[Advaita-l] looking for a comparative study on these two topics

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:31 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> The difference between pot-clay and rope-snake illustrations is broughtout
> in your note itself.
>
> //  kArya, are mere names, and the upAdAna kAraNam in the effects alone
> is satyam  //
>
> //  This is akin to the rope-snake, where the superimposed snake has no
> existence separate from the substratum rope  //.
>
> In the first case, kArya, pot, has clay as the upAdAna kAraNam. In the
> second case, snake does not have rope as its upAdAna kAraNam. Snake is a
> superimposition on the substratum, rope.  The two are entirely different.
> The two are not  **akin**.
>

In the case of the snake, the rope is admitted to be the vivartopadana
karanam for the snake.



> Reg  //  The word 'bhrAntyA pashyati' applies to all the three things
> stated there: clay-pot, shell-silver and Brahman-jivatvam //,
>
> Yes. But the nature of bhrAnti is different in the three cases. This
> bhranti  is not removed by bAdha in all cases of bhrAnti. That bAdha is
> what is under discussion not bhrAnti per se. In pot-clay illustration,
> understanding kArya (pot) to be different from its kAraNa (clay)  is
> bhrAnti. But it is admitted that kAraNa (clay) is different from its kArya
> (pot). Pot is no doubt same as clay. But clay is not same as pot. Hence
> this bhrAnti is not removed by bAdha. Were it to be so, bAdha (negation) of
> pot would automatically mean bAdha (negation) of clay as well, because pot
> is nondifferent from clay.
>
This need not be so.  bAdhA of pot need not result in the bAdha of the
clay. The bAdha of the snake does not result in the bAdha of the rope.


BhrAnti in this case is to be removed by laya of kArya (pot)  in  karaNa
> (clay). That is,  understanding pot to be nondifferent from clay. That is
> laya in this instance. It is an understanding. It does not  deny existence
> of pot. ** one no longer sees a pot in clay ** is not exactly correct. We
> all continue to see pot and make use of it as well. In fact for uses where
> clay itself is not useful In its form say  as a lump of clay.
>
BhAmati has said: न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधामः,
ततश्च नाभेदाश्रयदोषप्रसङ्गः । He says: by kArya-kAraNa ananyatva we do not
mean abhEda (of the kArya and kAraNa) but only deny bhEda between them.
This takes care of the arthakriyAkAritvam, practical utility, that you
point out above: the utility of a pot like holding water or grains is not
met by clay.

For that matter, even with the prapancha mithyatva, even after realizing
its mithyAtva, where bAdha of the prapancha has happened due to adhiShThAna
brahma jnanam, the world is continued to be seen and experienced; only its
satyatva bhrama has gone, as stated by the Panchadashi. The same with the
jivatva too as per the Aparokshanubhuti verse I cited. So with the ghaTatva
bhrama. The bAdha does not destroy or annihilate the ghaTa, one continues
to use it for its desired purposes.

regards


>
>>>>