Advaita Siddhi - Hindu Dharma Forums

Hindu Dharma Forums > Sanatana Dharma > Philosophy > Advaita

User Name User Name Password

Remember Me? Log in Search

Advaita Siddhi
Join Us! FAQ Library Members List Calendar

Today's Posts

Advaita Forum for discussion of Advaita Philosophy and Monism. Advaita Siddhi
Page 1 of 2 1 2 > Thread Tools 03 April 2010, 11:25 AM Display Modes #1 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4,187 Reputation: 10120 Advaita Siddhi


Namaste friends It has been felt that we have not seen the scholarly exposition of Advaita theories. So, let us take up Madhusudan Saraswati’s Advaita Siddhi for discussion. I have taken full of this discussion from Shri Anand Hudli's (whom I don't know but have come to admire) excellent text and just formatted the pieces to make them suitable for pasting in this thread. Anyone interested to study the full text immediately may do so at I thank Anand, for his excellent effort. I also hope that this thread in HDF will also serve us well. Madhusudan Saraswati does not seem to be a mere sadhu but a sadhu with a brilliant logician’s mind that can destroy any mithyAtva. In his best known work, called Advaita Siddhi, Madhusudan defined mithyAtva with three definitions that answer all possible Dvaita and Vishistaadvaita logical oppositions. The first definition of mithyAtva says that what is mithyA is characterized by "sadasadanadhikaraNatva", not being the substratum of either sat (Existence) or asat (nonexistence). The second definition of mithyAtva says that what is mithyA (unreal) is characterized as being the counterpositive (pratiyogin) of an absolute negation (asat) in the very substratum where it (the thing that is mithyA) is cognized. The third definition in the advaita-siddhi simply says: YAnanivartyatvaM vA mithyAtvam.h |, Unreality is the property of being sublated by knowledge or cognition.

Note: pratiyogin an adversary , rival ; any object dependent upon another and not existing without it ; a partner , associate ; a counterpart , match .

