[Advaita-l] Fwd: Advaita Siddhi series 007 - prathama mithyAtva vichAra: (part 2)
ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 16 04:10:33 EDT 2017
Namaste Sri Venkatraghavanji
pl see some clarifications inline:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> We had previously seen the nyAyAmritakAra's refutations of the first
> definition of mithyAtva, sadasat vilakshaNatvam. He had proposed three
> alternative meanings for this definintion, namely
> 1) the absence of existence that is endowed with non-existence, or
> 2) The two properties of the absence of existence and the absence of
> non-existence, or
when you say properties (dharma) here, //
it means the property as mentioned in the below example ?
//A defining characteristic of the class ‘cow’ (gotva) is the property
‘having dewlap’ (sAsnAvat)
> The siddhikAra suggests that for sat and asat to be mutually exclusive, one
> of the following three reasons must hold true:
> सा हि सत्त्वासत्त्वयो: परस्परविरहरूपतया वा, परस्परविरहव्यापकतया वा,
> परस्परविरहव्याप्यतया वा
> 1) they are paraspara abhAva - each is the absence of the other. The
> absence of sat is asat. The absence of asat is sat. Here sat and asat are
> not two things.
> 2) they are paraspara viraha vyApakam - the absence of sat implies the
> presence of asat. The absence of asat implies the presence of sat.
> 3) they are paraspara viraha vyApya - the presence of sat implies the
> absence of asat. The presence of asat implies the absence of sat.
Here, vyApya and vyApakam refer to nyAya terms ?
vyApyam - nyuna desa vRtti (prithvitvam)
vyApakam - adhika desa vRtti (dravyatvam)
> *vyAghAta - Contradiction / Impossibility (continued)*
> The second possibility for mutual exclusion is if the absence of one
> implies the presence of the other. The siddhikAra says this is also ruled
> अत एव न द्वितीयोऽपि, सत्त्वाभाववति शुक्तिरूप्ये विवक्षितासत्त्वव्यतिरेकस्य
> विद्यमानत्वेन व्यभिचारात्, The second option is also not possible. In the
> case of shell-silver, the absence of sat does not imply the presence of
> asat, as the shell-silver is available for appearance. The rule of the
> nyAyAmritakAra was that if sat was absent, asat must be present. In the
> the hetu of this rule present, but the sAdhya of this rule is
Unable to follow above statement ???:
Can you pl mention the description of hetu and sAdhya referred here in
brackets ( also, in general, in any such future usages)..like
//the hetu (???) of this rule present, but the sAdhya(???) of this rule is
Are we still using the old anumAnam here (jagat mithyA, drishyatvAt, shukti
sAdhya - mithyAtva
hetu - drishyatvAt
In shell-silver, hetu is present, sAdhya is also present, if we take the
siddhikAra's definition of sAdhya.
> Thus this rule has a vyabhichAra, exception, in the case of the
> shell-silver. It is not universally true.
vyabhichAra based on this statement below ?
In the case of shell-silver, the absence of sat does not imply the presence
of asat, as the shell-silver is available for appearance.
> नापि तृतीय:, तस्य व्याघाताप्रयोजकत्वात्, गोत्वाश्वत्वयो:
> परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वे अपि तदभावयोरुष्ट्रादावेकत्र सहोपलम्भात् |
> The third reason for mutual exclusion that may be offered is that the
> presence of one implies the absence of the other. However, upon
> examination, this does not result in contradiction either. For example, a
> cow cannot be a horse, and vice-versa. Therefore, where there is "cow-ness"
> there can be no "horse-ness". However, despite the presence of cowness
> implying the absence of horseness (and vice-versa), this in itself does not
> mean that the absence of cowness and the absence of horseness cannot
> co-exist in another entity. Both are simultaneously absent in a camel. So,
> even if the presence of sat implies the absence of asat (and vice versa),
> their co-absence (mithyAtva) is not an impossibility.
// even if the presence of sat implies the absence of asat (and vice versa)
even if we agree to the definitions of dvaitin for sat and asat, in the
above rule ?
( and not insisting on the definitions provided by siddhikAra )
> It can be argued that a common word does not necessarily denote a common
> attribute. That is true, but not applicable here. Words are sometimes used
> based on the nature of objects (shabda pravritti nimittam is based on some
> quality in the object denoted by the word). For example, different animals
> of the same species are called "cow" on the basis of the anugata dharma,
> common attribute of cowness (gotva).
> If one knows what a cow looks like,
> the next time one sees an animal of the species
gotva jAti ?
I am trying to link your translations with the nyAya terms, as I find that
helpful while studying these topics.
> , one is able to identify it
> as a cow.
> (to be continued)
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list