praNAms
Hare Krishna
As we all know seeing the snake in place of rope is the problem of seer. But is there any problem in seen rope also to look like a snake ?? Yes, seems to be the answer by some!!
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659211456296C536E0BDB337848EA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Namaste Vikram Ji,
Reg // Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well //,
Why is the snake considered to be ** imagined ** in AdhyAsa??. Snake is ** experienced as existing ** and not as ** imagined **. Even after knowing it to be a rope, recollection is one of experiencing the existence of the snake, not of ** imagining ** the snake. And in Advaita SiddhAnta the snake has a certain level of Reality/Existence, namely prAtibhAsika Reality.
Regards………; निरवयवस्य सतः कथं विकारसंस्थानमुपपद्यते ? नैष दोषः, रज्ज्वाद्यवयवेभ्यः सर्पादिसंस्थानवत् बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेभ्यः सदवयवेभ्यः विकारसंस्थानोपपत्तेः । ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा.………
………स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन ।
………न घटादिप्रमायमव्याप्तिः । तदुक्तम् - " देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत् प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः । लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणन्त्वाऽऽत्मनिश्चयात् ॥" इति । 'आ आत्मनिश्चयात्'-………
………तदाऽसिद्धिः आरोपितप्रतियोगिकध्वंसस्याधिष्ठाने प्रतीयमानस्याधिष्ठानमात्रत्वात् । तदुक्तम् " अधिष्ठानावशेषो हि नाशः कल्पितवस्तुनः" इति । एवं शुक्तिरूप्यविनाशोऽपीदमवच्छिन्नचैतन्यमेव ।………
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdMz1S78-S16Fk4_FeO_ySB%2B6BG_SXUNjDF%3DO9OB5m6Bog%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste.
परिकल्पित or कल्पित etc also have the meaning *created*. Not necessarily *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood in the current context.
Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // तदुक्तं सुरेश्वराचार्यैः- " अक्षमा भवतः केयं साधकत्वप्रकल्पने । किं न पश्यसि संसारं तत्रैवाज्ञानकल्पितम् ॥ //,
अज्ञानकल्पितम् should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371
// अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् ।
अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते ॥ //
// asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam |
aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || //
There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same understanding.
Same with Vedanta Paribhasha.
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2%3DOMZg2%2B%3D8CFmOuED28UhX3h%2BYoscg1A%3DBZmzUxtNRAA%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste Vikram Ji,
My understanding is as follows.
Reg // The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana.//,
Not in my understanding of the Bhashya. No doubt recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana. That the snake is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) is akhyAti vAda of Mimamsaka (Prabhakara). This has been refuted in no uncertain terms by Sri Bhagavatpada. In the Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada, snake is actually *produced* by avidyA. It gains its status of *pratyaksha* because the experience is **It is a snake**. The *It is* part is *pratyaksha* in the sense it is pramAtru bhAsya while the snake part is *pratyaksha* being sAkshi bhAsya. Vedanta Paribhasha also mentions as follows while admitting this as pratyaksha
// अत एव च प्रातिभासिकरजतस्थले रजताकाराविद्यावृत्तिः साम्प्रदायिकैरङ्गीकृता ।//
// ata eva cha prAtibhAsikarajatasthale rajatAkArAvidyAvRRittiH sAmpradAyikaira~NgIkRRitA | //.
Reg // But this experience (prama) is not arising from a valid pratyaksha pramana //,
Not exactly. Snake is sAkshi bhAsya. Are not hunger or thirst considered pratyaksha? They are so because they are sAkshi bhAsya.
Reg // Being 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites or mutually exclusive //,
Not in my understanding. They are certainly mutually exclusive. *Imagined* excludes any corresponding vastu as *existing*.
Reg // Ignorance is the material cause of illusion //.
Are you considering Ignorance as a vastu (bhAvarUpa) or as absence of knowledge? The doubt arises because of your followup statement ** because the cause is ignorance and not knowledge **. If vastu, then illusion also is a vastu. If not, then both it and illusion are not vastu. So the question of one being the material cause of another does not arise.
Regards………इत्यनेन निरस्तसर्वोपाधिविशेषं ज्ञेयं ब्रह्मस्वरूपेण यः पश्यति, क्षेत्रं च मायानिर्मितहस्तिस्वप्नदृष्टवस्तुगन्धर्वनगरादिवत् ‘असदेव सदिव अवभासते’ इति एवं निश्चितविज्ञानः यः, तस्य यथोक्तसम्यग्दर्शनविरोधात् अपगच्छति मिथ्याज्ञानम्………
Shankara uses the verb 'adhyasyati' / 'अध्यारोपयति' to show that what is not there is superimposed:
अप्रत्यक्षेऽपि ह्याकाशे बालाः तलमलिनतादि अध्यस्यन्ति ।
बाह्यधर्मानात्मन्यध्यस्यति ।
तथा आत्मनि सर्वो लोकः क्रियाकारकफलात्मकं विज्ञानं सर्पादिस्थानीयं विपरीतमध्यस्य
तदर्थं सुखादिविक्रियावति सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्वमध्यारोपयति ।
नानात्वमध्यारोपयति अविद्यया ।
What is not there is superimposed.
regards
Reg // The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana.//,
Not in my understanding of the Bhashya. No doubt recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana.
