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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Venkataraghavan ji,

In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in
every instance of adhyasa. Adhyasa is not a falsified (badhita) perception,
but it is the prior misunderstanding. The misunderstanding implies an
object and the corresponding knowledge. In the case of the perception of
red-crystal, the red-crystal (as opposed to the transparent crystal) is
itself the artha-adhyasa. The knowledge of redness as a standalone
property, as superimposed on the crystal, is only the badhita knowledge and
hence at this point, the continued perception is no longer an adhyasa.

On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other
discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and
subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would
like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibhasika) is known
only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear
(vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still
considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake
(misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While
using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of
reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of
ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different
standpoints like apples & oranges.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram



On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:12 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghav ji,
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji
> >
> > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa?
>
>
> Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a crystal,
> where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the
> perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of
> anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an
> artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. When
> the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness),
> there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see the
> archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago.
>
>
> Can we say a
> > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as
> in
> > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)?
> >
> I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or
> schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception involved
> (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can assume
> the creation of an illusory object.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>