1 of 18

6/14/12 9:48 AM

proper to answer the so-called objections of the mAdhvas by clearing their misunderstandings of advaita. the dualists. It is. whether they be genuine or otherwise. It is MadhusUdana sarasvatI's brilliant and successful defense of advaita in response to the objections of the MAdhvas. An oft quoted verse regarding him is: madhusUdanasarasvatyAH pAraM vetti sarasvatI | pAraM vetti sarasvatyAH madhusUdanasarasvatI || (Only) the Goddess of Learning.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi ADVAITASIDDHI Madhusudana Sarasvati Introduction ||shrI gaNeshAya namaH || || shrIviTThalaM namAmi || The advaita-siddhi is regarded as one of the most important polemical works of 1988. the auspicious and the non-dual. So I will endeavor to present only a few discussions with translation. B) to try to refute the resulting misrepresentation. Nevertheless. therefore. as opposed to a "purushha-tantra". not objections. So one may ask: how is it possible for the mAdhvas to raise objections against advaita that is based on facts? It is not possible. have been edited by Pandit Anantakrishna Sastri and published by Parimal Publications. if not impossible. What the MAdhvas. 03 April 2010. it is hard. And 2 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . of BrahmAnanda in his GauDabrahmAnandI (laghuchandrikA) commentary on the advaita-siddhi.brahma-sUtra. siddhi-vyAkhyA. the great logician from Bengal. All these works.hindudharmaforums.1.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. But it must also be mentioned that. have done is to express misunderstandings. they can possibly be misunderstood. I endeavor here to present some glimpses of the advaita-siddhi's great treasures. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 09:20 PM. GauDa-brahmAnandI.2) is a "vastu-tantra". and of ViTThala upAdhyAya in his commentary on the laghu-chandrikA. advaitins should remove all misunderstandings. Thus Om is certainly the Self. sarasvatI knows the limits of(knowledge of) MadhusUdana sarasvatI. consulting the explanations of Balabhadra BhaTTAchArya in his advaita-siddhi-vyAkhyA. to do justice to such a monumental work as the advaita-siddhi.Advaita Siddhi . a doctrine based on facts. the dvaitins. beyond apprehension through ordinary means.bhAshhya 1. in some cases at least. a doctrine based on the knowledge of an individual. MadhusUdana sarasvatI is a towering giant among advaitins. all in the original Sanskrit. and also the viTThaleshopAdhyAyI commentary on the GauDa-brahmA-nandI. Delhi.php?t=5562 __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. and no advaitin has done this better than MadhusUdana namely the advaita-siddhi. A few words about the authors. Shankara states that his doctrine of brahmajnAna (brahmajnAnamapi vastutantrameva . 11:27 AM #2 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. the cessation of the phenomenal world. treasures that are to be cherished for all time. it appears that the misunderstandings are not genuine misunderstandings but misunderstandings introduced on purpose to A) misrepresent advaita first and then. One can raise objections against individual opinions but facts cannot be objected to. In a forum like this one. One can possibly express ignorance of facts but not argue against them. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Consciousness. the author of siddhi-vyAkhyA. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 08:33 PM. the auspicious and the non-dual. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. Thus Om is certainly the Self. Finally.h gadAdharaH || When MadhusUdana. including a lucid commentary on the gItA called gUDhArtha-dIpikA. He learned mImAMsA from mAdhava sarasvatI. vedAnta from rAmatIrtha. Apart from the advaita-siddhi which is MadhusUdana's "crest-jewel". He who is realized by the undifferentiated (undivided) direct experience arising from the mahAvAkyas of 3 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . came to navadvIpa. He who is the substratum (basis) of the world of duality beginning with the notion of cognizer (mAtR^i).Advaita Siddhi .com/showthread. and Bliss. and took sannyAsa dIxA from vishveshvara sarasvatI. a brAhmaNa of the Konkan region.abhUd. which he wrote as a response to the nyAyAmR^ita of the mAdhva exponent.hindudharmaforums. and a work called "advaita-ratna-laxana". vyAsatIrtha. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. a refutation of the work "bheda-ratna" by the logician shankara mishra. has also placed the followers of advaita under his debt for writing a lucid commentary on the gaUDa-brahmAnandI. Balabhadra BhaTTAchArya.of duality that is false and fabricated by mAyA. BrahmAnanda was the student of nArAyaNa tIrtha.php?t=5562 MadhusUdana sarasvatI knows the limits of (knowledge of) Goddess sarasvatI! He is said to have had three illustrious gurus. He whose nature is Existence. the cessation of the phenomenal world. 11:30 AM #3 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. beyond apprehension through ordinary means. the author of gauDabrahmAnandI (laghu-chandrikA). MadhusUdana was so accomplished in navya-nyAya (logic) techniques that the following verse is quoted about him when he visited navadvIpa. the center for learning in nyAya-shAstra. he is said to have written numerous other works. MathurAnAtha tarkavAgIsha (who was the foremost navya naiyAyika during those times) trembled (with fear) and GadAdhara (another logician of great repute) became afraid. BrahmAnanda. MadhusUdana demonstrates his ability as a master logician in the advaita-siddhi. the master of speech. 03 April 2010.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi The First Definition of Unreality || shrIvishhNave namaH || Verse 1 of the advaita-siddhi mAyAkalpita-mAtR^itA-mukha-mR^ishhA-dvaitaprapaJNchAshrayaH satya-GYAna-sukhAtmakaH shrutishikhottha-akhaNDadhIgocharaH | mithyA-bandha-vidhUnanena paramAnandaika-tAnAtmakaM mokshhaM prApta iva svayaM vijayate vishhNurvikalporjjhitaH ||1 || Translation based on siddhivyAkhyA of Balabhadra bhaTTAchArya and GauDa-brahmAnandI (laghu-chandrikA) of BrahmAnanda VishhNu shines supreme. ViTThalesha upAdhyAya. wrote the work as a response to the nyAyAmR^ita-taraN^giNI of the dvaitin (dualist) rAmAchArya. a student of MadhusUdana. is said to have a been a favorite student of MadhusUdana.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. navadvIpe samAyAte madhusUdanavAkpatau chakampe tarkavAgIshaH kAtaro .