That the snake is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) is akhyAti vAda of Mimamsaka (Prabhakara). This has been refuted in no uncertain terms by Sri Bhagavatpada.
In the Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada, snake is actually *produced* by avidyA. It gains its status of *pratyaksha* because the experience is **It is a snake**. The *It is* part is *pratyaksha* in the sense it is pramAtru bhAsya while the snake part is *pratyaksha* being sAkshi bhAsya. Vedanta Paribhasha also mentions as follows while admitting this as pratyaksha
// अत एव च प्रातिभासिकरजतस्थले रजताकाराविद्यावृत्तिः साम्प्रदायिकैरङ्गीकृता ।//
// ata eva cha prAtibhAsikarajatasthale rajatAkArAvidyAvRRittiH sAmpradAyikaira~NgIkRRitA | //.
Reg // But this experience (prama) is not arising from a valid pratyaksha pramana //,
Not exactly. Snake is sAkshi bhAsya. Are not hunger or thirst considered pratyaksha? They are so because they are sAkshi bhAsya.
Reg // Being 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites or mutually exclusive //,
Not in my understanding. They are certainly mutually exclusive. *Imagined* excludes any corresponding vastu as *existing*.
Reg // Ignorance is the material cause of illusion //.
Are you considering Ignorance as a vastu (bhAvarUpa) or as absence of knowledge? The doubt arises because of your followup statement ** because the cause is ignorance and not knowledge **. If vastu, then illusion also is a vastu. If not, then both it and illusion are not vastu. So the question of one being the material cause of another does not arise.
praNAms Sri Vikram Jagannathan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Kindly pardon me for this belated reply. December work pressure at office 😊 Here is my short reply :
I am taking 'problem' to mean something different from the as-is true nature of that entity. Could you please clarify what problem is said to exist in the seen rope by others?
Ø According to some, rope is the product of mUlAvidyA, after realizing that it is rope not snake, the avidyA with regard to snake will ‘merge’ in ‘rope’ avidyA (mUlAvidyA) and complete annihilation (nishesha nirmUlana) happens ONLY after complete nAmAvashesha of nAma rUpa, hence antaHkaraNa, nAma rUpa etc. are the product of mulAvidyA recognizing the rope as rope is NOT jnana as rope is the product of mUlAvidyA or rOpe (nAma and rUpa) itself mUlAvidyA!!
There are definitely characteristics of the rope that bring about the remembrance of an earlier perceived snake. Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well. But none of this should be a 'problem' within the rope itself per-se.
Ø As per some theory, There are two different types of jnana should occur before realizing that there is rope and not snake i.e. vrutti vyApti jnana (pramANa bhUta jnana) and phala vyApti jnana (phala bhUta jnana) coz. brahmAshrita avidyA has two special powers (shakti) one is encompasses the brahman (sva-svarUpa) and some part of the same avidyA covers and projects the outer things also like a black solid screen covering the objects behind it. In this sense rope (an external thing and yathArtha jnana of this rope) too is covered by some part of the avidyA. Just removal of jnAnAdhyAsa is not enough there should be a removal of arthAdhyAsa as well.
Apart from the sat-khyati-vadins, for all others there is not an iota of the snake in the rope. What actually exists is just the true nature of the rope as-is.
Ø Anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins would argue that there was some anirvachaneeya snake in rope and that is the reason why we trembled, sweated and ran away!! Hence avidyA is anirvachaneeya!!.
I am taking 'problem' to mean something different from the as-is true nature of that entity. Could you please clarify what problem is said to exist in the seen rope by others?
Ø According to some, rope is the product of mUlAvidyA, after realizing that it is rope not snake, the avidyA with regard to snake will ‘merge’ in ‘rope’ avidyA (mUlAvidyA) and complete annihilation (nishesha nirmUlana) happens ONLY after complete nAmAvashesha of nAma rUpa, hence antaHkaraNa, nAma rUpa etc. are the product of mulAvidyA recognizing the rope as rope is NOT jnana as rope is the product of mUlAvidyA or rOpe (nAma and rUpa) itself mUlAvidyA!!
There are definitely characteristics of the rope that bring about the remembrance of an earlier perceived snake. Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well. But none of this should be a 'problem' within the rope itself per-se.
Ø As per some theory, There are two different types of jnana should occur before realizing that there is rope and not snake i.e. vrutti vyApti jnana (pramANa bhUta jnana) and phala vyApti jnana (phala bhUta jnana) coz. brahmAshrita avidyA has two special powers (shakti) one is encompasses the brahman (sva-svarUpa) and some part of the same avidyA covers and projects the outer things also like a black solid screen covering the objects behind it. In this sense rope (an external thing and yathArtha jnana of this rope) too is covered by some part of the avidyA. Just removal of jnAnAdhyAsa is not enough there should be a removal of arthAdhyAsa as well.
Apart from the sat-khyati-vadins, for all others there is not an iota of the snake in the rope. What actually exists is just the true nature of the rope as-is.
Ø Anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins would argue that there was some anirvachaneeya snake in rope and that is the reason why we trembled, sweated and ran away!! Hence avidyA is anirvachaneeya!!.
praNAms Sri Vikram Jagannathan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I do not wish to go deep into the validity of mula-avidya (or not); however, would like to state a couple of points for more reflection.
Ø But some would definitely have problem with MV and vehemently rejected it as an alien theory in mUla shAnkara bhAshya and latest contribution by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s in the name of shankara siddhAnta!! And I am one of the followers of those who think so and sitting in the box of asaMpradAyavAdins 😊
1. Within the context of the illustration: jnana of snake = pratibhasika jnana; jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; ajnana of rope as snake = earlier pratibhasika jnana with respect to later vyavaharika jnana; purely from vyavaharika perspective, there is no
jnana or ajnana of snake; the very conversation of 'snake' is only with respect to the pratibhasika perspective.
Ø Do you mean to say snake is virtual satya like mrugatrushNa even after realizing that there is no water !!?? But I agree with you that virtual (prAtibhAsika) satya is less satya when compared to transactional (vyavahArika) satya and transactional satya is less satya when compared to transcendental satya. (pAramArthika satya). But I am really having the problem in accepting sarpa as prAtibhAsika satya since as per the analogy sarpa is adhyasta due to misconception of rope. Because like mrugatrushNa you will not continue to see the sarpa in rajju to call it as prAtibhAsika satya.
Similarly, jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; Brahman Jnana = paramarthika jnana;
Ø And if I may add to this pAramArthika jnana is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva jnana but vyavahAra bAdhita jnana. Hope you would agree to this.
ajnana of rope = earlier vyavaharika jnana with respect to later paramarthika jnana; purely from paramarthika perspective, there is no jnana or ajnana of rope; the very conversation of 'rope' is only with respect to the vyavaharika perspective.
He who remembers the earlier cognition of snake and later cognition of rope alone can talk about the ajnana;
There is no ajnana in pure vyavaharika. Similarly, he who remembers the earlier cognition of rope and later realization of Brahman alone can talk about the ajnana; There is no ajnana in pure paramarthika.
Ø All vyavahAra is avidyApurassara only is it not?? And that is what bhAshyakAra explains in adhyAsa lakshaNa bhAshya (sakala laukika and vaidika vyavahAra) and as you rightly observed there is absolutely no existence of ajnAna in (pure) pAramArthika.
2. It is accepted by all Advaitins that the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality is only an 'appearance' in Brahman and that there is no actual duality whatsoever in Brahman (neha nanasti kinchana).
Anyone who feels there is actual duality in Brahman breaks the fundamental premise of Advaita to begin with!
Ø Yes, agreed
This means there is some 'X'-factor that is not actually present in Brahman, but only 'appears' to be in Brahman and results in the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality in an otherwise One & non-dual Brahman. Mula-avidya-vadins call this 'X'-factor as mula-avidya
as the cause and the entire 'phenomenon & perception' of duality as its effect.
Now, since in our sampradhayam an effect is non-different from the cause, it is said the 'phenomenon & perception' of all plurality, including the rope, is non-different from this mula-avidya. In this sense, the rope is fundamentally non-different from mula-avidya itself.
Ø kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM is there to drive home the point that brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and brahmaikatvaM not to establish the brahmAshrita avidyA as mUlakAraNa and resultant vyAkruta nAma rUpa.
This 'X'-factor can be substituted with any other term one chooses, but in my understanding the concept - the rope is non-different from this 'X'-factor - remains the same. When this 'X'-factor is sublated (taranti) the ekam-eva-advitiya nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa Brahman is directly realized.
Ø Yes, that X factor as per shruti termed as mAya, prakruti, avyAkruta, shakti etc. with this only parameshwara does the creation and it is the motivational force through which he does the act of creation clarifies bhAshyakAra. And this mAyA shakti admitted between Chaitanya kAraNa – achetana (jada) kArya prapancha it belongs to brahman only because at the very beginning there was only brahman without a second. If this shakti is wrongly attributed to avidyA then we will have to conclude even before the creation of jeeva-jagat brahman at the very beginning itself having the avidyA ( an avidyAvanta brahman!!??) no need to say it is apasiddhAnta.
Ø I am coming to your concluding queries to me :
do you agree that mithyatva is anirvachaniya? Meaning, that which is considered as mithya is neither sat nor asat nor both?
Also, do you agree that Brahman alone is satya and everything else that is believed to be existing is mithya?
If so, do you agree that whatever is called 'avidya', that is distinct from Brahman, is also mithya?
If so, the nature of 'avidya' is anirvachaniya?
If you disagree on any of these, please kindly explain.
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Vikramji -PraNAms
Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list.
It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya.
Hari Om!Sadananda
Shri Vikram Jagannathan JI,
Namaskarams and Kudos to you, Sir, for the excellent and clear pointwise unambiguous listing of the fundamental approach that Advaita takes in its doctrine.I wish to make two observations, if you do not mind:i) A Deletion suggested:Under the itemized list at # 12 is the sentence: "The universe
of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya category.
