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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Venkatraghavan ji,

First of all, my apologies for having misspelled your name a few times in
the past.

I agree with you on the status of origination of the redness that is
perceived. When the red-flower is connected with the sense organ, the
redness perceived is not anirvachaniya. But when the flower is not
connected with the organ, then the redness can be called pratibhasika.

However, my understanding of this passage is that this refers to the
superimposed redness itself and not to the resulting superimposed entity.
The resulting superimposed entity is the "red-crystal", which is different
and actually non-existent in the perceived locus - transparent-crystal. In
this example, with a visible red-flower, the flower, the redness and the
crystal-object are all relatively real (vyavaharika). Only
the "red-crystal" is pratibhasika. Thus, per my understanding, the
appearance of the "red-crystal" is artha-adhyasa and the corresponding
subjective experience is jnana-adhyasa.

Seeking to stand corrected.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 3:14 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>>
>>>