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

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Jan 6 12:17:47 EST 2024

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Thank you for the references. I have also read the portions of the text in
question and heard the talks provided. I also went back to my notes / class
recordings of the Vedanta Paribhasha as taught by Sri Maheswaran Namboodri

Based on that review, I agree with your view that the panchapAdikAkAra's
and vivaraNakAra's views as stated by the tattvadIpikAkAra involve the
creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal.

The paribhAShAkAra's view is that the redness of the flower appears in the
crystal by anyathAkhyAti. However, even there, one must that the sambandha
of the crystal with redness is an anirvachanIya redness. Thus the mithyAtva
of the crystal as red is still preserved, even if the redness and the
crystal themselves are not mithyA in this view. The commentator to the
paribhASha assumes that the anirvachanIyatva of the example itself is lost
because of the admission of anyathAkhyAti to the redness, but that is not
the case in my view, because of the anirvachnaIyatva the tAdAtmya sambandha
between the redness and the crystal. I believe this may be the same
principle as the idamtA samsarga of the chitsukhAchArya mentioned by you in
the email.

I do not think that advaitins in general have feelings for or against
vyadhikaraNa dharma avacChinna pratiyotikAbhAva - there are several
instances where it is admitted and others where it is not admitted (even
within the advaita siddhi itself) - therefore, the admission of such an
abhAva does not refute other arguments made in that connection.

In the paribhASha the charge made by the opponent is responded to on the
basis of the acceptance of vyadhikaraNa dharma avacChinna pratiyotigAka
abhAva - however that is only one such explanation. There is no harm to the
siddhAnta even if that is not accepted - as in the example from the siddhi
in the chapter dealing with the second definition of the mithyAtva.


On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 05:32 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>