"
In the well-known 'snake-on-the-rope' analogy, rope stands for the formless and featureless *brahman* Itself. Therefore, I submit that the words "rope itself" may be deleted.ii) Two Additions suggested:(a) In the "adhyAsa bhAShya," bhAShyakAra Shankara himself expresses why or when "adhyAsa" does arise.
"The unattached Self (brahman) cannot become a cognizer with the activity of perception etc., without accepting the senses, mind and body are Its own.(b) "The Self (brahman) is not absolutely beyond apprehension, because It is apprehended as the content of the concept "I"; and is self-revealing entity.
Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing.Hare’s horn is asat //,In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined ** entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined** (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word ** snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself cannot be called asat.Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is experienced through a pramANa.You may like to consider
Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and aredistinct manifestations //,
This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post without clearly mentioning any qualifications.
Perhaps it would be better to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended.Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc.You may like to consider
(1) satyam jnanam anantam Brahma || Taittariya 2-1
(2) sarvagaM hi Etad brahma ayamAtmA brahma ||
Mandukya Mantra 2
(3)ahamEvEdagam sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1
(4)AtmaivEdagaM sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-2
(5)Atmata EvEdagM sarvam || Chandogya 7-26-1
(6)brahmaivEdagM viSvaM variShTham || muMDaka
(7) yat sAkShAt aparOkShAt brahma yaH ya AtmA sarvAntaraH
(8)prapaMcOpaSamam Sivam advaitam caturtham
manyantE
sa AtmA sa VijnEyaH || Mandukya mantra 7
Conclusions drawn in the light of the above quoted mantras:
According to the above mantras “I am ananta i.e. infinite.”
These teachings can also be included in your list of your understanding.
With respectful namaskars,
Sreenivasa Murthy
Vikramji -PraNAms
Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list.
It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya.
Hari Om!Sadananda
Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
Reg // To clarify, can I say that even the snake just 'imagined' is not actually absent of any locus, but still has the locus in the antahkarana of the person imagining? //,
No. Not in my understanding. Snake as ज्ञान (j~nAna) (knowledge) or स्मृति (smRRiti) (recollection) or ‘ imagined ‘ has antahkaraNa as its location. Not as a vastu.
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLerKNJYgJ%2BYjh6-z6jgXmtt7dHvMdfSoyM5oBij_oQBpA%40mail.gmail.com.
Reg // To clarify, can I say that even the snake just 'imagined' is not actually absent of any locus, but still has the locus in the antahkarana of the person imagining? //
praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the experience, "I see a snake
there (e.g. in the passageway)". The locus is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope.
Ø I don’t know the context in which you are saying snake is not imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ‘buddhi parikalpita’ ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa ‘buddhiparikalpitena’)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is the nimitta to ‘see’ the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a result, when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju jnana) it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our mental imagination.
Namaste Chandramouli ji
On Sun, 24 Dec, 2023, 8:55 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
>
> Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as
> existing.
> Hare’s horn is asat //,
>
> In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the
> end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined **
> entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined**
> (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word **
> snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself
> cannot be called asat.
>
> Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word
> **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the
> experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is
> experienced through a pramANa.
>
Thank you for this clarification.
One additional factor to consider -
Under the assumption that the word 'objects' refers not only to physical
objects but also to existent entities like
"democracy",
"algebra"
"poem"
"Prime numbers" etc., since they exist and are experienced but not as
objects of the five senses, we categorize these as objects cognized
directly by the mind, "sAxI pratyaxa". Yet they are not asat. The locus of
these objects would be the antaH karaNam or in some cases the locus would
possibly be specific class objects like the collection of people who are
citizens.
How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy"
etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also
be conceptualized by the mind?
Om
Raghav
Namaste Raghav Ji,Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy"etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also
be conceptualized by the mind? //,In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent).
Regards
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te352VSeTkzkj_G9GLiJjQNWH9-FgVH1pj%3D9MBecQm-1%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
विहिता विद्या ध्यानात्मिका । प्रतिषिद्धा नग्नस्त्रीदर्शनादिरूपा । अविहिता घटादिविषया । अप्रतिषिद्धा पथि पतिततृणादिविषया । विहितं कर्म यागादि । प्रतिषिद्धं ब्रह्महननादि । अविहितं गमनादि । अप्रतिषिद्धं नेत्रपक्ष्मविक्षेपादि ।
Regardssubbu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside.
In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean
buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the
snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the
mind.
The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the
pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara
AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one
phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there
are alternative explanations available.
The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is
because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside.
In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean
buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the
snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the
mind.
The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the
pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara
AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one
phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there
are alternative explanations available.
The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is
because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti
> experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus
> is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope.
>
>
>
> Ø I don’t know the context in which you are saying snake is not
> imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ‘buddhi
> parikalpita’ ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa
> ‘buddhiparikalpitena’)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive
> home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere
> imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is
> the nimitta to ‘see’ the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a result,
> when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared
> like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju jnana)
> it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our
> sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our mental
> imagination.
>
>
>
> - IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition
> of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two are
> mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration.
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
PraNAms
Here is my understanding.
Yes. In fact, every perception involves, cognition based on the attributes of the object as perceived by the senses (with all their limitations), and recognition based on the memory which involves comparing the objects perceived in the past with similar attributes.
