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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji,

(2/2)

with respect to your additional point

//One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi
quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "धर्मिभूतमुखादिनैरपेक्ष्येण
तद्धर्मभूतरूपादिप्रतिबिम्बादर्शनात्", indicating that the siddhikAra is
talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed
(ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma,
the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a
prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my
email below, pasting here for easy reference -
यत्र जपाकुसुमं द्रव्यान्तरव्यवधानादसन्निकृष्टं तत्र लौहित्यप्रतीत्या
प्रातिभासिकं लौहित्यं स्वीक्रियतामिति चेत्, न,  इष्टत्वात् .//

Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only the
redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never so.
It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the
dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is
reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement
dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made.

The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about situation
where there is no eye-contact with red-flower.

Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness that
appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if redness-of-crystal.
That is what siddhikAra means.

PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear:

कथं पुनः स्फटिके लोहितिम्नः मिथ्यात्वं?....Pl check from here on in
PanchapAdikA

Regards