AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 3 – Part 2

The view of the siddhantin is that the Vipratipatti statement is part of the debate. After representing the view of the Nyayamritakara, the revered author presents his own view:
Tathapi vipratipattijanya samsayasa anumityanangatwaapi budhsaniyataya vicharangtwam astavya.
Though what the purvapakshi says is apparently true, because the doubt rising from this sentence does not become useful to the inference by determining the pakshata still somehow or other it becomes part of the debate.This is because the debate is carried out to eradicate the samsaya/doubt and the vipratipatti vakya generates the doubt, or has the inherent potency to generate doubt to all its listeners. The dualists argue that both the persons involved in the debate and the judge , who is managing the debate has the requisite clarity so the Vipratipatti statement is redundant for them. However Madhusudana Saraswatiji points out that such clarity is not to be expected from the audience ( none participants in the debate who are listening to it) and the vipratipatti statement can definitely generate a doubt in them.
Tadrishyasamsaya prati vipratipatte kachit nischayadiprativandhat ajankatwaapi swarupyogyatwat vadyadinang cha nischayvatwa niyamabhavat.
Vachaspati Mishra had said that any discussion/debate can have only three results. It can lead to acquiring of new knowledge, eradication of false knowledge or strengthening of old knowledge. Now the Nyayamritakara argues that since all the concerned persons(the two debaters and the judge, ) have the clarity of knowledge regarding their respective positions, this clarity itself becomes the obstacle to the rise of doubt in their minds (even if they had listened to the Vipratipatti statement). So the purvapakshi argues about the redundancy of the Vipratipatti statement. In reply to this the revered author says_swarupayogyatwat, i.e. the statement of the Vipratipatti has the inherent potency to create a doubt , by presenting the contradictory views on the subject concerned. Moreover, the assumption that the persons involved in the debate will always have clarity of knowledge is a faulty one. Those who have had all their doubts cleared would never indulge themselves in such debates.
This idea is further elaborated in the next sloka:
“nischitaue hi vadang kurute” iti abhimanikanischayaabhiprayam parapaksham alambyaapi ahankarina vipiritnischayvata jalpadou pravritti darshanat
The statement made by Vachaspati Mishraji should be understood to convey the following meaning: Since it is not possible for persons who has clear knowledge to indulge in debates, hence “nishitang hi vadang kurute” simply means “abhimanika nischaya” only apparent clarity due to their strong ego. In fact it is seen in this world that often people after winning the debate and vanquishing their opponent simply change sides and take up the cause of the opponent. Aim of such (jalpa) debate is simply to win .Thus such a conviction is not arising from the clarity of knowledge but only from a sense of pride.
Tasmat samayvandhadivat swakartavyanirvaha madhyasteh vipratipati pradarshaniya eva
In conclusion, just as the duty of the judge is to fix the samayavandha (and the rules of the debate along with the requisite etiquette of the debaters), it is also imperative upon him to stae the vipratipatti vakya/statement.
What is the vipratipatti statement in this text? This is answered by the revered author:
Tatra mithyatwe vipratipatti- brahmapramaatiriktabhadyatwe sati sattwena pratitya arhag chidbhinang pratipannoupadhaou traikalikanishedpratiyogi na va; paramarthikatwakarena ukktanishedpratiyogi na va.
The vipratipatti vakya is : “brahma……..na va”. It comprises of one pratijna vakya, two sadhyas and one paksha. Brahmapramaatirikta abhadyatwe means that which is not sublated by anything but by brahmaprama,which is the akhandkaravritti/brahmakaravritti.This Brahmakaravritti is the cognition that results in the supreme liberating knowledge of the self. One of the characteristic of the paksha is that it can be only be sublated by brahma-jnanam and by nothing else. Moreover it is sattwen pratityaarhang, looks as if it is endowed with existence but at the same time it is chidbhinang different from pure conciousness . So the pakshata is defined by this part of the Vipratipatti statement: brahmapramaatiriktabhadyatwe sati sattwena pratitya arhag chidbhinang
That is it is , not Brahman but looks as if it has existence like Brahman and can only be negated/sublated by the correct cognition of Brahman.In other words it is the empirical world (jagat)