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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,
Responding to your emails in sequence.
1) Re
"न प्रभानिमित्तं लौहित्यं तत्रोत्पन्नम् ; उत्तरकालमपि तथा रूपप्रसङ्गात् ।"
- my understanding is that this occurs in the context of the pUrvapakshi
saying that the redness is because of rays emerging from the flower, like a
ruby, and pervading the crystal, causing the creation of a redness in the
crystal.

The panchapAdikA-kAra is only denying the origination of redness of the
shell *as a result* of the rays emanating from the flower, न
*प्रभानिमित्तं* लौहित्यं तत्रोत्पन्नम्,
not denying the origination of redness in general.

We can ascertain this because he goes on to later say that the arguments
made thus far were only an abhyupetya vAda, ie accepting the opponents
argument of the emergence of rays from a flower, अभ्युपगम्य प्रभामिदमुक्तम्
 .

In my view, this cannot be what Sri Sastrigal was referring to in his VP
talk you had shared earlier.

2) Re "व्यवहारतः पुनः यदुपरागादनिदमात्मनोऽहङ्कर्तृत्वं मिथ्या" - I don't
quite understand the point you are wishing to make with this quote. Perhaps
you can explain - I agree that uparAga is sambandha. I don't think the
quote is saying the uparAga is mithyA.

3) Re "But is it possible that when the commentary says VP contradicts
PanchapAdikA, it is really referring to the anirvachaniyatva aspect of the
redness in the crystal, and not to the origination aspect of the redness."

I am copying the commentary from Sudhanshu ji's previous email below for
reference.

वस्तुतस्तु जवाकुसुमद्वारेन्द्रियसम्बद्धस्य लौहित्यस्य स्फटिके
संसर्गज्ञानाभ्युपगमेऽन्यथाख्यातिरेव स्यान्नानिर्वचनीयख्यातिः । न चारोप्य
सन्निकर्षस्थलेऽन्यथाख्यातिरेव, नानिर्वचनीयख्यातिरिति वाच्यम्, तथा सति
रजतादाविदन्त्वसंसर्गस्य शङ्खादौ पीततासंसर्गस्यात्मन्यन्तःकरणधर्मसंसर्गस्य
चाध्यासाभावप्रसङ्गात्, पञ्चपादिकादिग्रन्थविरोधप्रसङ्गाच्च, तैः
स्फटिकलौहित्यस्य मिथ्यात्वाभ्युपगमात् ।

तथा चोक्तं पञ्चपादिकायाम् --“तेनान्तःकरणोपरागनिमित्तं
मिथ्यैवाऽहंकर्त्तृत्वमात्मनः स्फटिकमणेरिवोपधाननिमित्तो लोहितिमे”ति । विवरणे
च – “ मिथ्यात्वं स्फटिकलौहित्यस्य क्लृप्तप्रतीतिसत्तयोः कारणाभावादि”ति ।
किञ्च यत्रेव यत् सन्निकृष्टं तत्रैव तत् प्रतिभासतामन्यत्र तत्प्रतिभासस्तु
कथम् ? न ह्येकत्र सन्निकृष्ठस्यान्यत्र प्रतिभासो दृष्टचरः सोपपत्तिको
वाऽतिप्रसङ्गात्। लौहित्यञ्च जवासन्निकृष्टं जवायां प्रतिभासताम्, स्फटिके
तत्-प्रति- भासस्तु कथम् ? न हि लौहित्यं स्फटिके नयनसन्निकृष्टम् । यदि
दुष्टेन्द्रियबलात् स्फटिके तत्प्रतिभास इत्युच्येत तर्हि रजतस्यापि
तद्बलाच्छुक्तौ प्रतिभाससम्भवेऽनिर्वचनीयख्यातिर्दत्तजलाञ्जलितामीयात् । तथा
चोक्तं तन्त्रवार्त्तिके – “प्रसरं न लभन्ते हि यावत् क्वचन मर्कटाः ।
नाभिद्रवन्ति ते तावत् पिशाचा वा स्वगोचरे" || इति ।

तस्मादारोप्यसन्निकर्षस्थलेऽपि स्फटिके लौहित्यान्तरं
प्रातिभासिकमभ्युपगमनीयम् ।

It seems to me that the commentator is disputing that the redness of the
crystal, even in the case of the contact of the senses with the flower's
redness, can be due to anyathAkhyAti as alleged in the VP. In his view,
that would deny the mithyAtva of the redness and contradict the views of
the panchapAdikAchArya and vivaraNAchArya.

The contradiction lies in the VP saying that the redness is not
anirvachanIya whereas the PP and PV are saying that the redness itself is
mithyA.

Re. the origination of the mithyA redness, the commentator concludes by
saying "therefore, even where there is contact of the senses with the
superimposed, it must be admitted that there is *another*, prAtibhAsika
redness in the crystal."

The reference to लौहित्यान्तरं indicates that a redness, different from the
the redness of the flower, is present in the crystal, ie is created.

4) Re "Is it not possible that the view of the commentator is faulty ?"

Yes, when it comes to a matter of interpretation, I do think there can be a
difference of opinion, where one party thinks the other is mistaken.

For example, I don't accept the VP commentator's contention that there
would be no adhyAsa if one accepted anyathAkhyAti, because as I had told
Sudhanshu ji, even if the redness is really the flower's, the tAdAtmya
samsarga between the flower's redness and the crystal is certainly
anirvachanIya.

However, when it comes to a matter of fact, I don't think a reputed
commentator would make a factual error. For example, we were discussing if
there was any reference within the panchapAdikA of the origination of
redness being restricted to only those circumstances where there was no
contact with the sense organs. I don't think the VP's commentator would
claim a contradiction between VP and the PP if such a reference had been
present in the PP. Whether such a mitigating reference is present in the
text or not is largely a matter of fact, not interpretation.

Anyway, in summary - I believe there is merit with the VP approach. I do
think there is lAghavatva, parsimoniousness, in the way he has constructed
the postulate. One does not have to assume the creation of multiple
prAtibhAsika entities - the redness, the samsarga etc in every instance of
adhyAsa. Only the postulation of the samsarga is sufficient in certain
cases where the redness seen elsewhere is transposed on to a proximate
object.

This does not suffer from the issues of anyathAkhyAti either - ie the jnAna
lakshaNA pratyAsatti / alaukika sannikarSha as postulated by the
naiyyAyika, which are superfluous.

Because the red flower is present in close proximity to the crystal, and
there is the distinct possibility of the contact between the senses and the
flower's redness at the same time as the perception of the crystal, one
does not need to invoke alaukika sannikarSha to explain how an attribute
present in one place appears elsewhere.

Yes, there is the charge of contradiction with the views of the PP and PV,
but that is always possible when we are talking of prakriyA. The more
serious issue would be a contradiction in the matter of siddhAnta, which I
don't see in this case.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024, 08:24 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> I have not read the commentary on VP. But is it possible that when the
> commentary says VP contradicts PanchapAdikA, it is really referring to the
> anirvachaniyatva aspect of the redness in the crystal, and not to the
> origination aspect of the redness. VP says no anirvachanIyatvam while
> PanchapAdikA says anirvachanIya relationship. VP almost implying
> anyathAkhyAthi without any qualifications. Perhaps the commentary is
> alluding to this aspect. Not sure though since I have not read the
> commentary. Just a thought.
>
> I will not bother you more on this. Will rest at this stage.
> 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 7:09 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
>>>>>
>>>>