also called pervasion.h dhUmAt. where there is smoke there is fire. the ground (bhUtalam. bhUtale ghaTo vartate. "the mountain possesses smoke which is an invariable concomitant of fire" . An inference (anumAna). parvato vahnimAn. as it were. and the relation is "contact". and the other is a subjunct or anuyogin. and the pakshha is parvata (mountain).h In polemical treatises and debates. must be a result of an instrumental cause (karaNa) and an operation (vyApAra). In the inference. It is defined by the bhAshhA-parichchheda (of VishvanAtha) as: vyAptiH sAdhyavadanyasminn-asaMbandha udAhR^itaH | Invariable concomitance is said to be the absence of relation of the (hetu) to anything other than what possesses the sAdhya. Here the relation should be the same as the relation under consideration for the vyApti. the parAmarsha will be of the form. Here. smoke is an invariable concomitant of fire (or smoke is "pervaded" by fire) because it is not the case that there is something that has smoke but not fire. 2) the hetu or linga. Relations such as inherence (samavAya) are always occurrence exacting. and He who becomes free from all variety. that in which the hetu is known to occur. Two types of absences (abhAva) are distinguished in navya-nyAya. must have an instrumental cause and an operation by which the cause brings about the inference. In relation between two entities. samavAya or inherence is the relation between a whole and its parts. One is called anyonya-abhAva that is essentially a denial of identity between to entities. ie. A relation between two entities is often explained as the superimposition of one entity on the other. fire is not an invariable concomitant of smoke. Sanskrit names for "substratum" is AdhAra or Ashraya or adhikaraNa. the concomitant. the entity that is superimposed is called the superstratum or Adheya. there are evident three terms. "smoke is the invariable concomitant of fire"." The definition of vyApti is very important. If a relation is such that one entity is a locus or substratum (AdhAra) of the other which must be the superstratum (Adheya). For example. one of the entities is an adjunct or pratiyogin. In the standard form of inference.hindudharmaforums. vyApAra is the consideration (parAmarsha) that is knowledge of the occurrence of the concomitant in the subject (pakshha) where the inference is being made. In the inference. (1) Review of navya nyAya concepts A review of some concepts and terms from nyAya is in order before we proceed further. The Adheya is the adjunct or pratiyogin.h is the anuyogin. etc. "the mountain possesses fire because of smoke. the three terms are placed as follows: pakshha sAdhya-with-possessive-suffix hetu-in-ablative-case For example. However. In the process of inference.h.php?t=5562 vedAnta.h. Process of inference: Every noneternal entity. the sAdhya is vahni (fire). that is a means to knowledge of man and hence noneternal. there are three 4 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM .h. the hetu is smoke. "the mountain has fire because of smoke". parvato vahnimAn. and 3) the subject or pakshha.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. "the mountain has fire because of smoke. and the instrumental cause is the knowledge of invariable concomitance (vyApti). ghaTa is the pratiyogin while bhUtalam. manifoldness (vikalpa). Another way of looking at relations (saMbandha) is to differentiate between what Ingalls calls "occurrence-exacting" and "non occurrence exacting" relations. He who by shaking off the false bonds (of mAyA) has attained. "the mountain possesses fire because it has smoke".com/showthread. called 1) sAdhya or that which is to be proved. In the inference. In the example. This vyApti corresponds very roughly to logical implication in Western logic. then the AdhAra is the subjunct or anuyogin. In the example. "there is a pot on the ground". Here. The operation.Advaita Siddhi . bhUtale ghaTaH. parvato vahnimAn. an inference is stated tersely by listing the inference (conclusion) followed by a single word representing the application of the consideration and the invariable concomitance. according to nyAya. So fire is not an invariable concomitant of smoke. "the mountain possesses fire because it has smoke".h dhUmAt. mokshha wholly consisting of supreme bliss. a genus or class (jAti) and a particular instance of the class. the superstratum is the pot (ghaTa). karaNa is the knowledge of the invariable concomitance. As per this definition of vyApti. the operation is called parAmarsha or consideration.h) is the substratum or locus. "there is a pot on the ground".parvato vahni-vyApya-dhUmavAn." In every inference. the instrumental cause. Please see "Materials for the study of Navya Nyaya Logic" by Ingalls or "The Navya-Nyaya doctrine of negation" by Bimal Krishna Matilal for more details. The other is saMsarga-abhAva or relational absence. There are things such as a red-hot iron rod that has fire but no smoke. Contact (saMyoga) can sometimes be occurrence exacting but sometimes not. vahni-vyApyo dhUmaH.h dhUmAt. saMyoga. The entity on which the Adheya is superimposed is called substratum or locus.

