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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Vikram ji
Re "In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in
every instance of adhyasa."

There is a passage in the Vedanta Paribhasha which says that the creation
of a prAtibhAsika object is only admitted in certain circumstances.

यत्रारोप्यमसन्निकृष्टं तत्रैव प्रातिभासिकवस्तूत्पत्तेरङ्गीकारात् ।
Where the Aropya, the superimposed object is not in contact with senses,
only there is it accepted that a prAtibhAsika object is created.
i.e where there is contact with the superimposed, we accept that there is
no anirvachanIya object created. Where it is not in contact, we accept
there is an anirvachanIya object created.

अत एव इन्द्रियसन्निकृष्टतया जपाकुसुमगतलौहित्यस्य स्फटिके भानसम्भवात्  न
स्फटिकेऽनिर्वचनीयलौहित्योत्पत्तिः ।
That is why, as there is contact with the senses in the case of the red
crystal, it is possible for the redness present in the hibiscus to appear
in the crystal, and the creation of an anirvachanIya redness in the crystal
is not accepted.

This led me to conclude that in the case of the red crystal, ie a samsarga
adhyAsa, the adhyAsa is of a real attribute, but in a different locus -
there is a jnAna adhyAsa without a corresponding artha adhyAsa. Happy to
revisit this conclusion if evidence is presented to the contrary.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 09:04 Vikram Jagannathan, <vikkyjagan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram Shri Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in
> every instance of adhyasa. Adhyasa is not a falsified (badhita) perception,
> but it is the prior misunderstanding. The misunderstanding implies an
> object and the corresponding knowledge. In the case of the perception of
> red-crystal, the red-crystal (as opposed to the transparent crystal) is
> itself the artha-adhyasa. The knowledge of redness as a standalone
> property, as superimposed on the crystal, is only the badhita knowledge and
> hence at this point, the continued perception is no longer an adhyasa.
>
> On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other
> discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and
> subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would
> like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibhasika) is known
> only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear
> (vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still
> considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake
> (misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While
> using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of
> reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of
> ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different
> standpoints like apples & oranges.
>
> with humble prostrations,
> Vikram
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:12 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Raghav ji,
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji
>> >
>> > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa?
>>
>>
>> Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a
>> crystal,
>> where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the
>> perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of
>> anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an
>> artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses.
>> When
>> the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness),
>> there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see
>> the
>> archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago.
>>
>>
>> Can we say a
>> > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional
>> as in
>> > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)?
>> >
>> I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or
>> schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception
>> involved
>> (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can
>> assume
>> the creation of an illusory object.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>