[Advaita-l] looking for a comparative study on these two topics

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 08:25:46 EDT 2023


I stop here. We have anyway presented our respective understandings. Hope
this discussion has been of some use for Krishna Kashyap Ji.


On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 4:27 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:31 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Namaste.
>> The difference between pot-clay and rope-snake illustrations is
>> broughtout in your note itself.
>> //  kArya, are mere names, and the upAdAna kAraNam in the effects alone
>> is satyam  //
>> //  This is akin to the rope-snake, where the superimposed snake has no
>> existence separate from the substratum rope  //.
>> In the first case, kArya, pot, has clay as the upAdAna kAraNam. In the
>> second case, snake does not have rope as its upAdAna kAraNam. Snake is a
>> superimposition on the substratum, rope.  The two are entirely different.
>> The two are not  **akin**.
> In the case of the snake, the rope is admitted to be the vivartopadana
> karanam for the snake.
>> Reg  //  The word 'bhrAntyA pashyati' applies to all the three things
>> stated there: clay-pot, shell-silver and Brahman-jivatvam //,
>> Yes. But the nature of bhrAnti is different in the three cases. This
>> bhranti  is not removed by bAdha in all cases of bhrAnti. That bAdha is
>> what is under discussion not bhrAnti per se. In pot-clay illustration,
>> understanding kArya (pot) to be different from its kAraNa (clay)  is
>> bhrAnti. But it is admitted that kAraNa (clay) is different from its kArya
>> (pot). Pot is no doubt same as clay. But clay is not same as pot. Hence
>> this bhrAnti is not removed by bAdha. Were it to be so, bAdha (negation) of
>> pot would automatically mean bAdha (negation) of clay as well, because pot
>> is nondifferent from clay.
> This need not be so.  bAdhA of pot need not result in the bAdha of the
> clay. The bAdha of the snake does not result in the bAdha of the rope.
> BhrAnti in this case is to be removed by laya of kArya (pot)  in  karaNa
>> (clay). That is,  understanding pot to be nondifferent from clay. That is
>> laya in this instance. It is an understanding. It does not  deny existence
>> of pot. ** one no longer sees a pot in clay ** is not exactly correct. We
>> all continue to see pot and make use of it as well. In fact for uses where
>> clay itself is not useful In its form say  as a lump of clay.
> BhAmati has said: न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधामः,
> ततश्च नाभेदाश्रयदोषप्रसङ्गः । He says: by kArya-kAraNa ananyatva we do not
> mean abhEda (of the kArya and kAraNa) but only deny bhEda between them.
> This takes care of the arthakriyAkAritvam, practical utility, that you
> point out above: the utility of a pot like holding water or grains is not
> met by clay.
> For that matter, even with the prapancha mithyatva, even after realizing
> its mithyAtva, where bAdha of the prapancha has happened due to adhiShThAna
> brahma jnanam, the world is continued to be seen and experienced; only its
> satyatva bhrama has gone, as stated by the Panchadashi. The same with the
> jivatva too as per the Aparokshanubhuti verse I cited. So with the ghaTatva
> bhrama. The bAdha does not destroy or annihilate the ghaTa, one continues
> to use it for its desired purposes.
> regards

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list