After a brief digression of navya-nyAya. daNDo nimitta-kAraNaM ghatasya. "the mountain has fire.h. we will now look at the first definition of mithyAtva (unreality) that comes under attack from the mAdhva opponent. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. the AdheyatA in vahni (fire) is said to be described by parvata but this AdheyatA is said to be limited (avachchhinna) by vahnitva or fire-ness. vishhaya (content of knowledge).objections Earlier. one may write sAdhyatva to mean "the property of being a sAdhya" or "sAdhya-ness". A sentence of the form. The terms pratiyogin and anuyogin are also used in the context of absences. parvato vahnimAn. The most characteristic terms of navya-nyAya are "avachchhedaka" (limitor) and "avachchhinna" (limited). This definition is the one 5 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . So a navya-naiyAyika would write: parvata-nishhTha-adhikaraNatA sA vahni-nirUpita-parvatatva. ground.avachchhinna-adhikaraNatA. vishhayin (knowledge). beyond apprehension through ordinary means. MadhusUdana set forth the objective of establishing the unreality (mithyAtva) of duality (dvaita). pot. parvato vahnimAn. the pratiyogin of the absence is "ghaTa".Advaita Siddhi ." Here. such as a pot (ghaTa). "there is no pot on the ground". 11:31 AM #4 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. and 3) atyanta-abhAva. "the mountain is a locus or substratum of fire". An entity.h.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi The first definition of mithyAtva .php?t=5562 kinds: 1) prAgabhAva. 2) dhvamsAbhAva. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.hindudharmaforums. vahninishhThAdheyatA sA parvata-nirUpita-vahnitva-avachchhinnAdheyatA | The adhikaraNatA in mountain is described by fire and limited by parvatatva (mountain-ness). but naiyAyikas often write "pratiyogin" for both relational and absential adjuncts. A generic relational abstract may also be limited. pakshha. and the anuyogin is "bhUtalam. the assertion is not with respect to a specific pot and stick.h". etc. The assertion is generally about all sticks and pots. the absence of a thing after it is destroyed. but this adhikaraNatA is said to be limited (avachchhinna) by parvatatva. prakAra (chief qualifier). Or parvata-nishhTha-adhikaraNatA sA vahni-nishhThAdheyatA nirUpitA | The adhikaraNatA resident in parvata is described by the AdheyatA (superstratum-ness) resident in fire. Thus Om is certainly the Self. "the mountain (parvata) has fire (vahni)". the mountain is a substratum (adhikaraNa) of fire which is the superstratum (Adheya). When we say "bhUtale ghaTo nAsti". eternal absence. The adhikaraNatA in parvata is described by vahni (fire). visheshhaNa (qualifier). These terms are used in the context of relational abstracts or abstract properties. the auspicious and the non-dual.h | Stick-ness is the limitor of instrumentalcause-ness described by pot. can be first rewritten as parvato vahnyadhikaraNam. or in other words the unreality of the world (jaganmithyAtva). and the AdheyatA in fire is described by mountain and limited by vahnitva (fire-ness). hetutva or "the property of being a hetu" or "hetu-ness". In the sentence. "a stick is the instrumental cause of a pot". For example. visheshhya (qualificand). 03 April 2010. the cessation of the phenomenal world. The abstract properties or relational abstracts of these are formed by simply adding the suffix. This is then analyzed by the naiyAyika as follows: parvata-nishhTha-adhikaraNatA sA vahni-nirUpitA | The adhikaraNatA resident in parvata is described by vahni. Some of the properties that are commonly used in naiyAyika literature are those that correspond to the terms sAdhya. is said to be qualified by a qualifier.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. So the naiyAyika writes: daNDatvaM ghaTa-nirUpita-nimitta-kAraNatva-avachchhedakam. the absence of a thing before it is brought into being. "tva" or "tA" to each term. Similarly. etc. The pratiyogin of this type should be called "abhAvIya-pratiyogin" to distinguish it from the relational adjunct. adhikaraNa (locus). but a relational abstract is said to be limited by a limitor. hetu. Let us take the same

