[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.


//Based on that review, I agree with your view that the panchapAdikAkAra's
and vivaraNakAra's views as stated by the tattvadIpikAkAra involve the
creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal.//

Yes. In fact, the creation of mithyA redness-of-crystal is stated without
any specific mention of indriya-sannikarsha of red flower. That leads to
the conclusion that redness-of-crystal is mithyA i.e. prAtibhAsika and is
created in all situations. And it is different from vyAvahArika
redness-of-flower. Advaita Siddhi also plainly states redness-of-crystal as
prAtibhAsika at several places.

Here I would also request you to kindly have a look at
Kartritva-adhyAsa-upapattih of Advaita-Siddhi and Laghuchandrika thereupon.
Detailed analysis is made in this respect of japakusum and sphatika
example. Here, japakusum is antah-karaNa, redness-of-flower is
antah-karaNa-gata-kartritva. Redness-of-crystal is Atma-gata-kartritva. It
has been clearly stated that kartritvAntara is produced in Atman. आत्मनि
कर्तृत्वान्तरस्यैवाध्यासात्. We don't perceive two kartritva only because
of tAdAtmya-adhyAsa of antah-karaNa and Atman. In case of flower and
crystal, we perceive two redness because there is no tAdAtmya-adhyAsa there
between flower and crystal (this takes into account the situation where
there is indriya-sannikarsh).

If we see the LaghuchandrikA, it says -- कर्तृत्वादिकमन्यदात्मनि जायत इति
पक्ष एव युक्तः । अन्यथा स्फटिके लोहित्यान्तरं जायत इत्यपि न स्यात् ।
स्वीक्रियतेच पञ्चपादिकाकृद्भिः; स्फटिकमणेरिव लोहितिमा कर्तृत्वादिकमात्मनो
मिध्येतैरुक्तत्वात् । यदि तु दर्पणे मुखस्येव स्फटिके लौहित्यस्य संबन्धः
प्रतिबिम्बितत्वरूपो जायते इति तत्राभिप्रेतं, तदा मिथ्येति नोक्तं त्यात्;
प्रतिबिम्बस्य तन्मते सत्यत्वात् ।

*तस्मात् स्फटिके लौहित्यं तत्संबन्धश्च मिथ्येति प्रत्ययात् द्वयमपि स्फटिके
जायत इति तद्वदात्मन्यपि कर्तृत्वादितत्सम्बन्धो जायेते इति स एव पक्षः कण्ठत
उक्तः ।*

Thus, it is held that in crystal, redness-of-crystal as well as the
sambandha thereof with crystal is born (both are prAtibhAsika). Similarly,
in Atman, both kartritva and sambandha thereof with Atman are born and are
prAtibhAsika.


//The paribhAShAkAra's view is that the redness of the flower appears in
the crystal by anyathAkhyAti. However, even there, one must that the
sambandha of the crystal with redness is an anirvachanIya redness. Thus the
mithyAtva of the crystal as red is still preserved, even if the redness and
the crystal themselves are not mithyA in this view. The commentator to the
paribhASha assumes that the anirvachanIyatva of the example itself is lost
because of the admission of anyathAkhyAti to the redness, but that is not
the case in my view, because of the anirvachnaIyatva the tAdAtmya sambandha
between the redness and the crystal. I believe this may be the same
principle as the idamtA samsarga of the chitsukhAchArya mentioned by you in
the email.//

I will need to apply mind on this. Because, in Sankshepa Shariraka TIkA, MS
clearly says that no separate idam is created. But only mithyA
idam-samsarga is created. However, the differenc is --it is the adhyAsa of
adhisthAna-dharma in adhyasta and not the reverse (as is the case in
crystal example).

//I do not think that advaitins in general have feelings for or against
vyadhikaraNa dharma avacChinna pratiyotikAbhAva - there are several
instances where it is admitted and others where it is not admitted (even
within the advaita siddhi itself) - therefore, the admission of such an
abhAva does not refute other arguments made in that connection.//

In Advaita Siddhi, this vyadhikraNa Dharma avacchinna pratiyogitA nirUpita
abhAva is taken only as a last resort showing clear disinterest. The
primary acceptance is swarUpa negation that is pratiyogitA delimited by
rajata-tva. I would also like to say that that appears to be most logical
and experiential. vyadhikraNa Dharma does not appear to match with
experience. No one says that there existed a rajata -- of whatever reality.

Thank you very much for going through the relevant topics and getting back.
Look forward to your views on Kartritva-adhyAsa-upapattih of Advaita-Siddhi.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.

>