Snake is out there, similar to any other objects perceived via the mind and the senses. The seer of the snake (rope) has a firm belief that it is a snake. Hence his body also reacts - fear, increased blood pressure, etc., which are real. When he runs away from it - other physical reactions also follow. He may live with that perception throughout his life if there is no contradictory experience to prove that it was not a snake but a rope.
If there is another convincing pramaana - such as going back with torch light and checking if it is a snake or rope, and got convinced it is a rope, the snake that he imagined based on the attributes disappears in his mind with the understanding there is no snake there. This is praatibhasika error since he alone saw. This is in contrast to sunrise and sunset or trees running in opposite direction, while watching in as running train or mirage waters, etc. Where knowledge of reality does not eliminate the perceptions.
The same applies to the perceived world which is vyaavahaarika error and will be perceived even after knowing that it is not really real but apparently real. Hence as long as body, mind, and intellect are functioning the Jnaani's body sees the world of plurality. However, his understanding is that it is mithyaa and not absolutely real. He may also understand that BMI is perceiving which is part of the Prakruti and He is akarthaa. That is his understanding.
Hence the discussion of whether Jnaani perceives the world or not - is yes or no - hence senses do perceive as long as they are functioning, but his understanding can be different - karmani akarmayaH pasyet.- one who sees as non-doer while his body, mind and intellect are doing.
For information only for those interested. The Indic Academy has published my book on the pratyaksha pramaana based on Vedanta Paribhasha -as 'How Do I Know'- now available online on Amazon. Dr. Aravindarao has written an introduction to the text.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the snake is imagined by the mind, not that that snake is located in the mind.
The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa //,
I have a different understanding for the context of the phrase buddhiparikalpitena. Especially since it applies (anvaya) to मृद्घटाद्याकारेण also apart from सर्पाद्याकारेण. Sri SSS in his translation cum commentary in kannada on Ch Up Bhashya specifically mentions so in Footnote 3 (referring to buddhiparikalpitena in the Bhashya) as below (translation mine)
// This visheshaNa applies (anvaya) to previous term also. kArya also is budhikalpita. It is never distinct from kAraNa //. The ** previous term** referred to is मृद्घटाद्याकारेण.
Contextually, in Ch Up, the mantra 6-2-3 // तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति //, सत् (sat) which is One only becomes many while still maintaining its status as One only. Entire Creation is सत् (sat) only (combination of Chaitanya/Brahman and avyAkruta). It is vivarta with reference to Chaitanya/Brahman or pariNAma with reference to avyAkruta. The pariNAma transformation is of the Clay-Pot type, not Milk-Curd type.
In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in सर्पाद्याकारेण illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on the ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in मृद्घटाद्याकारेण illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the phrase buddhiparikalpitena.
I hope I have conveyed my understanding meaningfully.
Regards
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside.
In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean
buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the
snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the
mind.
The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the
pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara
AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one
phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there
are alternative explanations available.
The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is
because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti
> experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus
> is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope.
>
>
>
> Ø I don’t know the context in which you are saying snake is not
> imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ‘buddhi
> parikalpita’ ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa
> ‘buddhiparikalpitena’)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive
> home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere
> imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is
> the nimitta to ‘see’ the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a result,
> when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared
> like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju jnana)
> it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our
> sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our mental
> imagination.
>
>
>
> - IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition
> of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two are
> mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration.
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in सर्पाद्याकारेण illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on the ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in मृद्घटाद्याकारेण illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the phrase buddhiparikalpitena.
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //,
They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive. buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep rooted conviction in the mind, buddhau parikalpitena. In fact, deep rooted conviction in the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, naisargika.
Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //,
Notice the use of the word आदि(Adi)(etcetera) in रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण in respect of vivarta vikAra as against मृद्घटाद्याकारेण in respect of pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both रज्जु (rajju) and सर्प(sarpa) in one while it is used only in respect of घट(ghata) but not in respect of मृत् (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is considered for vivarta vikAra even if आदि(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. Hence रज्ज्वादि in रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण is intended to be the equivalent for घटादि of मृद्घटाद्याकारेण. रज्ज्वादि represents all objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are vivarta vikAra. सर्पाद्याकारेण is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they are all सत्(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence.
Regards
Namaste Venkat Ji,
Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //,
They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive.
buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep rooted conviction in the mind, buddhau parikalpitena.
In fact, deep rooted conviction in the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, naisargika.
Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //,
Notice the use of the word आदि(Adi)(etcetera) in रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण in respect of vivarta vikAra as against मृद्घटाद्याकारेण in respect of pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both रज्जु (rajju) and सर्प(sarpa) in one while it is used only in respect of घट(ghata) but not in respect of मृत् (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is considered for vivarta vikAra even if आदि(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. Hence रज्ज्वादि in रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण is intended to be the equivalent for घटादि of मृद्घटाद्याकारेण. रज्ज्वादि represents all objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are vivarta vikAra. सर्पाद्याकारेण is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they are all सत्(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence.
Namaste Raghav ji,
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Venkataraghavan ji
>
> Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa?
Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a crystal,
where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the
perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of
anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an
artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. When
the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness),
there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see the
archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago.
Can we say a
> visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as in
> schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)?
>
I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or
schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception involved
(even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can assume
the creation of an illusory object.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a vision and the object of the vision.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
And it will not stop just seeing the mAyika shareera out there!! The upAsya devata's body would interact with the upAsaka, guide him in dharma mArga / jnana mArga, distribute the karma phala, clears the doubt if any on his physical presence etc. Though it is purely individual experience as a result of purusha tAntra sAdhana one should agree that upAsya devata sAkshAtkAra is the result of karma / ananya bhakti / dhyAna sAdhana and it is not as easy as seeing the snake in place of rajju in dim light!! 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
ie, the snake is imagined by the mind, not that that snake is located in the mind.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnk2rYa0m1v3sRPsUD3sDv7zb0W5UP2qw_KYW4H1xc9dg%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,
ie, the snake is imagined by the mind, not that that snake is located in the mind.Both positions can be valid. The snake is located in the mind for it is not at the rope independently of the mind. But the mind is located at the rope during perception, hence the snake that Consciousness imagines is superimposed onto the rope at its location: therefore the snake is located 'outside' (where the mind is) as well.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pJBwYJbk-m1XUVCO6GR59S9KKwhoxmDzqjHqPrSgBEfw%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
True. The idea that the snake is out there is in the mind alone and more importantly, the correction that - there is no snake but the rope alone is - also has to happen in the mind alone. The locus of the error is the mind and the correction has to happen there alone.
every object that we observe in our day to day life,those objects are not located in our in our mind.
Yes,the data is in our mind,but the object is not,the only case where an object is in our mind alongwith the data is when we are trying imagine someone that we are not seeing in front of us,so for example a dream tiger.Isn't this correct ?
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 11:13 putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,
ie, the snake is imagined by the mind, not that that snake is located in the mind.
Both positions can be valid. But the mind is located at the rope during perception, hence the snake that Consciousness imagines is superimposed onto the rope at its location: therefore the snake is located 'outside' (where the mind is) as well.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pJBwYJbk-m1XUVCO6GR59S9KKwhoxmDzqjHqPrSgBEfw%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Both positions can be valid. The snake is located in the mind for it is not at the rope independently of the mind. But the mind is located at the rope during perception, hence the snake that Consciousness imagines is superimposed onto the rope at its location: therefore the snake is located 'outside' (where the mind is) as well.
Ø I am afraid while we are in the full zeal of digging deep into these drushtAnta-s forgetting the very aim of these drushtAnta-s (rajju-sarpa, suvarNAbharaNa, colour-crystal etc.) and how these drushtAnta-s can appropriately be understood to understand the dArshtAntika!! The very purpose of these drushtaanta-s is to recognize the existence of brahman and subsequently ascertain the inherent nature of this ever existing brahman. As per shAstra brahman explained as both cause and effect (upAdAna and nimitta) and at some other places categorically declared brahman is nirguNa, nirvishesha, niravayava, nirvikAra etc. To know the crystal clear spatika (crystal) either we need a rUpa, nAma or its upAdhi saMbandha ( flowers or clothes behind it to ‘know’ or realize the existence of transparent crystal). In simple words to know brahman as prajnAna ghana and nirupAdhika we need the help of upAdhi (nAma rUpa like to know the absolutely crystal clear crystal we are taking the help of red, blue, yellow flower) bhAshyakAra explains this like yadi hi nAma rUpa na vyAkreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAnaghanAkhyaM na pratikhyAyeta. Coming to the currently discussing example of flower crystal, it is quite obvious that one cannot see a perfectly transparent crystal unless you keep something behind it. When we keep red flower we see red crystal, if it is blue then blue crystal. Here the colourful flower keeps its dharma of ‘colour’ in crystal it helps us to realize the ‘existence’ of absolutely transparent crystal. The purpose of this drushtAnta should be understood upto this extent and beyond it to say through crystal we can see not only colour but some time flower also, only flower’s colour is adhyArOpita not flower itself etc. are mere stretch of this example. Likewise suvarNAbhAraNa example too AbharaNa ( nAma rUpa) is there to recognize survarNa. The AbharaNa is mere vAchAraMbhaNa for survarNa and the shape of AbharaNa does not affect the suvarNa at any point of time. The suvarNa is totally independent of the AbharaNa though we recognize / realize the existence of gold through AbharaNa!! Here the knowledge of suvarNa ( brahma ekatvaM) is not influenced by AbharaNa (nAma rUpa jagat) the knowledge of suvarNa may come from naanaa vidha AbharaNa. The vishesha of nAnA vidha AbharaNa does not make any change in sAmAnya suvarNa. Here it can be said that the AbharaNa is an upAdhi (jagat) to show the suvarNa (brahman) and hence the upAdhi which is a thing which helps us to see an unknowable and unobjectifiable thing.
Namaste Venkat Ji,
I am not sure if the following has already been pointed out and discussed in the thread. If yes, my apologies for the repetition.
