[Advaita-l] Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkataraghavan ji, Chandramouli ji.

Couple of points are well accepted:

1. Redness-of-crystal is pratibimba of redness-of-flower. (SiddhAnta Bindu
- जपाकुसुमरुपस्य नीरूपस्य स्फटिकादौ प्रतिबिम्ब दर्शनात्)

2. Pratibimba is mithyA by swarUpa (accepted by both VivaraNa and
Sureshwara).

3. There is no redness in crystal with which there can be contact of
senses.

1 and 2 combined imply that redness-of-crystal is anirvachanIya.

3 alone implies that redness-of-crystal is anirvachanIya.

Therefore, whether there is contact of senses with flower or not, the
redness-of-crystal is always anirvachanIya i.e. mithyA. VedAnta ParibhAsha
therefore may not be correct here. The commentary thereupon by Panchanan
Bhattacharya Shastri and relevant portion in Panchapadika may also be seen.

Regards.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 19:11 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 19:42 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>
>> Is the redness in the crystal considered to be mithya?
>>
>
> This is an interesting question.
>
> There is no origination (उत्पत्ति)  of redness. There is a transference of
>> the redness from the flower to the crystal, assuming that both the
>> crystal and the flower are within the range of perception.
>>
> Correct, the Vedanta Paribhasha does admit that redness is not created in
> the crystal. Rather it is a superimposition of the flower's redness onto
> the crystal. However, please note the context where it occurs - this is
> said in denying the need in anirvachanIya khyAti for every instance of a
> superimposition requiring the origination of the superimposed entity.
>
> The paribhAShA goes on to say that the origination of a superimposed
> entity is only postulated where there is a need to explain the appearance
> of an object when there is no contact possible of that object with the
> senses. If a contact with the senses is possible, then anyathAkhyAti is
> also acceptable.
>
> This tells me that that this is a case of bhrama / dharmAdhyAsa is not
> denied. Only the creation of a superimposed attribute is denied, because of
> the presence of an adjunct which is in contact with the senses that allows
> transference to take place.
>
> The bhrama is with reference to the relationship between the crystal and
>> redness. There is no arthAdhyAsa. There is only jnAnAdhyAsa. My
>> understanding was that the term mithya is applicable ONLY when there is
>> BOTH arthAdhyAsa and jnAnAdhyAsa. Subject to correction. Hence I am raising
>> the question.
>>
>
> What is the basis for the above statement (need for both artha and jnAna
> adhyAsa) ? The pratipannopAdhau traikAlika niShedha pratiyogitvam
> definition appears to apply to this instance. Would be interested in
> knowing if this being mithyA is denied in any work of advaita.
>
> In fact in the advaita siddhi, in response to the opponent who had said
> that the redness of the crystal is not mithyA but a reflection, the
> siddhikAra refutes it and shows that the redness of the crystal is mithyA
> indeed, and even goes on to say that panchapAdikAkAra, despite considering
> reflections to be real, considers the redness of the crystal as mithyA.
>
> advaita siddhi:
> लौहित्ये स्फटिकस्य त्वारोपे तस्य प्रतिबिम्बत्वम् , स्फटिके लौहित्यारोपे तु
> तस्य मिथ्यात्वमिति विवेकः ।
> स्फटिकमणेरिवोपधाननिमित्तो लोहितिमेति लोहितिम्नः मिथ्यात्वं दर्शितं
> प्रतिबिम्बसत्यत्ववादिभिः पञ्चपादिकाकृद्धिः ।
> If the crystal had been superimposed on the red, that would be a case of
> reflection. However the superimposition of redness onto the crystal is
> indicative of its mithyAtva - that is the difference. "Like the redness of
> the crystal as a result of an adjunct" - this sentence by the
> panchapAdikAkAra who holds that even reflections are real, shows mithyAtva
> of the redness of the crystal.
>
> panchapAdikA:
> तेन अन्तःकरणोपरागनिमित्तं मिथ्यैवाहङ्कर्तृत्वमात्मनः,
> स्फटिकमणेरिवोपधाननिमित्तो लोहितिमा
> By that, it follows that the self's ego is mithyA only, because of the
> association with the mind, like the redness of the crystal, which is
> because of an adjunct.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 8:49 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>> In the case of sopAdhika bhrama, avidyA is destroyed, but the upAdhi
>>> persists and until then, the appearance of the superimposed persists.
>>>
>>> So, the perception of the superimposed is not because of some remnant of
>>> avidyA remaining post sublation, but because of the presence of an
>>> externality, an upAdhi, which is the cause for the continue perception of
>>> the superimposed - even when ignorance has been sublated.
>>>
>>> In the case of the red crystal, the illusion persists so long as the red
>>> flower is nearby, even when the ignorance of the transparency of crystal
>>> has been sublated. In the case of jIvanmukti, the appearance of the world
>>> continues so long as prArabdha (upAdhi) persists.
>>>
>>> The jnAni continues to perceive the world as a result - so the tucChatva
>>> cannot be from his standpoint also.
>>>
>>> One can take tucchatva in the verse to be from the standpoint of
>>> paramArtha  where even such a pratIti does not occur - ie from the
>>> standpoint of Brahman or post videhakaivalya.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_-1459815996010850148_m_-5386110225067127838_m_-8777357125056785797_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>