAdavaLi or Hindunet etc. I do not hesitate to debate this

> with you.

 

We have debated it enough in Vadavalli. The stated intent

of 'Drishyatva Anumana of Advaita' is to show the flaws in the

syllogistic argument that Advaita (supposedly) uses for proving the

following two propositions:

 

1. The world is unreal

 

2. The nature of the world is sat-asat-vilakshana

 

Since the understanding of Advaita that I get from Sri

Shankaracharya's bhashyas is that the world is real, the entire work

called 'Drishyatva Anumana of Advaita' flies past gaily in the air

chasing shadows. Of course, chasing shadows helps to keep up the

illusion that you are refuting Advaita.

 

It may be noted that Sri Shankaracharya never uses a syllogistic

argument in any of the prasthana traya bhashyas to prove that the

world is unreal, and he indeed speaks against it at more than one

place. (Please don't bring Sri Gaudapadachraya's arguments here

because those arguments had a different purpose - the purpose of

seeking a common siddhanta with the Buddhists so that it may become a

platform for demolishing the opponent's viewpoint. These are not

merely my words; Sri Shankarachrya himself says so in the

commentary).

> of Dvaitins that Sri Shankarachraya's preamble to the

> Brahma Sutra Bhashya is a premise that is artefacted to

> infuse a spurious meaning into the Brahma Sutras. It

> vaporises the naive idea that Dvaitins have of anirvacaniya

> that it is an ontological statement when it is in actuality

> a derivative of an epistemological conundrum.

>

> We can discuss this point too. But please do not pass on

> the judgment before we debate.

 

Who is telling whom not to pass judgment here? You are telling me not

to pass judgment? My dear friend, the judgment that the Jagadguru,

Sri Adi Shankaracharya, is responsible for infusing a spurious idea

into the Brahma Sutra Bhashya - who is it that makes this judgment?

Who is it that attacks the Acharya instead of the argument? Have you

even read the Preamble? Do you know what it is about? Do you know its

significance? Fie upon those who do vada without even bothering to

understand the most basic tenets of the purva-paksha before they set

out to pass judgment on the profound visions of the opponent. What is

this if it is not pure vitanda vada? What is it that makes Dvaitins

question why Sri Shankaracharya should have written a Preamble to the

bhashya? Is it such a sin to write a Preamble? And you want to

discuss this point with me again? Why should I, when you are not

amenable to the basic principles of vada that you shalt not put words

into the opponent's mouth? Why do I have to keep replying again and

again to doctrines which you think I should be holding on to? Why do

I have to acquiesce to your version of Advaita as being

the 'official' version that I should be coming to the debate with?

Haven't I mentioned this umpteen times at Vadavalli? And how will you

ever know what the Great Sri Shankaracahraya is saying if you are

always thrusting your own meanings onto his bhashyas?

 

Anirvacaniya - inexplicability - is not an assertion regarding an

ontological truth. Sri Shankaracharya always says that 'it cannot be

SAID TO BE either real or unreal'. The words 'SAID TO BE' are not to

be missed out because they are important in the context. They

indicate an epistemological indeterminacy of the world seen in

vyavahara; they do not speak of the ontological nature of the world.

The concept of sat-asat-vilakshana was born in the Vivarana school;

it is not found in Sri Shankaracharya's bhashyas.

 

(The Vivarana had its genesis in an inauspicious manner. The question

of who should write an exposition on the Acharya's bhashyas was

marked by suspicion in the minds of the disciples. Padmapada was

chosen to write it, but when he had completed writing the exposition,

most of it was burnt by a jealous uncle. What remains today is only

the commentaries on the first few sutra-bhashyas, and these were

recited to Padmapada by Sri Shankaracharya from memory. Before

reciting them, the Acharya remarked to Padmapada that the Vivarana

was begun at an inauspicious time. It is this commentary that later

led to the full-fledged Vivarana school).

 

And now about the Preamble. Listen to what it is about. Firstly, it

is the Preamble to the bhashya and not the Bhashya itself. What does

it mean? The Preamble does not speak about topics that appear in the

Brahma Sutras but about a topic that comes prior to the undertaking

of the study of the Sutras. The Preamble is about the first of the

four qualifications that Sri Shankaracharya stipulates as being

necessary for this study - viveka, or the power of discrimination

between the real and unreal. It is the lack of this discrimination

that constitutes avidya. That is the topic of the Preamble. Sri

Shankaracharya deals with the topic of avidya, and after examining

various theories, he concludes that avidya is the mixing up of one

thing with another. Viveka is, in short, the ability to distinguish

between sameness and difference. The Preamble deals with matters

relating to the pre-qualification of the sadhaka - the viveka that is

required of the sadhaka so that he is not be prone to mix up one

thing with another i.e., sameness with difference. That, my dear

friend, is why the Preamble is called the Preamble - it is a matter

prior to the Bhashya. The removal of avidya for Self-Knowledge is

something that all schools of Vedanta talk about; it is nothing

special to Advaita. So, the next time you speak about the Preamble,

please desist from the kind of vitanda-vada that has so far been

characteristic of Dvaitins. We do not like to hear that Sri

Shankaracharya had an ulterior motive in writing the bhashya. It is

not a valid argument; it is a baseless allegation against the author

that does not conform to the principles of vada. It is in bad taste.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

 

> And now about the Preamble. Listen to what it is about. Firstly,

> it is the Preamble to the bhashya and not the Bhashya itself.

> What does it mean? The Preamble does not speak about topics

> that appear in the Brahma Sutras but about a topic that comes

> prior to the undertaking of the study of the Sutras. The Preamble

> is about the first of the four qualifications that Sri

> Shankaracharya stipulates as being necessary for this study -

> viveka, or the power of discrimination between the real and

> unreal. It is the lack of this discrimination that constitutes

> avidya. That is the topic of the Preamble. Sri Shankaracharya

> deals with the topic of avidya, and after examining various

> theories, he concludes that avidya is the mixing up of one

> thing with another. Viveka is, in short, the ability to

> distinguish between sameness and difference. The Preamble

> deals with matters relating to the pre-qualification of the

> sadhaka - the viveka that is required of the sadhaka so that

> he is not be prone to mix up one thing with another i.e.,

> sameness with difference. That, my dear friend, is why the

> Preamble is called the Preamble - it is a matter prior to the

> Bhashya. The removal of avidya for Self-Knowledge is something

> that all schools of Vedanta talk about; it is nothing special

> to Advaita. So, the next time you speak about the Preamble,

> please desist from the kind of vitanda-vada that has so far

> been characteristic of Dvaitins. We do not like to hear that

> Sri Shankaracharya had an ulterior motive in writing the

> bhashya. It is not a valid argument; it is a baseless

> allegation against the author that does not conform to the

> principles of vada. It is in bad taste.

 

Oh, I forgot to mention the most important point. The Brahma Sutra

begins with the sutra "atha brhma-jignasa". In the bhashya, Sri

Shankaracharya says that the word 'atha' is intended in the sense of

sequence as something following from something else, and that what it

follows from is not mere study of the Vedas because such study is

common to both brahma-jignasa and performance of religious rites, but

is the qualification that forms the prerequisite for brahma-jignasa.

These prerequisites are mentioned as discrimination (viveka),

detachment (vairagya), control of mind, and intense hankering for

liberation.

 

It follows from this that the word 'atha' points to viveka as being a

prior requirement for the study of Brahma Sutras. Hence it is

seamless and logical that the Preamble, with the subject matter of

viveka and the effects of lack of viveka (avidya), should be a prior

section to the first Sutra of the Brahma Sutra.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan