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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

I have included the translation also, for the benefit of other readers who
might be interested.

Regards

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 7:09 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> The commentator might have said that the VP view is opposed to that of
> PanchapAdika. But I did not see reference to any such statement in VP
> itself. Is it not possible that the view of the commentator is faulty ?
>
> Also PanchapAdika observes  // न प्रभानिमित्तं लौहित्यं तत्रोत्पन्नम् ;
> उत्तरकालमपि तथा रूपप्रसङ्गात् । //.
>
> Translation // nor again could it be averred that due to the lustre,
> redness is (actually) produced in it (crystal) for then the crystal would
> continue to shine red even subsequent (to the removal of japākusuma)//.
>
> Does this not substantiate what Sri MDS observes in his talk?
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:55 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>
>> Yes I heard those very words too - but I am not sure if he meant exactly
>> what he was saying there.
>>
>> Reason being that the commentator to the paribhAShA is explicitly saying
>> that this paribhAShA view is in opposition to the view of the
>> panchapAdika-kAra. If the panchapAdika-kAra was also qualifying the
>> creation of redness to when the contact with senses is not present, then it
>> is not in opposition, is it?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 05:15 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the response.
>>>
>>> At minute 24.54 to 25.18 in the talk, Sri MDS mentions that
>>>
>>> **there are two possibilities for redness to appear in the crystal. The
>>> first is when what is behind the crystal (obvious reference to flower)  is
>>> not visible. Then there is origination of anirvachanIya redness in the
>>> crystal. This is as per panchapadikAkAra**.
>>>
>>> The talk continues with
>>>
>>> ** If the cause of redness namely a flower is also in the range of
>>> perception, then origination of redness is not admitted**. Of course he
>>> does not mention panchapadikAkAra in this connection.
>>>
>>> I agree the textual passages in question do not make such a
>>> qualification. That is perhaps because VP is not referring to
>>> panchapadikAkAra’s view per se.
>>>
>>> Can you please recheck.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 3:31 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing Sri MDS' talk - I heard the portion you sent, but I
>>>> confess it is unclear to me when he says 'this is the panchapAdikAra's
>>>> view', whether he refers to the 'creation of the crystal's redness' or to
>>>> the qualified statement 'creation of the crystal's redness when the flower
>>>> is not in contact with the
>>>> senses'. The textual passages in question do not make such a
>>>> qualification.
>>>>
>>>> I have only read that particular passage in the panchapAdikA, vivaraNam
>>>> and the tattvadIpana. From that I can only conclude that the qualification
>>>> is not made there. If it exists elsewhere in the text, that will be
>>>> compelling evidence in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 01:10 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reg  //  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 //.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just seeking a clarification. In the texts you have mentioned, where
>>>>> creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal is admitted, is there a
>>>>> specific qualification that this is so even where the redness of the flower
>>>>> is within the range of perception. The doubt arose because Sri Mani Dravid
>>>>> Shastrigal clearly mentions that panchapAdikAkAra admits creation of the
>>>>> mithyA redness only where the redness of the flower is not perceived.
>>>>> Please listen from minute 23 onwards. Only just a few minutes only.
>>>>>
>>>>> //  https://www.mediafire.com/file/vimgmmv3kwn/VPB_01_pratyaxam_10.WAV/file
>>>>> //
>>>>> <https://www.mediafire.com/file/vimgmmv3kwn/VPB_01_pratyaxam_10.WAV/file%20/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the botheration. Hope you wont mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:48 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> AchArya.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>