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 5 – Part 1

Posted by on March 2, 2016

Prapanchya mithyatwe anumana prayoga: After all this discussion , the text finally arrives at the syllogery that establishes the falsity of the world. Madhusudana Saraswatji finally states the inference used to establish the falsity of the empirical world. It should not be supposed, that this is His invention; it was developed by another great Acharya of the advaita-tradition Shree Anandabodhacharya . Thus He says:
Abang vipatipattou prachina prayogha-vimatang mithya, drishwatat,jadatwat,parichinnatwat sukhtirupyavat iti. Na aveyavishu agraha.
Vimatam-means vipratipatti vishishtapaksha. The people of ancient times (prachina prayoga) used three different reasons (syllogery) to show that vimatang mithya, that is the world characterized by the vipratipatti statement is false. The anumana starts with vimatam mithya, which means that the paksha where there is vipratipatti, is mithya. For this the revered author shows three particular reasons, they are: Drishwatat( since it is seen), jadatwat( since it is insentient), parichinnatwat(since it is limited by space, time and objects). For elucidating this he gives an example from the pratibhasika world-sukhtirupyavat iti., the mother of pearl when perceived as silver. Then He proceeds to say- Na aveyavishu agraha. Aveyava means the various parts of a formal inference made to establish an inferential argument in front of others (parartha anumana). Though in general, Advaitins accept the first three or the last three of an inference –syllogism as a standard method of inference, Madhusudana Saraswatiji says He is not bound by the exact number of steps in the inference, and is ready to accept whatever be the method accepted by His opponent. In the way He presents the inference, it has three parts-Pratigya(vimatam mithya), hetu(drishwatat,jadatwat,parichinnatwat) and udhaharana(sukhtirupyavat iti) .
Madhusudana Saraswatiji then says:
Atra swaniyamakaniyatya vipratipatya laghubhutya pakshatwavechadouy na viruddha.
The general rule regarding vipratipatti vakya is that the first portion of the sentence is the paksha and the second portion of the sentence is accepted to be the indicator of the sadhya. Normally in the tradition of the nyayaikas, the visheshya is considered to be the paksha and the visheshana is considered to be the sadhya. However, here this general procedure is not followed. If one considers brahmapramaatiriktya avadhatya sati,……… chidbhinang to be the paksha then since there are three things involved, no general rule can be posited that will establish their relative order, or importance. Hence it is not laghubhutaya, that is not simple but very complex. Moreover there would be gurutya dosha, since the relative importance (which would control the others?) cannot be ascertained easily.thus it is better to consider them as pakshata-avachedaka. In that case one has to bring the adjuncts for all these three in the paksha. To obtain the adjuncts , one should just add the suffix “twa” to everything.
Sattena pratitya arhata+twa=sattenaprattiyaarhatwa,
And so on.
Thus substituting the pakshata by the pakshata-avachedaka, the inferential process becomes simpler. However, symmetrically we should have to consider the sadhyatwa-avachedka. So for the sadhya mithya we should consider mithyatwa.
The revered author explains further:
Samayvandhadina vyavhadhanttya sya anumankalasattwweapi upalakshanataya pakshata avachaedakam.
Here it is explained what would be the problem , if one accepts the pakshata-avachedaka. After the sadhya paksha etc has been decided then the participants in the debate has to decide upon the mode of dialogue (vada, jalpa, vitanda), whether ideas from other schools would be invoked or not, maximum time for each participant to reply and so on. So after spending some time on these issues , when the participants would actually start the debate, they may actually forget the issue to be debated. So Madhusudana Saraswatiji says that even after transforming the paksha to pakshata-avachedaka it is better to take it as a pointer (upalakshana) to the actual debate. Through these pointers, one can proceed to the discussion.
Alternatively it can be accepted like this:
Jadwa viprativishayaataavachaedakameva pakshataavachedakam
The terms brahmapramaatiriktyaavadhatywa, sattena pratitiarhatwaand chidrupatwa can be accepted to be the avachedaka of the paksha.
This is because:
Prachang prayoge api vimatamiti padang vipratipattivishayataavachaedakavachinnabhiprayentwadosha
Nyayikas of the old school had accepted the “vimatam” word in their inference to be the vipratipatti- vishayataavachedaka. That is it by itself brings the adjuncts of the paksha.

Comments are closed.