h "mithyAshabdo.h. Thus Om is certainly the 6 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . vishishhTa-abhAva-sAdhane siddha-sAdhanAt. just like the Brahman without attributes.the absolute absence of existence and the absolute absence of non-existence? nAdyaH.hindudharmaforums. ie. Ahosvit. this would lead to (the defect of) arthAntara. na dvitIyaH.pagamAt. (Also). In the silver-in-nacre (example of illusion that is often quoted by advaitins to show the ontological status of the world).vishishhTasattvAbhAvaH. uta sattvAtyantAbhAva-asattva-atyanta. ie. MadhusUdana now begins his reply thus: iti chet. whose nature is sublatibility (contradicted-ness). shuktirUpye abAdhyatvarUpasattvavyatirekasya sattvena bAdhyatvarUpa-asattvasya vyatireka-asiddhyA sAdhyavaikalyAchcha | (You) cannot (claim) the second.vaikalyAchcha For the very same reason(s) as before. this leads to the defectiveness of (your) sAdhya. absolute absence of non-existence. advaita-siddhi --------------.anirvachanIyatAvachana" iti panchapAdikAvachanAt. beyond apprehension through ordinary means. this leads to a contradiction.h sattvAtyantaabhAvavatve sati asattva-atyanta-abhAvarUpaM vishishhTam. na tAvat.h If this is what you say. What is "not being the substratum of existence or non-existence"? Is it 1) the absence of existence qualified by non-existence or 2) the pair of attributes of (a). and defectiveness of the sAdhya. absolute absence of existence and the absolute absence of nonexistence) cannot (be claimed) because of the fallacies of contradiction (violation of the law of the excluded middle).com/showthread. the third (alternative in defining mithyAtva. there the presence of the other is necessary. sattva-asattvayorekAbhAve aparasattva-avashyakatvena vyAghAtAt. maivam.h. what (you) seek to prove.php?t=5562 given by PadmapAdAchArya in his PanchapAdikA.h. arthAntarAtsAdhya. the cessation of the phenomenal world.atha prathamamithyAtva-vichAraH | The opponent criticizes the definition of mithyAtva as follows: nanu kimidaM mithyAtvaM sAdhyate. (you commit the flaw of) proving what is already established (siddha-sAdhana).api sadrUpatvena amithyAtvopapattyA arthAntarAchcha. by (its very) nature of existence. taddhi kiM asatva. being a common substratum of the attributes .h | Now. wherever there is an absence of one of existence and nonexistence. nirdharmakabrahmavatsattvaasattva-rAhitye . even being without the attributes. Because.Advaita Siddhi . the common substratum of the attributes. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. is established as NOT unreal. is NOT established.h sadasad. the non-definability being of the nature of NOT being the substratum (adhikaraNa) of either existence or non-existence. what is this unreality (mithyAtva) that (you) want to infer (as characterizing the world)? This unreality is by no means non-definability as defined by the statement of the panchapAdikA that the word mithyA (unreal) is denoted by non-definability. or 3) the property of the absolute absence of nonexistence during the absolute absence of existence. the auspicious and the non-dual. pUrvavadvyAghAtAt.h.anadhikaraNatvarUpamanirvAchyatvam. sattvamAtrAdhAre jagatyasattvavishishhTasattva-anabhyu. absolute absence of existence and (b).Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. (but) the absence of nonexistence. it is unjustified. proving something other than what is intended.abhAvarUpaM dharmadvayam. (we grant that) it (silver-nacre) is without existence whose nature is non-sublatability (noncontradictedness). And by proving the absence of existence as qualified by non-existence. existence and nonexistence.h | (You) cannot (claim) the first (regarding the world) because the world is the substratum of only existence (sattva) and existence qualified by non-existence is not admitted. the world. proving something other than what is to be proved. ata eva na tR^itIyaH.h.

