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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Praveen ji.

//Are you saying that when you see the red flower and the plain crystal
together, your eyes have no sannikarSha with the redness of the flower at
all?//

I am saying that my eyes have no sannikarsha with redness-of-crystal.

Eyes have sannikarsha with redness-of-flower but NOT and CANNOT with
redness-of-crystal.

By this very reason, there is no gaurav dosha. Since there is no
vyAvahArika redness-of-crystal with which eyes can have sannikarsha, we
have to accept anirvachanIya redness-of-crystal.

Also one query: can there ever be jnAna-adhyAsa without artha-adhyAsa?

On Sat, 29 Jul, 2023, 10:58 am Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 10:18 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Whether or not a vyAvahArika snake is placed alongside rope, or whether
>> or not the Aropya redness-of-flower is sannikrishTa, the point is -- the
>> redness-of-crystal is not eligible for contact with eye just as illusory
>> snake is not available for contact with eye.
>>
>> Even if there is contact of eye with red flower or with real snake placed
>> beside --- the redness seen in crystal or the illusory snake cannot be seen
>> by eye -- because redness is not there in crystal, because snake is not
>> there in rope.
>>
> Are you saying that when you see the red flower and the plain crystal
> together, your eyes have no sannikarSha with the redness of the flower at
> all? I hope not. If there is sannikarSha with redness of the flower, that
> redness seen anyathA, anyatra, in the crystal is the very anyathAkhyAti. If
> both anyathAkhyAti and anirvachanIyakhyAti work in the same situation,
> where lohitya is to be accepted as having anirvachanIyotpatti in the
> crystal, it has gaurava as compared to anyathAkhyAti. That is the position
> of VP.
>
>
>> Hence, sAkshi-bhAsya illusory redness has to be accepted in crystal. That
>> is what the commentary says -- तस्मात् आरोप्यसन्निकर्षस्थले अपि......
>>
>
> I was explaining VP, not the commentary. There are some cases where the
> commentary shows another possibility or plain disagrees on a particular
> point. BTW, I am not saying that VP commentary is disagreeing here, I
> haven't studied the TIkA fully, but if it is, that is alright by me. It is
> also simple to take anirvachanIyakhyAti applicable in all situations as per
> Vedanta. That is a different kind of lAghava perhaps. However, if and when
> tArkika shows gauravadoSha, we accept anyathAkhyAti in such a particular
> instance. I recall this from Vicharasagara also.
>
> Kind rgds,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>