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

[Venkatraghavan S]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 09:34 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>
> I would differ from your view - as I have said, the force of the
> siddhikAra's rebuttal is in establishing this is not a reflection, but a
> superimposition.
> Therefore, he draws a distinction between the reflection where both the
> substrate and the attribute are reflected as a rule.
>
> Here he says that this is not a reflection because the substrate is not
> reflected in the crystal, only its redness is. It is not a rule that only
> the redness should appear (in the crystal) and not the flower - if one
> observes the Chandramoulishvara pUja at Sringeri, there are many times when
> both the flower and its colour are visible through the crystal Shivalinga.
> Sometimes only the colour appears and not the flower.
>
> From that it follows that the case being discussed is where the substrate,
> the flower is not visible and only the redness that appears. That being the
> case, it is not surprising that a prAtibhAsika redness is created here.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 07:53 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>