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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

//In my view, the panchapAdika quote is saying that the mithyAtva of the
redness of the crystal is because that redness of the crystal (स्फटिकमणेः
लोहितिमा) is a result of the association with the crystal (उपधाननिमित्तः),
ie it is not a property that the crystal possesses intrinsically, a
property belonging to the upAdhi appears in the crystal - atasmin
tadbuddhih//

PanchapAdikA uses the drishTAnta of crystal and red flower for AtmA and
ahamkAra for the appearance of Dharma of ahamkAra, kartritva, in AtmA. Just
as redness, a property of red flower, appears in crystal. PanchapAdikA goes
in detail just immediately afterwards and rejects both akhyati and anyath.

Here VivaraNa says -- 
ननु अहङ्कारधर्मस्यात्मन्यारोपमात्रं क्रियते ? किं वा मिथ्यैव
धर्मान्तरमुत्पद्यत इति ?
(1) Whether only superimposition of Dharma of ahamkAra is done in Atman OR
(2) dharmAntara is produced (mithyA kartritva) in Atman.

पूर्वस्मिन् नायं दृष्टान्तः, अन्यथाख्यातिश्च स्यात् ।

If we hold the first option, then the drishTAnta (of red flower) will
become inapplicable and it will be anyathA-khyAti.

उत्तरस्मिन् सत्य-मिथ्याकर्तृत्वद्वयावभासः स्यात् ?

In case of later, (the drishTAnta will be applicable) and there will be
perception of two kartritva, one Satya (belonging to ahamkAra) and other
mithyA (appearing in Atman) (just as it happens in red crystal)

उच्यते-अहङ्कारस्य स्वधर्म सहितस्यैवात्मन्यध्यस्ततया
मिथ्यात्वान्नान्यथाख्याति प्रसङ्गः, अन्यसन्निधानादन्यस्मिन्मिथ्याधर्मावभास
इत्येतावति दृष्ठान्तः ।

Here it is said - since ahamkAra is superimposed in AtmA along with its
Dharma (kartritva) and is hence mithyA, there is no occasion of
anyathA-khyAti. And the drishTAnta is meant for perception of mithyA-dharmA
somewhere else due to sannidhAna of other.


अथवा - कर्तृत्वद्वयेऽपि धर्मिणोरेकत्वापत्त्या धर्माभेदावभास इत्यविरोधः ।

Or else, there are two kartritva -- but since the dharmI are one, there is
perception of non-difference of both. (Here the drishTAnta applies in full
force. MithyA kartritva is produced in AtmA wherein Satya kartritva is
superimposed on account of swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra).

================

Pl see Tattva Deepana

उक्तमर्थमाक्षिपति - नन्विति ॥

दृष्टान्ते मिथ्यालौहित्यस्योत्पन्नत्वाद् दृष्टान्त दाष्टन्तिकयोर्वैषम्यमाह
पूर्वस्मिन्निति ॥ (Pl note, the drishTAnta holds the production of mithyA
lauhitya). In the first option, where only superimposition of kartritva is
done and no production of mithyA kartritva is considered, there is
drishTAnta dArshTAntika vaishamya on this count.

यद्यपि मन्मते धर्मान्तरोत्पत्तिः; तथाऽपि त्वन्मते सर्वत्राऽऽरोपमात्रोपगमाद्
दृष्टान्तासिद्धिमाशङ्कय दूषणान्तरमाह - अन्यथेति ।

द्वितीयं दूषयति- उत्तरस्मिन्निति ॥ अहंकार-
गतसत्यकर्तृत्वमात्मगतमिथ्याकर्तृत्वं चेति कर्तृत्वद्वयप्रतिभासप्रसङ्ग
इत्यर्थः । (As per drishTAnta)

पक्षद्वयोक्तदोषस्यापि नानुषङ्ग इत्याह-उच्यत इति ॥ अन्यथाख्यातिप्रसङ्गमुक्तं
निरस्यति - अहंकारस्येति । अन्यथाख्यातिमतेऽन्यत्र सत्यरूप्यादेः
संसर्गमात्रस्यारोप्यत्वम्, अत्र तु
धर्मविशिष्टस्याहंकारस्यारोपोपगमान्नान्यथाख्यातिरित्यर्थः । (Had there been
no swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, it would have been a case of
anyathA-khyAti. But here since superimposition of Dharma along with dharmI,
hence no anyathA-khyAti)

So would there be drishTAnta asiddhi as no mithyA kartritva is accepted to
be produced?

 तर्हि दृष्टान्तासिद्धिः,

तत्र धर्म - धर्मिणोरध्यस्तताऽनङ्गीकरणा- दित्याशङ्कयाह- अन्यसन्निधानादिति ॥
 As above--

पक्षान्तराङ्गीकारेऽपि न दोषानुषङ्ग इत्याह- अथवेति ॥ धर्मिणोरहंकारात्मनोरिति
यावत् ।
As above
==================================

It is clear from these discussions that

(1) the drishTAnta accepts production of mithyA redness of crystal.

(2) There is no mention of eye-contact with red flower.

(3) There is non-productiom of mithyA kartritva in Atman only because
ahamkAra is swarUpa adhyasta in AtmA . Had this not been so, by the very
force of drishTAnta, one has to accept production of mithyA kartritva in
Atman.

(4) Even production of mithyA kartritva is accepted by the very force of
drishTAnta. Note that no eye contact etc is even imaginable in case of
ahamkAra.

This whole discussion of eye-contact with red flower is a non-issue in the
given discussion and everywhere else. It is accepted everywhere that
redness-of-crystal is mithyA. By the force thereof, VivaraNa accepts two
kartritva also. Only because there is swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, that it
is not needed.

Just a little before, it has been clarified by PanchapAdikA as to how
redness-of-crystal cannot be redness-of-flower.

===========

Regards.