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 2

Posted by on April 16, 2016

Na cha militasya vishistasya va sadhytwe tasya kutrapi aprasiddha aprasidhivisheshanatwang
The dualist now raises a point which he perceives to be a problem in the argument of the advaitin. This is as follows: The milita abhava= combined absence of existence and non-existence or the vishiahita abhava= absence of any one qualified by the other is not known anywhere. Thus, this argument should suffer from the fallacy of aprasiddha visheshana= positing an example which is not known by anybody to prove one’s own point.
prateykang prasidhya militasya vishistasya va sadhane sashasringayo prateykang prasidhya sashiyasringasadhanamapi sat iti vachyam.
To escape this dosha , if the advaitin says that the absence of existence and the absence of non-existence is seen individually in different places, and thus what the definition of falsity does is that it brings these two abhavas in one place, then this argument would not be correct. This is because individually one knows both a hare and a horn. However, that does not imply one should bring both together and accept a hare with horns to be empirically true. This clearly cannot be the intention of the advaitin, since then all asat objects wll becom vyavharika.
In response to this purvapaksha, the advaitin replies- nacha vachyam- this argument is simply not correct.
Tathavidprasidhe suktirupya eva uktatwat.
It has already been shown that both can be absent in the same place i.e. in the silver imposed upon the mother of pearl (sukhti-rupya). Thus one cannot argue there is any aprasiddha vishesana dosha.
Now the Nyayamritakara brings in a beautiful tarka and Madhusudana Saraswatiji proceeds to refute it_
Na cha nirdharmakatwat brahmana satwaastwarupadharmadwayesunyatwena tatra ativyapti,
The point raised by the dualist is as follows: Brahman in the advaitin’s point of view is “nirdharamaka”= without any attributes. However, they also hold Brahman to be sat. Now if the definition of mithya is satatayantaabhava and asatatyantaabhava, then that definition should incorporate Brahman also, though it is sat. Hence the definition suffers from ativyapti dosha as it was intended to cover jagat but covered Brahman also in its ambit. However according to the Madhusudana Saraswatiji this is simply not true.
sadruptwen brahmana tadtyatantyabhava anadhikaranatwat, nirdharmaktwenayeva abhavarupadharmaanidhikaranatwat cha iti dik.
We accept Brahman to be sat because satatyantabhava can never be there in Brahman. In other words “tadatyantaabhava anadhikaranat” Brahman can never be the locus of the eternal absence of existence. It is nirdharamaka because it has no attributes. When one accepts Brahman to be sat, then it is not the same Brahman understood as sat. Brahman as sat is Ishwara =Saguna/Vishishta Brahman = Brahman with attributes. Nirdharamaka is attributeless Brahman or Suddha Brahman. In this way one has to understand the secret.
Iti mithyate nirupane prathama lakshanam
Here the explanation of the first definition of falsity ends, which is sataasatbhinnatyam.

Comments are closed.