[Advaita-l] Perception in lightning

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Chandramouli ji,

Shabda gets generated in the AkAsha-avachinna-by-drum. Since drum does not
move, the AkAsha-avachchinna-by-drum does not move. Hence shabda inherent
in AkAsha-avachchinna-by-drum does not move.

Shabda does not move precisely for this reason as explained in the attached
screenshot taken from VedAnta ParibhAsha. Similar is what is written in
Siddhanta Bindu TIkA. VivaraNa screenshot also says that shabda does not
travel through veechi-tarang. But the exact reason of non-travel of shabda
explained in the tIkA of VP which is attached. Because shabda inheres in
AkAsha-avachchinna-by-drum and since drum does not move, the delimited
AkAsha does not move and hence the inherent shabda does not move.


The model explained by you has the dosha that it will not be shabda
inherent in AkAsha-avachchinna-by-drum which is perceievd but some other
shabda inherent in some other AkAsha (and not AkAsha-avachchinna-by-drum).
To attribute drum-sound in that is illusion and not perception -- this is
how VP explains.

Regards.
Show

On Sun, 16 May, 2021, 3:58 pm H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> You had observed in your post dated 11 May the following
>
> << In SiddhAnta, perception is said to be at the place of origin. Also,
> shabda does not travel from place of origin to some other place of
> perception. If it does, then how exactly does it happen. Clearly
> veechi-tarang is refuted >>,
>
> As I had mentioned earlier, my  understanding  is that sound perception is
> not necessarily at the place of its origin, but  somewhere outside of the
> subject. This could be a deviation from VP, but perhaps not a serious one.
>
> I don’t think it is mentioned explicitly  anywhere in the Sidhanta that
> shabda does not travel from place of origin. I am open to correction on
> this. If such a statement has indeed been made, then my understanding is a
> deviation from the same. But I do not think such an understanding leads to
> any other violation of the epistemological position.
>
> Shabda is accepted as a guna of AkAsha. Being a guna there is no objection
> to consider the same as spreading out in AkAsha itself from the place of
> origin. This could be so by definition. Its intensity would be diminishing
> as it spreads out leading to its complete decay at some point or the other.
> This is in line with anubhava as well.
>
> Regarding refutation of veechi-tarang, not necessarily so. I am copying
> below an interesting footnote by Sri SSS in his translation of BSB 2-2-24
> which reflects my thinking also.
>
> BSB 2-2-24  <<…. आगमप्रामाण्यात्तावत् ‘ आत्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (तै. उ. २ । १
>  । १)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Taitiriya?page=2&id=T_C02_S01_V01&hl=%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83>
>  इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्य आकाशस्य च वस्तुत्वप्रसिद्धिः । विप्रतिपन्नान्प्रति तु
> शब्दगुणानुमेयत्वं वक्तव्यम् — गन्धादीनां गुणानां
> पृथिव्यादिवस्त्वाश्रयत्वदर्शनात् । >>
>
> << …… AgamaprAmANyAttAvat ‘ Atmana AkAshaH sambhUtaH’ (tai. u. 2 | 1 | 1)
> ityAdishrutibhya AkAshasya cha vastutvaprasiddhiH | vipratipannAnprati tu
> shabdaguNAnumeyatvaM vaktavyam — gandhAdInAM guNAnAM
> pRRithivyAdivastvAshrayatvadarshanAt | >>,
>
> Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  <<  …..As for Vedic proof, it is
> established from such Vedic texts as, ‘AkAsha originated from the Self’
> (Tai. II-1-1), that AkAsha is a substance. But for those who are not
> convinced by Vedic texts, it can be inferred through its quality of sound,
> for qualities such as smell and the rest are seen to abide in substances
> like earth and the rest >>.
>
> Footnote 2 in Kannada Translation by Sri SSS, page 94  ( Kannada to
> English translation mine)
>
> << Similar to smell etc, that for which shabda is a unique quality should
> be inferred to be AkAsha. The vyatireka that there is no shabda without air
> (Vayu)  does not appear to have been taken into consideration anywhere in
> the Bhashya. It is not known if the proponents of the view that shabda is a
> quality of AkAsha were advancing as a yukti (reasoning) in support of their
> stand  that just as the manifestation of chaitanya in inert objects is to
> be attributed to Chaitanya, manifestation of shabda in air (Vayu)  is to be
> attributed to AkAsha only >>.
>
> My understanding is also the same as in the Footnote above.
>
> Regarding  upapatti for speed of travel mentioned by Subbu Ji, anubhava
> itself could be considered as the upapatti. Venkat Ji also had clarified
> earlier.
>
> With this, I think all issues concerning the topic are covered.
>
> Regards
> Chandramouli
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_183000388932639450_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>