or 3) they are mutually pervaded by each other's absence (one is the invariable concomitant of the other's absence). He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. is NOT nonexistence. There is NO contradiction too.Advaita Siddhi . or future. paraspara. 11:33 AM #5 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. (This is) because the negation of nonexistence which is sublatable (always) does not form part of what is to be established (sAdhya).h | nApi vyAghAtaH.) there is no contradiction too (here) because there is no mutual negation between (existence and nonexistence). (PS: Recall the definition of vyApti in the third part of this series. MadhusUdana disagrees and starts his counter-argument. present. tathAcha trikAlAbAdhyavilaxaNatve sati kvachidapyupAdhau sattvena pratIyamAnatvarUpaM sAdhyaM paryavasitam. The negation of that (nonexistence) is what is intended to be (part of) what is to be proved.h | tadvyatirekashcha sAdhyatvena vivaxitaH | There is no (presence of the) first condition. it is (capable of) being cognized as existing in some | tathAhyatra trikAlAbAdhyatva. and this anirvachanIyatva can further be explained as sadasadanadhikaraNatva. It is so (not accepted) because the negation of existence. (What does form part of the sAdhya is the negation of nonexistence which consists in not being cognized in any locus or substratum at any time).h | nacha vyAhatiH | In the intended meaning of "sadasad-anadhikaraNa" (not being the substratum of existence or nonexistence) as "the pair of attributes. parasparavirahavyApyatayA vA | That (contradiction could result) only if 1) existence and nonexistence mutually negate each other or 2) they mutually pervade each other's absence (one's absence is the invariable concomitant of the other). because it is not accepted.h | evaMcha sati na shuktirUpye sAdhyavaikalyamapi | bAdhyatvarUpAsattvavyatirekasya sAdhyApraveshAt.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. parasparaviraharUpatva.h. there is no defect of the sAdhya's (being absent) in silver-in-nacre. (Therefore. kintu kvachidapyupAdhau sattvena pratIyamAnatva-anadhikaraNatvam.dvaya-vivaxAyAM doshhAbhAvAt.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi MadhusUdana's reply Brief recap: We have seen that mithyAtva (unreality) can be defined as anirvachanIyatva (property of not being definable). past.h | The conclusion to be established is that while being different from that which is never sublatable. The opponent lists three ways in which this sadasadanadhikaraNatva may be defined. absolute absence of existence and the absolute absence of nonexistence". but (nonexistence means) NOT being cognized as existing in any substratum (at any time).virahavyApakatayA vA. that is not sublatable at any time.php?t=5562 Self. He finds fault with each of these definitions. not being a substratum of either existence or nonexistence. tadanaN^gIkArAt.hindudharmaforums. MadhusUdana's reply: sattva-atyanta-abhAva-asattva-atyanta-abhAva-rUpa-dharma.abhAvAt. 7 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM .) tatra nAdyaH. And this being so. there is NO defect. (Why?) sA hi sattvAsattvayoH parasparaviraharUpatayA vA. 03 April 2010.sattva-vyatireko nAsattvam. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 12:05 PM.

