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 7 – Part 1

Posted by on April 16, 2016

Recapitulation: In the last lecture it was discussed that instead of accepting the sadhya to be satatyantabhava and asatatanytaabhava one can accept it to be satpratyogibheda and asatpratiyogibheda and this will lead to no complication. Pratiyogi is that whose absence is talked about. Hence satpratiyogibheda simply means different from sat, which is itself the pratiyogi of satabahva and in a similar manner one can understand the second epithet. Thus there will be no clash/ confusion since no mutuality between existence and non-existence can be thought of here. Thus, the dualist can never prove that this world is sat.
Now there two things : satbheda and satabhava and asatbheda and asatabhava. The dualist now says let us, for argument’s sake, forget satbheda and satabahva and concentrate on asatbheda and asatabhava:
Na cha asatvyatirekangshasya asatbhedasya chja prapanche sidhwatena amshata siddhasadhanam iti vachyam.
The dualist brings in partial siddha-sadhana dosha in the position of the advaitin. He says if one considers asatbheda and asatabhava i.e. difference from non-existence and absence of non-existence, then it is found in this world itself. Moreover it is accepted by the dualists also. Thus the sadhya of the advaitin is partially and trivially known already. This is termed by the dualist as “ amshata siddhasadhana dosha” However, this argument is not tenable which Madhusudana Saraswatiji says- na cha vachyam.
Gunadikang gunyadina bhinnabhinnang, samanadhikrityatwat iti bhedabhedvadiprayoge tarkikadiamgikritasya bhinnatasya siddhaou api udhesyapratitesiddhe jatha na siddhasadhanang.
The Mimansakas who are termed as Bhedabhedavadins assert that gunas (attributes) and dravya(attributed object) are in a relationship which is both dual and non-dual at the same time. One cannot separate both. However the logicians simply accept difference (bheda) and not abheda. In this context they do not invoke, amshata siddha sadhana dosha. The idea behind the simultaneous acceptance of duality and non-duality by the mimansaka and the idea behind the acceptance of only difference by the logician are different and this well understood by all. Therfore no acceptance of siddhasadhana dosha takes place here.
Tatha prakriteapi militapratite uddeshyatwat na siddhasadhanam.
Similarly in this context also since simultaneity of asatabhava and satabahava is expected from the sadhya, it is not reasonable to bring siddhasadhanadosha.
Yatha cha tatra abheda ghata kumbha iti samanadhikaranapratite adarshanena militasiddhi uddhesya, tatha prakrite api sattwarahita tucche drishtwadarshanena militasya tadproyjakatya milita siddhi uddesya iti samanam.
Just as when in a sentence we find the usage of the word “ghata kumbha” they have the same adhikarana i.e the same bibhakti and since militasiddhi uddeshya is there- simultaneous presentation is the intention- no one speaks of siddha sadhana dosha.
Similarly here also in non-existence there is absence of sat but that does not make it mithya. This is because the advaitins in their mithytwa anumana had accepted drishtwa (the property of being the object of knowledge) as to be the cause (hetu) for mithyatwa. This cause is obviously absent in non existence since it never becomes the object of knowledge.
(the recapitulation ends here)
Ateva satwaatyantabhav atwe sati asatatentyaabhavarupang vishishtang sadhyam ityapi sadhu.
That is why if one accepts sattatyantabhava qualified by asatatyantabhava then that definition of mithya is also error free. Satatyanatabhava means the eternal absence of existence, while asatatyantaabhava means eternal absence of non-existence, in this way the definition becomes the eternal absence of existence qualified by the eternal absence of non-existence is what is intended by mithyatwa.

Comments are closed.