[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,
Yes, that is indeed the case.

I think what Chandramouliji is asking is whether every case of adhyAsa is
necessarily mithyA in anirvachanIya khyAti - even if there is no
arthAdhyAsa.

The reason being that no anirvachanIya redness is created in the crystal,
unlike the anirvachanIya silver created in the shell.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

Regards
Venkatraghavan


On Sat, 29 Jul 2023, 00:59 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Venkat ji,
>
> Isn't the case of sphatika raktima (redness in crystal) also one of
> 'atasmin tad buddhih rupa' adhyAsa?  Also, this instance is admitted to be
> an example for sopadhika bhrama.
>
> I chanced to see this crisp note on adhyasa types:
> http://www.advaidam.com/2016/07/06/nirupadhika-and-sopadhika/
>
> //  Nirupadhika and Sopadhika
> [image: image_pdf]
> <http://www.advaidam.com/2016/07/06/nirupadhika-and-sopadhika/?print=pdf>[image:
> image_print]
> <http://www.advaidam.com/2016/07/06/nirupadhika-and-sopadhika/?print=print>
>
> This post is to explain Shloka 21, of Kaivalya Upanishads
>
> Adhyasa is of two kinds. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, the snake
> alone is seen. The existence of the rope is not known at all. Here the
> snake is said to be superimposed on the rope. This is known as
> *Svarupa-Adhyasa*. The second kind of superimposition is when a crystal
> appears to be red in the proximity of a red flower. Here both the crystal
> and the flower are seen as existing, and the redness of the flower is
> attributed to the crystal also. This is known as *Samsarga-Adhyasa*. Both
> these kinds of Adhyasa are present in the mutual superimposition of the
> self and the non-self.
>
> Because of the superimposition of the non-self on the self, the existence
> of the self is not recognized at all, and the non-self, (that is, the body,
> mind and organs), is alone recognized as existing. This is Svarupa-Adhyasa.
> In the superimposition of the self on the non-self, only the existence and
> consciousness aspects of the self are attributed to the body, mind and
> organs. This is Samsarga-Adhyasa. The result of this mutual superimposition
> is that every one identifies himself with the body. This is the root cause
> of all suffering. Giving up this wrong identification with the body-mind
> complex and realizing that one is the self which is beyond all suffering
> and all the pairs of opposites such as heat and cold, success and failure
> and so on, is Vidya or knowledge. It is this knowledge that is contained in
> the Upanishads <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads>.
>
> Svarupa-Adhyasa is also known as *Nirupadhika-Adhyasa* or superimposition
> without a limiting adjunct or *Upadhi*. The superimposition of an
> illusory snake on a rope is of this type. Upadhi has been defined by
> *Bhaskararaya* in his commentary on the name *Nirupadhih* (No.154) in the
> *Lalitāsahasranāmabhāsya* as *Upa samipe adadhati sviyam dharmam* that
> which imparts its own quality to an object near it. A red flower which
> makes a transparent crystal near it look red is an upadhi. The
> superimposition of the red colour on the crystal is a superimposition with
> upadhi and it is known as *Sopadhika-Adhyasa*, which is the same as
> samsarga-adhyasa.
> In the superimposition of the snake on the rope, the substratum is
> considered to be the rope. But the snake itself is not real, and is a
> superimposition on Brahman or pure *Consciousness*. Therefore it is said
> in Vedanta that the substratum is *Rajju-upahita chaitanyam* or pure
> Consciousness apparently limited by the rope. Every object in this world
> should therefore be looked upon as Brahman limited by that object or
> Brahman in the form of that object *Sarvam khalu idam brahma.* The
> illusory snake is described as *Pratibhasika* or illusory; the rope, like
> everything in this world, is *Vyavaharika* or empirical reality. Brahman
> alone is *Paramarthika* or absolute reality. The aim of *Vedanta* is to
> enable one to attain this realization. //
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 7:56 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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_-5386110225067127838_m_-8777357125056785797_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>