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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

PanchapAdika also says  //  व्यवहारतः पुनः यदुपरागादनिदमात्मनोऽहङ्कर्तृत्वं
मिथ्या //

Translation // This being so, just as in the crystal there exists the
illusory relation of the upadhi (viz., japākusuma) //,

Note reference here is to the relationship of the crystal with the upadhi
(viz., japākusuma), not origination of redness in the crystal. At minute
43.41 in his talk, Sri MDS also says uparAga means sambandha.
Regards

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 7:11 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> I have included the translation also, for the benefit of other readers who
> might be interested.
>
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 7:09 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>
>> The commentator might have said that the VP view is opposed to that of
>> PanchapAdika. But I did not see reference to any such statement in VP
>> itself. Is it not possible that the view of the commentator is faulty ?
>>
>> Also PanchapAdika observes  // न प्रभानिमित्तं लौहित्यं तत्रोत्पन्नम् ;
>> उत्तरकालमपि तथा रूपप्रसङ्गात् । //.
>>
>> Translation // nor again could it be averred that due to the lustre,
>> redness is (actually) produced in it (crystal) for then the crystal would
>> continue to shine red even subsequent (to the removal of japākusuma)//.
>>
>> Does this not substantiate what Sri MDS observes in his talk?
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:55 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>>
>>> Yes I heard those very words too - but I am not sure if he meant exactly
>>> what he was saying there.
>>>
>>> Reason being that the commentator to the paribhAShA is explicitly saying
>>> that this paribhAShA view is in opposition to the view of the
>>> panchapAdika-kAra. If the panchapAdika-kAra was also qualifying the
>>> creation of redness to when the contact with senses is not present, then it
>>> is not in opposition, is it?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 05:15 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the response.
>>>>
>>>> At minute 24.54 to 25.18 in the talk, Sri MDS mentions that
>>>>
>>>> **there are two possibilities for redness to appear in the crystal. The
>>>> first is when what is behind the crystal (obvious reference to flower)  is
>>>> not visible. Then there is origination of anirvachanIya redness in the
>>>> crystal. This is as per panchapadikAkAra**.
>>>>
>>>> The talk continues with
>>>>
>>>> ** If the cause of redness namely a flower is also in the range of
>>>> perception, then origination of redness is not admitted**. Of course he
>>>> does not mention panchapadikAkAra in this connection.
>>>>
>>>> I agree the textual passages in question do not make such a
>>>> qualification. That is perhaps because VP is not referring to
>>>> panchapadikAkAra’s view per se.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please recheck.
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 3:31 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for sharing Sri MDS' talk - I heard the portion you sent, but I
>>>>> confess it is unclear to me when he says 'this is the panchapAdikAra's
>>>>> view', whether he refers to the 'creation of the crystal's redness' or to
>>>>> the qualified statement 'creation of the crystal's redness when the flower
>>>>> is not in contact with the
>>>>> senses'. The textual passages in question do not make such a
>>>>> qualification.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have only read that particular passage in the panchapAdikA,
>>>>> vivaraNam and the tattvadIpana. From that I can only conclude that the
>>>>> qualification is not made there. If it exists elsewhere in the text, that
>>>>> will be compelling evidence in this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 01:10 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>