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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Vikram ji.

//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 pratibha) 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.//

My responses were within the framework of drishTi-srishTi-vAda which is the
mukhya vedAnta siddhAnta. Pratikarma vyavasthA is inapplicable there. The
distinction of prAtibhAsika and vyAvahArika is inadmissible there. The
ajnAta-sattA of objects is not accepted either.

So, the distinction of unreal snake and real fear is not maintainable. Just
as the illusory snake seen in the dream and the "real" fear within the
dream were both unreal being part of dream.

If you have chosen to restrict the discussion within the framework of
srishTi-drishTi-vAda only, then my responses may be ignored.

Regards.

On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:38 pm Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>