) cow-ness (the property of being a cow) and horse-ness (property of being a horse) are invariable concomitants of each other's absence (ie. even though existence and nonexistence are invariable concomitants of each other's absence. (For example.asattvavyatirekasya vidyamAnatvena vyabhichArAt. the second condition (under which contradiction can occur) does not hold too.h | The third condition does not cause contradiction. Thus Om is certainly the Self. there is the absence of existence. beyond apprehension through ordinary means..api. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth.h | For this reason. the two properties (of cow-ness and horse-ness) are NOT present in the same locus such as a camel. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.api sadrUpavat.nirdharmakasya brahmaNaH sattvarAhitye . the auspicious and the non-dual. the absences of both CAN occur in the same place.php?t=5562 ata eva na dvitIyo .com/showthread.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. (In order for the concomitance to hold. This is to be thought of. where cow-ness is present. sattvAbhAvavati shuktirUpye vivaxita. but the absence of the nonexistence with the intended definition (as above) is also cognized.prapaJNchasya sadrUpatvenaamithyAtvopapattyA arthAntaraM. the very nature of the world too is existence. ie.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi No arthAntara After rejecting the claim made by the opponent that the definitions of sadasadanadhikaraNatva are faulty.Advaita Siddhi .) (The requirement for such concomitance to hold is not satisfied) due to deviation (vyabhichAra). gotva-ashvatvayoH parasparavirahavyApyatve . horse-ness is absent and where horse-ness is present. MadhusUdana next shows that the charge made regarding arthAntara is also not valid. the world and due to (this) there is NO contradiction.hindudharmaforums. MadhusUdana's reply (continued): yachcha . Balabhadra clarifies: tatashcha sattva-asattvayoH parasparavirahavyApyatve . Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 12:13 PM. etc. and (the absences of cow-ness and horse-ness are) perceived thus together (in the same locus).) nApi tR^itIyaH tasya vyAghAta-aprayojakatvAt.api tadabhAvayor-ushhTrAdAvekatra sahopalaMbhAt. nonexistence would have to be present when existence is absent.api tadabhAvayorekatra prapaJNche saMbhavAnna vyAhatiriti dhyeyam.H| And therefore. 03 April 2010. 11:35 AM #6 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4.uktam. the cessation of the phenomenal world. cow-ness is absent).h.h| tanna | And the (opponent) said: Just as the attributeless Brahman lacks existence (as an attribute) but (Its) very nature is existence. This establishes that the world is not mithyA (unreal). since in (illusory things such as) the silverin-nacre. Even so. By 8 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . (There can be no invariable concomitance of the absence of existence or nonexistence with the other.

Next. we have seen how MadhusUdana refutes the charge of arthAntara.positive AND the difference that nonexistence as its counter-positive.) (Therefore. the naiyAyika would search for a common term or common concept to represent this common property and then refer to each of those things as possessing that common property. the naiyAyika-logician is always looking for anugata dharma's or common properties to explain things. a lotus is blue. (we may define) the sAdhya (the unreality of duality. ie. it is entirely equivalent to the one accepted so far. An explanation using a single non-dual Reality is superior even from this strictly logical viewpoint. It must be noted that this alternative definition is not a new definition." This theory would be too heavy.arthAntara. In the previous part of the series. and so on. explaining.h prapaJNchasya pratyekaM satsvabhAvatAkalpena mAnAbhAvAt." 2) If the reality of each and every thing in the world is admitted.anyatarAtmakatve vA. This is directly related to the principle of "Occam's razor" as used in the West. Such a system wherein a number of things are explained using fewer concepts is said to have the advantage of "lAghava" or light-ness as compared to a system where a greater number of concepts are required. the claim that we would be committing the fallacy of arthAntara is not correct. When a property occurs in a number of different things. (We say): It is not so. in which case a defect of "gaurava" or heaviness is said to prevail. MadhusUdana: satpratiyogika-asatpratiyogikabhedadvayaM vA sAdhyam. then it would take a significant number of "real" entities to explain what is meant by "reality. the opponent says that just as Brahman is by Its very nature existence. In keeping with the principle of "lAghava" or lightness rather than heaviness. mithyAtva) to be the difference that has existence as its counter.) MadhusUdana is making a crucial point here regarding what is technically called anugata-dharma or consecutive property in nyAya. the naiyAyika would make "blue-ness" a common property and say that the pot possesses "blue-ness". 9 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . the lotus possesses "blue-ness".Advaita Siddhi . the Buddhists. In the case at hand. And a contingency would arise due to the lack of a comprehensive system (of understanding.hindudharmaforums. ie.) And there is no scope for (charging us with) arthAntara due to this because such difference from both (existence and nonexistence) or difference from one of them is not possible (according to our other opponents. tAdR^igbheda-asaMbhavena tAbhyAmarthAntara-anavakAshaH | Alternatively. One does not get the idea "this pot that I see now is eternally existent and is never sublated. mithyAtva is that which is different from existence AND different from nonexistence as well.php?t=5562 this (it follows that you will have) established something other (than what you wanted to) . if a pot is blue. and the view of VAchaspati Mishra in the nyAyavArttikatAtparyaTIkA). If I can explain a certain number of things using some hypotheses and you can explain the same things using fewer hypotheses than mine. MadhusUdana alternatively defines mithyAtva as the absolute difference from sattva and the absolute difference from asattva. the absolute absence of sattva and the absolute absence of asattva. MadhusUdana points out two problems with this claim: 1) There is no comprehension of the existence of individual things in the world as Brahman is. the duality in the world is also similarly by its very nature existence and hence real.h | tathAcha ubhayAtmakatve . suffer from the defect of "gaurava" because of the lack of a common property or anugata dharma. MadhusUdana shows how mithyAtva can be redefined so that the opponent cannot even dream (no pun intended!) of making the charge of arthAntara. anugata-vyavahAra-abhAva-prasaN^gAchcha | The understanding of sat (existence) as encompassing everything and everywhere is established by One (principle). then your explanation is better than mine. ekenaiva sarvAnugatena sarvatra satpratItyupapattau brahmavat. proving something other than what he intended to.the logicians.h. (Simply put. and a cloth is For example. The alternate definition makes use of mutual absence or anyonya-abhAva as opposed to atyanta-abhAva in the first definition.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. and discussing a large number of things and topics. (But) each and every thing in the world cannot be proved to be comprehended as (pure) existence in the same way as Brahman.

