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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

I follow the PanchapAdikA with commentaries edition of Dakshinamurthy Math
which is edited by A Subramanya Shastri ji. Page no is 178.

You may also like to hear the lecture thereupon by Swami
Haribrahmendrananda Tirth ji here.
https://www.youtube.com/live/F9rOnl0Demk?si=eRHDCul7jZClQvOg (From 35
minutes onwards spanning to next lecture also)

I asked the question to Lalitalalitah ji also. His answer was --
मतभेदोऽस्ति इति प्रसिद्धम्।


> From your quotes, it appears that the vivaraNakAra is providing two
> possible options for the superimposition of ahamkAra onto the self. In the
> first alternative,  ahamkAra is superimposed onto the self, and in the
> second, there is a second, mithyA ahamkAra created in the self.
>

Actually, to me it appears, the two scenarios are :

1. There is only superimposition of ahamkAra-dharma (kartritva)

2. MithyA kartritva gets produced.

So, the discussion is about ahamkAra-dharma and not about ahamkAra as such.
{AhamkAra is like red-flower and kartritva which is ahamkAra-dharma is like
redness-of-flower. However, what we see is redness-of-crystal. The
discussion is -- whether this kartritva is produced at the site of Atman
(crystal) or does it belong to Atman and merely superimposition is done.


> The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is
> superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti.
>

I think it says -- ahamkAra along with its Dharma (kartritva) is
superimposed in Atman and hence there is NO anyathA-khyAti.


> However, more importantly to our discussion, he goes on to say
> अन्यसन्निधानादन्यस्मिन्मिथ्याधर्मावभास इत्येतावति दृष्ठान्तः - where an
> attribute present in one locus falsely appears in another due to the
> proximity of the former object, and that is the limit to which the example
> and exemplified are linked.
>


This is true Venkat ji. But what is the mechanics of avabhAsa of
mithyA-dharmA at the site of anyasmin? drishTAnta says -- due to proximity
of A, there is perception of mithyA-dharmA in B.

The text just before that explained in detail (pl check from the reference)
that mithyA-dharmA is created.

In case of swarUpa-adhyAsa, that is not needed. That is where option 1
stops.



> In the tattva deepana commentary to the vivaraNa, there is the first
> reference to the creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal in describing
> the opponent's objection.
>
> However interestingly, this sentence occurs in the commentary - यद्यपि
> मन्मते धर्मान्तरोत्पत्तिः; तथाऽपि त्वन्मते सर्वत्राऽऽरोपमात्रोपगमाद्
> दृष्टान्तासिद्धिमाशङ्कय दूषणान्तरमाह - अन्यथेति - seems to say that the
> creation of a new mithyA attribute is the opponent's view (manmatam, as the
> opponent is speaking) whereas only the false association is admitted in
> both the example and exemplified (sarvatra AropamAtra upagamAt) by the
> siddhAntin's.
>
> It is difficult to be 100% certain of who represents "manmatam" and
> "tvanmatam" from some quotes without the context of where they occur in the
> overall text, but because the word anyathA occurs in the opponent's
> statement in the original, it appears that the commentary is explaining the
> thinking of the opponent - and it is the opponent who holds the creation of
> a new dharma, not the siddhAntin.
>

Pl go through the lecture once at your leisure and share your views.



> With that as a general understanding, this is how I understand the text.
>
> 1) On the face of it, it appears the opponent holds the creation of a new
> mithyA redness in the crystal. The siddhAntin holds to the false appearance
> redness in the crystal due to the proximity of the flower (ie a transposing
> of the flower's redness).
>

Just before that the text has already explained that mithyA lauhitya is
created. That is the position of siddhAntI.



> 2)  This leads him to allege a non-consonance between the example and the
> exemplified, because the siddhAntin holds that a new mithyA ego is not
> created in the self. Hence, नायं दृष्टान्तः - the crystal where a new
> redness is created ( according to the opponent)  cannot be an example for
> the self and the ego because a new ego is not created (in the first
> example).
>

Non-consonance in so far as non-creatiom of mithyA kartritva is concerned
is admitted by both. However, there is no vaishamya with analogy was
explained on account of swarUpa adhyAsa. See, PanchapAdikA had demonstrated
that mithyA redness gets produced.



> 3) Then , he argues from the siddhAntin's position of where no new redness
> is created in the crystal, but a redness from the flower is merely
> transferred erroneously onto the crystal. Here he alleges anyathAkhyAti.
> Hence, दृष्टान्तासिद्धिमाशङ्कय दूषणान्तरमाह - अन्यथेति.
>
> The response from the siddhAntin to these two charges is अहङ्कारस्य
> स्वधर्म सहितस्यैवात्मन्यध्यस्ततया मिथ्यात्वान्नान्यथाख्याति प्रसङ्गः - this
> is not anyathAkhyAti where superimposition is not admitted. There is a
> superimposition of the mind along with its attribute, hence it is mithyA
> and not anyathAkhyAti, which alleges that an attribute elsewhere appears
> somewhere else because of alaukika sannikarSha.
>
> As Chandramouli ji says in the other email, even where there is no new
> redness created in the crystal, there is anirvachanIya khyAti to the
> sambandha of the redness and the crystal - the sambandha is not asat,
> because the crystal appears red. It is not sat, because the sambandha is
> sublated when the flower is removed. The appearance is sadasat vilakshaNam.
>
> The consonance between the example and exemplified is limited to
> अन्यसन्निधानादन्यस्मिन्मिथ्याधर्मावभास इत्येतावति दृष्ठान्तः (sic) - the
> false appearance of an attribute in an object due to the proximity of
> another object is the extent to which there is consonance between the
> example and exemplified.
>
> In the case of the ego, mind and the self, there is a svarUpa adhyAsa
> between the mind and the self which leads to the appearance of the ego that
> belongs to the mind to appear in the self. In the case of the crystal,
> there is a samsargAdhyAsa leading to the false appearance of the redness of
> the flower onto the crystal, without there being a tAdAtmyAdhyAsa between
> the crystal and the flower.
>
> So in general, the example and the exemplified are different because there
> are two different adhyAsa-s taking place. However, the vivaraNakAra says
> that the utility of the example is limited to saying that an attribute of
> one object falsely appears elsewhere, and to that extent the example
> applies.
>
> In my view, that is not in contradiction with the VP.
>
> Now, this response is entirely based on the passages quoted by you. I may
> have misunderstood the intent of the authors, but without knowing the
> context of where exactly in the book this appears, it is difficult to do
> much more than that at this stage.
>
> If you want me to review further, please provide page numbers / editions
> of the books where these passages occur. I would be happy to review them in
> detail and get back to you.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>


I will go through it carefully and get back.

While PanchapAdikA appears to me to clearly state that mithyA
redness-of-crystal is created, there is another view that mithyA
sambandha-of-redness-of-flower is created.

In the SAra Sangraha TIkA of Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.32, MS says that mithyA
idam is not created in shell silver illusion. Rather anirvachanIya
idantA-samsarg is created. He quotes Chitsukhacharya there.

I seek greater clarity on this issue.

The flow of VP itself appeared problematic to me. This instant discussion
arose in VP while he was defending the
vyadhikaraNa-dharma-avachchinna-pratiyogitA-nirUpita-abhAva of silver which
is clearly contradicted in great detail in AS.

Regards.