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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

My apologies. Where ever reference is made to talk of Sri MDS in respect of
PanchapAdika, the link ID is as below

//  https://www.mediafire.com/file/lnm41qe8ftxdcch/PP_23-06.03.14.WAV/file
//

Regret the inconvenience

Regards

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 7:32 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>