In case of redness in the crystal, what is anirvachanIya, and hence mithyA, is the सम्बन्ध (sambandha) (relationship) between the redness and the crystal. AnirvachanIyatva is in respect of the *in*ness in **redness in the crystal**. The सम्बन्ध (sambandha) (relationship), redness is **inside** the crystal, is anirvchanIya. That is the distinction between anyathAkhyAti and the advaitic view in this case. Redness per se is akin to anyathAkhyAthi, but it does not stop with that in the advaitic view. There is an element of anirvachanIyatva also.
RegardsOn Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 09:34 Venkatraghavan S, <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>
> I would differ from your view - as I have said, the force of the
> siddhikAra's rebuttal is in establishing this is not a reflection, but a
> superimposition.
> Therefore, he draws a distinction between the reflection where both the
> substrate and the attribute are reflected as a rule.
>
> Here he says that this is not a reflection because the substrate is not
> reflected in the crystal, only its redness is. It is not a rule that only
> the redness should appear (in the crystal) and not the flower - if one
> observes the Chandramoulishvara pUja at Sringeri, there are many times when
> both the flower and its colour are visible through the crystal Shivalinga.
> Sometimes only the colour appears and not the flower.
>
> From that it follows that the case being discussed is where the substrate,
> the flower is not visible and only the redness that appears. That being the
> case, it is not surprising that a prAtibhAsika redness is created here.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 07:53 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhans...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat ji,
>>
>> (2/2)
>>
>> with respect to your additional point
>>
>> //One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi
>> quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "धर्मिभूतमुखादिनैरपेक्ष्येण
>> तद्धर्मभूतरूपादिप्रतिबिम्बादर्शनात्", indicating that the siddhikAra is
>> talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed
>> (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma,
>> the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a
>> prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my
>> email below, pasting here for easy reference -
>> यत्र जपाकुसुमं द्रव्यान्तरव्यवधानादसन्निकृष्टं तत्र लौहित्यप्रतीत्या
>> प्रातिभासिकं लौहित्यं स्वीक्रियतामिति चेत्, न, इष्टत्वात् .//
>>
>> Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only the
>> redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never so.
>> It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the
>> dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is
>> reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement
>> dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made.
>>
>> The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about
>> situation where there is no eye-contact with red-flower.
>>
>> Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness
>> that appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if
>> redness-of-crystal. That is what siddhikAra means.
>>
>> PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear:
>>
>> कथं पुनः स्फटिके लोहितिम्नः मिथ्यात्वं?....Pl check from here on in
>> PanchapAdikA
>>
>> Regards.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji
Hare Krishna
> Is busy with office work, year end revenue closing, year beginning book closing etc. at office, kindly bear with me for any delays in my replies.
If I understand your position correctly, the perceived snake is purely a "mental imagination" and doesn't have any reality whatsoever (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) outside the mind. Thus the locus of the snake, even while being perceived as such,
is the mind alone.
If so, I have some detailed follow-up questions for you (and others interested in this exercise), to flush out all ambiguity, and earnestly solicit your response:
Let's consider the following scenario - Part 1:
Ram and Shyam are walking in Ram's house. In a dimly-lit corridor they perceive a long thin curled "object" lying on the floor, which actually is a rope. Ram cognizes it as a rope and is indifferent to it. Shyam cognizes it as a snake, becomes fearful and starts
shivering.
From Ram's current perspective:
Q1: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
Q2: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Q3: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
From Shyam's current perspective:
Q4: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
Q5: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Q6: What is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
From the rope's current perspective:
Q7: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, does it cognize itself as possessing the nature & attributes of a rope or a snake? Rope / snake?
Next, let's continue with the scenario - Part 2:
Seeing Shyam fearful, Ram clarifies that "it is just a rope". On hearing these words, Shyam recognizes the object as a rope. His fear is gone but his body is still shivering
From Ram's new perspective:
Q8: Has there been any change in his cognition of the object? Yes/ no?
From Shyam's new perspective:
Q9: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his current cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
Ø His current understanding or locus of his earlier misunderstanding (as sarpa) is rope or object what exactly lies there on the floor.
Q10: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his earlier cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
Ø He understands earlier also there was rope only and by mistake he took it as snake and thanked Ram for helping him to get rid of his misconception. (anyathAgrahaNa or adhyAsa).
Q11: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Q12: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Ø His realization fetched him the knowledge that there was / is never snake out there and snake was only in his mind due to his ajnAna about the rajju (jnana abhAva of the actually existing rajju)
Q13: What now is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
Ø Again his realization is that there was a mistaken knowledge (mithyAjnAna) about rajju caused him the shivering etc. with regard to non-existing sarpa.
From the rope's new perspective:
Q14: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, has there been any change in its cognition of its nature & attributes? Yes / no?
Furthermore,
Q15: When did Shyam realize that his experience was an adhyasa (error / avidya / ignorance) of "rope misunderstood as a snake"? End of part 1 or end of part 2?
As an additional request, as it would help streamline deeper discussion, I would like you to please indulge in reviewing alignment of the 50 points I shared in the link ->
https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita
> Would look into it prabhuji but you have to be mentally prepared to accept the new perspectives on those points ofcourse based on shankara’s PTB. 😊
praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji
Hare Krishna
If I understand your position correctly, the perceived snake is purely a "mental imagination" and doesn't have any reality whatsoever (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) outside the mind. Thus the locus of the snake, even while being perceived as such, is the mind alone.
