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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  //  Based on that review, I agree with your view that the
panchapAdikAkAra's
and vivaraNakAra's views as stated by the tattvadIpikAkAra involve the
creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal //.

Just seeking a clarification. In the texts you have mentioned, where
creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal is admitted, is there a
specific qualification that this is so even where the redness of the flower
is within the range of perception. The doubt arose because Sri Mani Dravid
Shastrigal clearly mentions that panchapAdikAkAra admits creation of the
mithyA redness only where the redness of the flower is not perceived.
Please listen from minute 23 onwards. Only just a few minutes only.

//  https://www.mediafire.com/file/vimgmmv3kwn/VPB_01_pratyaxam_10.WAV/file
//
<https://www.mediafire.com/file/vimgmmv3kwn/VPB_01_pratyaxam_10.WAV/file%20/>

Sorry for the botheration. Hope you wont mind.

Regards

On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 10:48 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>
> Thank you for the references. I have also read the portions of the text in
> question and heard the talks provided. I also went back to my notes / class
> recordings of the Vedanta Paribhasha as taught by Sri Maheswaran Namboodri
> AchArya.
>
> Based on that review, I agree with your view that the panchapAdikAkAra's
> and vivaraNakAra's views as stated by the tattvadIpikAkAra involve the
> creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal.
>
> The paribhAShAkAra's view is that the redness of the flower appears in the
> crystal by anyathAkhyAti. However, even there, one must that the sambandha
> of the crystal with redness is an anirvachanIya redness. Thus the mithyAtva
> of the crystal as red is still preserved, even if the redness and the
> crystal themselves are not mithyA in this view. The commentator to the
> paribhASha assumes that the anirvachanIyatva of the example itself is lost
> because of the admission of anyathAkhyAti to the redness, but that is not
> the case in my view, because of the anirvachnaIyatva the tAdAtmya sambandha
> between the redness and the crystal. I believe this may be the same
> principle as the idamtA samsarga of the chitsukhAchArya mentioned by you in
> the email.
>
> I do not think that advaitins in general have feelings for or against
> vyadhikaraNa dharma avacChinna pratiyotikAbhAva - there are several
> instances where it is admitted and others where it is not admitted (even
> within the advaita siddhi itself) - therefore, the admission of such an
> abhAva does not refute other arguments made in that connection.
>
> In the paribhASha the charge made by the opponent is responded to on the
> basis of the acceptance of vyadhikaraNa dharma avacChinna pratiyotigAka
> abhAva - however that is only one such explanation. There is no harm to the
> siddhAnta even if that is not accepted - as in the example from the siddhi
> in the chapter dealing with the second definition of the mithyAtva.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>