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

[rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com]

Hari Om, Vrnkatarahavanji, 
I am responding to your conversation about the redness and flower appearing through the crystal in Chandramouleeswara Puja in Sringeri. While it is vyaavahaarically correct, while looking from Paramaarthic vision, neither the redness nor the flower seen through the crystal are SAT. What we see through the mind or sense organs is what is termed chitaabhaasa or reflection of the REAL, but is not ASAT; the reason being ASAT never existed or exist or going to exist, but we see with our mind and organs, the Chitaabaasa,; to see through this, one has to go beyond Maayaa, the infinite power of the Lord.

With Om and Prem,
Raja Krishnamurti
     On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 12:21:03 PM PST, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org