- One thing we have to keep in mind that ‘deep’ analysis of all analogies with regard to anyathAgrahaNa can happen only after the posterior knowledge of the object being perceived (yathArtha jnana). If rajju is perceived as rajju no problem no talks, likewise, if the snake is really there also no talks and no problem with regard to authenticity of cognition. Problem and deeper analysis required only when the rajju is perceived as sarpa and later realization of this misconception and correct understanding of actually existing thing. And it can also be said that if one thinks that there is sarpa (in place of rajju) and run away from that place forever without trying to ascertain what exactly is there then also the deep discussion is not required rather will not take place at all. So, all these discussions would take place only ‘after’ the dawn of yathArtha jnana of the rajju rather getting rid of ayathArtha jnana of rajju. Hope you are with me here 😊
Let's consider the following scenario - Part 1:
Ram and Shyam are walking in Ram's house. In a dimly-lit corridor they perceive a long thin curled "object" lying on the floor, which actually is a rope. Ram cognizes it as a rope and is indifferent to it. Shyam cognizes it as a snake, becomes fearful and starts shivering.
From Ram's current perspective:
Q1: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
- From Ram’s perspective it is vyavahAra yOgya rajju only that is what he sees.
Q2: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
- As said above, vyavahAra yOgya rajju which he uses daily to draw the water from the well 😊
Q3: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
- This question does not arise at all as you yourself confirmed he looks at it ‘as it is’ and is indifferent.
From Shyam's current perspective:
Q4: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
- In this story of rAma-shyAma, the ‘Aspada’ for the cognition of snake is, the object on the floor and cognition of sarpa is due to this object on the floor. ( Please note I am not taking the exceptions of adhyAsa as explained by bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya and I am just replying to your questions based on your story at rAma’s house 😊 )
Q5: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
- From the shyam’s current perspective ( which is quite evident that there will be a talk about future realization of something else!!) it is ‘snake’ that he is perceiving. And shyAm’s current perspective he is ‘just’ seeing the snake without thinking about rope nor anything he would entertain anything about his memories of snake. ( again please note I am not considering smruti rUpa, pUrva drushtAvabhAsa etc. which bhAshyakAra clarifies and am just going with the flow of your story).
Q6: What is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
- Shivering of his body ‘as real as’ his seeing the snake on the floor.
From the rope's current perspective:
Q7: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, does it cognize itself as possessing the nature & attributes of a rope or a snake? Rope / snake?
- I am afraid hypothetically also this question is not valid!! It is just like asking barren women has two sons rAma and shyAma and who is elder and who is younger?? 😊 the basic premise of this question itself is wrong because of the simple reason it is the problem of shyAm does not have anything to do with rajju. bhAshyakAra himself says there is no aNumAtramapi change in rajju even when one is seeing it as something else!!
Next, let's continue with the scenario - Part 2:
Seeing Shyam fearful, Ram clarifies that "it is just a rope". On hearing these words, Shyam recognizes the object as a rope. His fear is gone but his body is still shivering
- Yes
From Ram's new perspective:
Q8: Has there been any change in his cognition of the object? Yes/ no?
- Where is the question of Ram’s new perspective here?? Earlier did he have some other perspective?? He was / is seeing rope as rope only !! is it not??
From Shyam's new perspective:
Q9: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his current cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
Ø His current understanding or locus of his earlier misunderstanding (as sarpa) is rope or object what exactly lies there on the floor.
Q10: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his earlier cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
Ø He understands earlier also there was rope only and by mistake he took it as snake and thanked Ram for helping him to get rid of his misconception. (anyathAgrahaNa or adhyAsa).
Q11: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
- I think you are repeating the questions phrasing it differently !! aren’t you??
Q12: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Ø His realization fetched him the knowledge that there was / is never snake out there and snake was only in his mind due to his ajnAna about the rajju (jnana abhAva of the actually existing rajju)
Q13: What now is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
Ø Again his realization is that there was a mistaken knowledge (mithyAjnAna) about rajju caused him the shivering etc. with regard to non-existing sarpa.
From the rope's new perspective:
Q14: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, has there been any change in its cognition of its nature & attributes? Yes / no?
- Rope and analogy is there for the one who is taking the sarpa for rajju and it is not there to talk anything about inert thing rajju (strictly within this drushtAnta) whether rajju has undergone any change or not during ayatArtha jnana or after yathArtha jnana is the head ache of the cognizer not the cognized rope (aspada or adhishtAna).
Furthermore,
Q15: When did Shyam realize that his experience was an adhyasa (error / avidya / ignorance) of "rope misunderstood as a snake"? End of part 1 or end of part 2?
- What is your answer to this question?? When Shyam realized the rope jnana?? End of Part 1 or 2 or in between at some point of time when Rama helped and educated him ??
As an additional request, as it would help streamline deeper discussion, I would like you to please indulge in reviewing alignment of the 50 points I shared in the link -> https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita
> Would look into it prabhuji but you have to be mentally prepared to accept the new perspectives on those points ofcourse based on shankara’s PTB. 😊