> Namaste Venkat ji.
> Thanks for the detailed answer.
> I follow the PanchapAdikA with commentaries edition of Dakshinamurthy Math
> which is edited by A Subramanya Shastri ji. Page no is 178.
> You may also like to hear the lecture thereupon by Swami
> Haribrahmendrananda Tirth ji here.
> https://www.youtube.com/live/F9rOnl0Demk?si=eRHDCul7jZClQvOg (From 35
> minutes onwards spanning to next lecture also)
> I asked the question to Lalitalalitah ji also. His answer was --
> मतभेदोऽस्ति इति प्रसिद्धम्।
>> From your quotes, it appears that the vivaraNakAra is providing two
>> possible options for the superimposition of ahamkAra onto the self. In the
>> first alternative,  ahamkAra is superimposed onto the self, and in the
>> second, there is a second, mithyA ahamkAra created in the self.
> Actually, to me it appears, the two scenarios are :
> 1. There is only superimposition of ahamkAra-dharma (kartritva)
> 2. MithyA kartritva gets produced.
> So, the discussion is about ahamkAra-dharma and not about ahamkAra as
> such. {AhamkAra is like red-flower and kartritva which is ahamkAra-dharma
> is like redness-of-flower. However, what we see is redness-of-crystal. The
> discussion is -- whether this kartritva is produced at the site of Atman
> (crystal) or does it belong to Atman and merely superimposition is done.
>> The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is
>> superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti.
> I think it says -- ahamkAra along with its Dharma (kartritva) is
> superimposed in Atman and hence there is NO anyathA-khyAti.
>> However, more importantly to our discussion, he goes on to say
>> अन्यसन्निधानादन्यस्मिन्मिथ्याधर्मावभास इत्येतावति दृष्ठान्तः - where an
>> attribute present in one locus falsely appears in another due to the
>> proximity of the former object, and that is the limit to which the example
>> and exemplified are linked.
> This is true Venkat ji. But what is the mechanics of avabhAsa of
> mithyA-dharmA at the site of anyasmin? drishTAnta says -- due to proximity
> of A, there is perception of mithyA-dharmA in B.
> The text just before that explained in detail (pl check from the
> reference) that mithyA-dharmA is created.
> In case of swarUpa-adhyAsa, that is not needed. That is where option 1
> stops.
>> In the tattva deepana commentary to the vivaraNa, there is the first
>> reference to the creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal in describing
>> the opponent's objection.
>> However interestingly, this sentence occurs in the commentary - यद्यपि
>> मन्मते धर्मान्तरोत्पत्तिः; तथाऽपि त्वन्मते सर्वत्राऽऽरोपमात्रोपगमाद्
>> दृष्टान्तासिद्धिमाशङ्कय दूषणान्तरमाह - अन्यथेति - seems to say that the
>> creation of a new mithyA attribute is the opponent's view (manmatam, as the
>> opponent is speaking) whereas only the false association is admitted in
>> both the example and exemplified (sarvatra AropamAtra upagamAt) by the
>> siddhAntin's.
>> It is difficult to be 100% certain of who represents "manmatam" and
>> "tvanmatam" from some quotes without the context of where they occur in the
>> overall text, but because the word anyathA occurs in the opponent's
>> statement in the original, it appears that the commentary is explaining the
>> thinking of the opponent - and it is the opponent who holds the creation of
>> a new dharma, not the siddhAntin.
> Pl go through the lecture once at your leisure and share your views.
>> With that as a general understanding, this is how I understand the text.
>> 1) On the face of it, it appears the opponent holds the creation of a new
>> mithyA redness in the crystal. The siddhAntin holds to the false appearance
>> redness in the crystal due to the proximity of the flower (ie a transposing
>> of the flower's redness).
> Just before that the text has already explained that mithyA lauhitya is
> created. That is the position of siddhAntI.
>> 2)  This leads him to allege a non-consonance between the example and the
>> exemplified, because the siddhAntin holds that a new mithyA ego is not
>> created in the self. Hence, नायं दृष्टान्तः - the crystal where a new
>> redness is created ( according to the opponent)  cannot be an example for
>> the self and the ego because a new ego is not created (in the first
>> example).
> Non-consonance in so far as non-creatiom of mithyA kartritva is concerned
> is admitted by both. However, there is no vaishamya with analogy was
> explained on account of swarUpa adhyAsa. See, PanchapAdikA had demonstrated
> that mithyA redness gets produced.
>> 3) Then , he argues from the siddhAntin's position of where no new
>> redness is created in the crystal, but a redness from the flower is merely
>> transferred erroneously onto the crystal. Here he alleges anyathAkhyAti.
>> Hence, दृष्टान्तासिद्धिमाशङ्कय दूषणान्तरमाह - अन्यथेति.
>> The response from the siddhAntin to these two charges is अहङ्कारस्य
>> स्वधर्म सहितस्यैवात्मन्यध्यस्ततया मिथ्यात्वान्नान्यथाख्याति प्रसङ्गः - this
>> is not anyathAkhyAti where superimposition is not admitted. There is a
>> superimposition of the mind along with its attribute, hence it is mithyA
>> and not anyathAkhyAti, which alleges that an attribute elsewhere appears
>> somewhere else because of alaukika sannikarSha.
>> As Chandramouli ji says in the other email, even where there is no new
>> redness created in the crystal, there is anirvachanIya khyAti to the
>> sambandha of the redness and the crystal - the sambandha is not asat,
>> because the crystal appears red. It is not sat, because the sambandha is
>> sublated when the flower is removed. The appearance is sadasat vilakshaNam.
>> The consonance between the example and exemplified is limited to
>> अन्यसन्निधानादन्यस्मिन्मिथ्याधर्मावभास इत्येतावति दृष्ठान्तः (sic) - the
>> false appearance of an attribute in an object due to the proximity of
>> another object is the extent to which there is consonance between the
>> example and exemplified.
>> In the case of the ego, mind and the self, there is a svarUpa adhyAsa
>> between the mind and the self which leads to the appearance of the ego that
>> belongs to the mind to appear in the self. In the case of the crystal,
>> there is a samsargAdhyAsa leading to the false appearance of the redness of
>> the flower onto the crystal, without there being a tAdAtmyAdhyAsa between
>> the crystal and the flower.
>> So in general, the example and the exemplified are different because
>> there are two different adhyAsa-s taking place. However, the vivaraNakAra
>> says that the utility of the example is limited to saying that an attribute
>> of one object falsely appears elsewhere, and to that extent the example
>> applies.
>> In my view, that is not in contradiction with the VP.
>> Now, this response is entirely based on the passages quoted by you. I may
>> have misunderstood the intent of the authors, but without knowing the
>> context of where exactly in the book this appears, it is difficult to do
>> much more than that at this stage.
>> If you want me to review further, please provide page numbers / editions
>> of the books where these passages occur. I would be happy to review them in
>> detail and get back to you.
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
> I will go through it carefully and get back.
> While PanchapAdikA appears to me to clearly state that mithyA
> redness-of-crystal is created, there is another view that mithyA
> sambandha-of-redness-of-flower is created.
> In the SAra Sangraha TIkA of Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.32, MS says that mithyA
> idam is not created in shell silver illusion. Rather anirvachanIya
> idantA-samsarg is created. He quotes Chitsukhacharya there.
> I seek greater clarity on this issue.
> The flow of VP itself appeared problematic to me. This instant discussion
> arose in VP while he was defending the
> vyadhikaraNa-dharma-avachchinna-pratiyogitA-nirUpita-abhAva of silver which
> is clearly contradicted in great detail in AS.
> Regards.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list