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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

I have absolutely no doubts about the presence, as per the Bhashya,  of a
prAtibhAsika, anirvachanIya  snake existing at the location of the rope.
During several discussions earlier with Bhaskar Ji , this has been a point
of disagreement with him and we agreed to disagree.

Regards

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 6:32 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> I agree with statements in general in your email. Some points where I had
> a slightly different view:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 01:36 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>
>> Reg  // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //,
>>
>> They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive.
>>
> True.
>
> buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep
>> rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena.
>>
> I had meant buddhau in the sense of the adhyAsa being exclusively located
> in the mind, ie jnAna adhyAsa, with no corresponding artha adhyAsa, which I
> took to be the meaning ascribed to the phrase buddhiparikalpita by Sri
> Bhaskar ji.
>
> If you recall, I had mentioned that in artha adhyAsa, the superimposition
> of the snake takes place at the location of the rope, rather than it purely
> located in the mind. To which, Sri Bhaskar had cited this bhAShya to say
> that the snake is only located in the mind. He had said and I quote:
>
> "The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there
> is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination."
>
> I had offered an alternative explanation for the phrase - whether you
> agree with that explanation or not, the more important question is whether
> you agree with Bhaskar ji with respect to this bhAshya being evidence of
> the rope snake being purely located in the mind ie refuting anirvachanIya
> khyAti or, alternatively, whether you accept that an anirvachanIya snake is
> created in the location of the snake at the time of adhyAsa.
>
> In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena,
>>  would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika,
>> naisargika.
>>
> Maybe, but my point is that this bhAShya is not a proof of the
> untenability of anirvachanIya khyAti - ie the creation of an anirvachanIya
> snake at the location of the rope (arthAdhyAsa) and the creation of a
> corresponding cognition of the snake in the mind (jnAnAdhyAsa). There are
> several possible interpretations of the phrase buddhiparikalpita that are
> possible and to reduce it to merely one and use it as evidence against
> anirvachanIya khyAti is untenable in my opinion.
>
>
> Reg  // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the
>> rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something
>> additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //,
>>
>> Notice the use of the word आदि(Adi)(etcetera) in  रज्ज्वादि
>> सर्पाद्याकारेण in respect of vivarta vikAra as against मृद्घटाद्याकारेण
>> in respect of pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both रज्जु
>> (rajju) and सर्प(sarpa) in one while it is used only in respect of घट(ghata)
>> but not in respect of मृत् (mRRit) in the other.  Multiplicity is seen
>> simultaneously in the case of  mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and
>> hence difference between them can be  perceived by the mind. But
>> multiplicity is not seen simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa
>> illustration is considered for vivarta vikAra even if आदि(Adi)(etcetera)
>> word is used in respect of sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as
>> garland or as stick or as crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference
>> cannot be perceived. Hence रज्ज्वादि  in रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण  is
>> intended to be the equivalent for घटादि of मृद्घटाद्याकारेण. रज्ज्वादि
>> represents all objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of
>> which are vivarta vikAra. सर्पाद्याकारेण is to convey vivarta vikAra.
>> They are all conceived as different from each other by the mind though in
>> reality they are all सत्(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri
>> Bhagavatpada intends to convey by mentioning  the mRtghaTa and the
>> rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence.
>>
>
> I have a different understanding to the above to what you have provided,
> but that is not relevant to the point under discussion, so will not go into
> the reasons for that now.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>>