[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 016 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 8)

[H S Chandramouli]

Reg  <<Quite an interesting discussion. I think the differentiating factor
is
whether the bhrama is sopādhika or nirupādhika. I was listening to the
Adhyāsa bhāṣya exposition in Sanskrit by Vidwan Ganesha Ishwara Bhatta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-sMzll5GmA   (in the portion towards the
end)  He said: the idea of I with the ego, ahankara, is nirupadhika bhrama,
like the taking the rope to be a snake. However, the considering the mind,
body as I is sopadhika bhrama, like the crystal-red case. >>,



After considerable search, I finally landed on at least one authoritative
consideration of this specific  issue in Vedanta Paribhasha by Dharmaraja
Adhvarindra. . The issue considered  is presented slightly differently ; In
the redness in crystal illustration. is the redness vyAvahArika or
prAtibhAsika ? The conclusion is very interesting. Two entities are
involved, namely crystal and red flower. If both of them are perceived (
pratyaksha ), then it is sOpAdhika adhyAsa (bhrama) and vyAvahArika. If the
red flower is for any reason not perceived, but redness is perceived, then
it is accepted by vedantins as prAtibhAsika or nirupAdhika adhyAsa
(bhrama).



The relevant portion from Vedanta Paribhasha is copied here.  Page  67-68,
Vedanta Paribhasha, Translation by Swami Madhavananda



<< यत्राप्यमसन्निकृष्टं तत्रैव प्रातिभासिकवस्तूत्पत्तेरङ्गीकारात् । अत एव
इन्द्रियसन्निकृष्टतया जपाकुसुमगतलौहित्यस्य स्फटिके भानसम्भवात् , न
स्फटिकेऽनिर्वचनीयलौहित्योत्पत्तिः । नन्वेवं यत्र जपाकुसुमं
द्रव्यान्तरव्यवधानादसन्निकृष्टं तत्र लौहित्यप्रतीत्या प्रातिभासिकं लौहित्यं
स्वीक्रियतामिति चेत्, न,इष्टत्वात् ।  >>



<< yatrApyamasannikRRiShTaM tatraiva prAtibhAsikavastUtpattera~NgIkArAt |
ata eva indriyasannikRRiShTatayA japAkusumagatalauhityasya sphaTike
bhAnasambhavAt , na sphaTike.anirvachanIyalauhityotpattiH | nanvevaM yatra
japAkusumaM dravyAntaravyavadhAnAdasannikRRiShTaM tatra lauhityapratItyA
prAtibhAsikaM lauhityaM svIkriyatAmiti chet, na,iShTatvAt | >>



Translation by Swami Madhavananda  << It is only where the thing
superimposed is not connected with the organ, that the origination of an
illusory thing is admitted. Hence, there being the possibility of cognition
of redness belonging to a hibiscus in a crystal, since the flower is
connected with the organ, there is no origination of an indescribable
redness in the crystal.

Objection : In that case, where the hibiscus is not connected with the
organ on account of the intervention of some other substance, and yet the
redness is cognized, you must admit an illusory redness.

Reply : No harm, for we accept this. >>



Regards

>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>