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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 10:13 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 1. Please also share your view on PanchapAdikA reference mentioned by me.
>
In my view, the panchapAdika quote is saying that the mithyAtva of the
redness of the crystal is because that redness of the crystal (स्फटिकमणेः
लोहितिमा) is a result of the association with the crystal (उपधाननिमित्तः),
ie it is not a property that the crystal possesses intrinsically, a
property belonging to the upAdhi appears in the crystal - atasmin
tadbuddhih.


> 2. In reflection of redness-of-crystal in mirror, as quoted in AS, as a
> proof of reflection in medium having different order of reality --- there
> also, you would limit the example to only those cases where red flower is
> not visible? Even though AS does not mention anything of that sort
> anywhere. AS just plainly quotes that look, the reflection of mithyA
> redness-of-crystal happens in vyAvahArika mirror. So, there you would add
> this condition that red flower is not visible?
>

I think I may have already said just that in my previous email. In my view,
the important thing there is that a prAtibhAsika redness is reflected in
the mirror, the circumstances for the rise of the prAtibhAsika redness are
not addressed by the siddhikAra. The VP kAra has also said when the
prAtibhAsika redness arises.


> 3. Is there any place other than VP where this idea is mentioned of
> non-anirvachanIya-khyAti in case there is indriya-sannikarsha?
>
I don't know of any others, but that does not mean they don't exist.


> I will quote the commentary on VP by Panchanan Shastri ji:-
>
> वस्तुतस्तु जवाकुसुमद्वारेन्द्रियसम्बद्धस्य लौहित्यस्य स्फटिके
> संसर्गज्ञानाभ्युपगमेऽन्यथाख्यातिरेव स्यान्नानिर्वचनीयख्यातिः । न चारोप्य
> सन्निकर्षस्थलेऽन्यथाख्यातिरेव, नानिर्वचनीयख्यातिरिति वाच्यम्, तथा सति
> रजतादाविदन्त्वसंसर्गस्य शङ्खादौ पीततासंसर्गस्यात्मन्यन्तःकरणधर्मसंसर्गस्य
> चाध्यासाभावप्रसङ्गात्, #पञ्चपादिकादिग्रन्थविरोधप्रसङ्गाच्च, तैः
> #स्फटिकलौहित्यस्य #मिथ्यात्वाभ्युपगमात् ।
>
It appears that Sri Panchanan Shastri ji seems to hold the view that where
there is anyathAkhyAti, the adhyAsa of the object is impossible, which I do
not agree with.

We (advaitins) have an issue with anyathAkhyAti because we do not accept
the possibility of alaukika sannikarSha, not because it negates mithyAtva
or precludes adhyAsa. mithyAtva is possible so long as the object /
property is absent in all three periods of time in the locus of its
appearance - that is true even for the redness of the flower superimposed
on the crystal, because that redness is never present in reality in the
crystal, it is present in the flower. Even when the perceived redness of
flower is transferred onto the crystal, that is still an adhyAsa.


> तथा चोक्तं पञ्चपादिकायाम् --“तेनान्तःकरणोपरागनिमित्तं
> मिथ्यैवाऽहंकर्त्तृत्वमात्मनः स्फटिकमणेरिवोपधाननिमित्तो लोहितिमे”ति । विवरणे
> च – “ #मिथ्यात्वं #स्फटिकलौहित्यस्य क्लृप्तप्रतीतिसत्तयोः कारणाभावादि”ति ।
> किञ्च यत्रेव यत् सन्निकृष्टं तत्रैव तत् प्रतिभासतामन्यत्र तत्प्रतिभासस्तु
> कथम् ? न ह्येकत्र सन्निकृष्ठस्यान्यत्र प्रतिभासो दृष्टचरः सोपपत्तिको
> वाऽतिप्रसङ्गात्। लौहित्यञ्च जवासन्निकृष्टं जवायां प्रतिभासताम्, स्फटिके
> तत्-प्रति- भासस्तु कथम् ?
>
The objection above is that if contact is made with one object its
attributes must only appear there and not elsewhere. However that is the
property of an upAdhi, its presence ensures the transfer of its attribute
to another substance in proximity to it.

That is why when an object appears in front of a mirror, it transfers its
form to the mirror and it appears on the mirror as a reflection. An
external observer sees the form of both the original and reflection and
does not question the tenability of the form of the original appearing in
the reflection.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

न हि लौहित्यं स्फटिके नयनसन्निकृष्टम् । यदि दुष्टेन्द्रियबलात् स्फटिके
तत्प्रतिभास इत्युच्येत तर्हि रजतस्यापि तद्बलाच्छुक्तौ
प्रतिभाससम्भवेऽनिर्वचनीयख्यातिर्दत्तजलाञ्जलितामीयात् । तथा चोक्तं
तन्त्रवार्त्तिके – “प्रसरं न लभन्ते हि यावत् क्वचन मर्कटाः । नाभिद्रवन्ति
ते तावत् पिशाचा वा स्वगोचरे" || इति ।#तस्मादारोप्यसन्निकर्षस्थलेऽपि स्फटिके
#लौहित्यान्तरं #प्रातिभासिकमभ्युपगमनीयम् ।