browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 3 – Part 1

Posted by on November 12, 2015

In the last lecture it was discussed, that three types of logical mode of dialogues are possible, namely, vada, jalpa and vitanda. Advaita siddhi belongs to the first genre. Vada katha, it must be kept in mind is a dialogue by two persons who want to determine the truth.
Then Madhusudana Saraswatiji says ,
Tatra cha vipratipattijanyasamsayasya vicharangta madhesthena adou vipratipatti pradershaniya
Vipratipatti can be understood as “viruddha pratipatti” or “vividha pratipatti”, that is “contradictory meanings” or “different meanings” respectively. It is a sentence which after hearing , generates doubt about the subject(that is to be debated upon)in the mind of the listener.As this sentence generates a doubt, and a doubt is generally accepted to be an integral part of a debate , Vipratipaati vakya is accepted by the navya-nyayikas to be part of the vichara(debate). The revered author also accepts it to be so, and thus says in the above sloka that the judge presiding over the debate should actually state the vipratipatti vakya . It is to be noted that the author of nyayamrita does not accept the fact that Vipratipatti vakya should be considered to be part of the debate, and thus the following slokas contain his arguments in favour of the rebuttal of the Vipratipatti vakya’s pivotal role in the debate.Madhusudana Saraswatiji then refutes his arguments and establishes the standard position. However, in this sloka the final result i.e the siddhanta/conclusion of the debate is ascertained.
The next few slokas are the arguments forwarded by the Nyayamritakara to show that Vipratipatti vakya cannot be considered to be part of the debate.
Thus he says:
Jadyapi vipratipattijanyasamsayasya na pakshatasampadakataya upayoga, sisadhiyashavirahasahakrita-sadhakamanabhavarupaha tasya samsayaghatitwat
Thus he says that Vipratipatti vakya does not give the knowledge of the pakshata .Here pakshata does not mean the siddhanta but the minor term where the sadhya/major term is to be ascertained. For example: “parvata vahnimana” = there is fire in the mountain because of the hetu “dhumat”= smoke. The pratijna vakya is “parvate vahnimana” and parvata is paksha, vahni is sadhya. Paksha is the place where there exists a doubt Any Vipratipatti statement has two parts, one ascertaining the sadhya and the other part ascertaining the paksha. Now , consider the argument of the nyayamritakara that Vipratipatti vakya does not give the knowledge of pakshata.This is because Gangesa Upadhaya in His famous book Chintamani writes “Sisadhyasha viraha sahakriata sadhaka ana abhava rupa” as the definition of the pakshata and this definition itself is the basis of the criticism of Vyasatirthaji. To understand the criticism,it is instructive to understand first the above definition given by Chintamanikara. Sisadhiyasa means sadhitum iccha i.e. desire to proof/ desire to gain the inferential knowledge(anumana jnana).Viraha is negation i.e. abhava: so the two together implies that there is no desire to proof.Along with this we have sadhakamana abhava that is there is no sadhynischaya clrity of the knowledge that the sadhya exist.thus in a nutshell pakshata means 1>a place/locus where there is no pre-determined desire to prove the sadhya 2.> The knowledge that the sadhya certainly exist should not be there.That is nischitasadhyaabhava.
Now Nyayamritkara ‘s position is further elucidiated:
Anyat shrutya atmanischayavata anumitsa tadanumanag na syat vadadinang nischayvatwan samsayasambhavat, aharyasamsaya atiprasangat cha
If this definition of pakshata is not accepted then an instance can be cited where lot of logical problems rise. After listening to Upanishads one has the knowledge “Aham brahmasmi” .Now suppose someone wants to go for an inferential validiation of Advaita. However if this definition of pakshata is not accepted then the knowledge from the shruti becomes the obstacle. If it is said that the role of the Vipratipatti vakya is to induce aharyasansaya which is superimposed doubt, then since there is no end to such imagined doubt it is impossible to have adeterminate result of the debate.Thus there will be atiprasanga, no logical determinism would exist, because imagined doubt can’t be part of any discussion. Atiprasanga means beyond the scope of discussion.
Additionally he says:
Napi vipratipatte swarupata eva pakshapratipaksha-parigraha-phalakataya-upayoga , twaya idang sadhaniyam, annen idang dushaniyam idyadi madhyastevakyadev tallabhen vipratipatti vaiarthat
It can be said , by one who accepts that Vipratipatti is a part of the logical debate that with the help of vipratipatti the paksha and the pratipaksha is determined. Paksha and the pratipaksha are the two sides engaged in the discussion. By listening to the Vipratipatti vakya the persons engaged may choose the side.however, according to Vyasa tirtha such an argument is not tenable because both dualist and the advaitin knows even before engaging in the debate their respective logical positions. So even without listening to the vipratipatti vakya they can choose the sides. Morever, the judge has the knowledge and authority to ascertain “you should hold on to this paksha” and to his opponent “ you should hold on to the opposite position”. In any case Vipratipati vakya has no role to play in any debate. This much is the stance taken by the Nyayamritakara

Comments are closed.