[Advaita-l] Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Praveen ji and Venkat ji.

There is no redness in crystal with which there can be contact of eye. And
yet we perceive redness in crystal.

This will necessarily imply the creation of anirvachanIya redness in
crystal just as we need that in case of illusory snake -- there is no
vyAvahArika snake there with which there can be contact of eye and yet we
see snake. So a sAkshi-bhAsya prAtibhAsika snake is accepted. Same logic
works here.

The commentary on VP on this point says:

लौहित्यम् च जवासन्निकृष्टं जवायां प्रतिभासताम्, स्फटिके तत्र प्रतिभासः तु
कथम्? न हि लौहित्यं स्फटिके नयनसन्निकृष्टम्। यदि दुष्टइन्द्रियबलात् स्फटिके
तत्प्रतिभास इतुच्येत, तर्हि रजतस्य अपि तद्बलात् शुक्तौ प्रतिभाससम्भवे
अनिर्वचनीयख्यातिः दत्तजलाञ्जलितामीयात्..... तस्मात् आरोप्यसन्निकर्षस्थले
अपि स्फटिके लौहित्यान्तरं प्रातिभासिकमभ्युपगमनीयम्।

Regards



On Sat, 29 Jul, 2023, 7:23 am Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Praveen ji,
>
> Yes. The gauravatva is in the utpatti of a dharma to explain indriya
> sannikarSha when indriyasannikarSha is possible with another object having
> the dharma.
>
> Sudhanshu ji - there is no issue in this aspect in the Vedanta Paribhasha.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023, 09:45 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:51 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Therefore, whether there is contact of senses with flower or not, the
>>> redness-of-crystal is always anirvachanIya i.e. mithyA. VedAnta
>>> ParibhAsha
>>> therefore may not be correct here.
>>
>>
>> VP accepts anyathAkhyAti here only because there is gauravadoSha in
>> anirvachanIyakhyAti used when not needed.
>>
>>
>>
>