the partial siddha-sAdhana arises from the fact that the realists. in the sense that the world is absolutely real. is already proved. let us hear the unassailable reply of MadhusUdana: __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www.h | "guNAdikaM guNyAdinA bhinnAbhinnaM samAnAdhikR^itatvAt. aMshataH siddha-sAdhana.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi Advaita Siddhi text contd.) Without further ado. the opponent claims. including the navya-naiyAyikas and the mAdhvas. We HAVE to consider the combined difference from existence and nonexistence. tathA prakR^ite . dR^ishyatva (perceptiblity). MadhusUdana refuted these objections. 11:36 AM #7 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: beyond apprehension through ordinary means. level another charge against MadhusUdana's definition. what is to be established.hindudharmaforums.asattvavyatireka-aMshasya-asadbhedasya cha prapaJNche siddhattvena-aMshataH siddhasAdhanamiti . however. The opponent could. But. that which cannot be categorized as sat or asat. By defining sadasadanadhikaraNatva as the difference from existence and difference from nonexistence. the hetu. More specifically. the sAdhya in this case CANNOT be split into two terms A and B.yathA na siddha-sAdhanaM. the cessation of the phenomenal world. The opponent had raised the objection of arthAntara against the definition of mithyAtva or sadasadanadhikaraNatva. say B. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 11:03 PM. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. Thus Om is certainly the Self. Why? Because. In defining mithyAtva. ie. Your proof will be partially redundant and one of the worst mistakes a logician can commit is being redundant! Here. 03 April 2010. if you seek to prove A AND B. Text: nacha . the auspicious and the non-dual.h" iti bhedAbhedavAdiprayoge tArkikAdyaN^gIkR^itasya bhinnatvasya siddhAvapi uddeshya-pratItyasiddher. So the part of the advaitin's proof which establishes absolute difference from nonexistence is redundant. namely the absolute difference from existence and the absolute difference from nonexistence which rules out any possibility of arthAntara (proving something other than what is intended). this was defined to be sadasadanadhikaraNatva.Advaita Siddhi . there is at least a defect of proving something a part of which has already been proved. as the mithyAtva of duality.h | 10 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . already have accepted the world's absolute difference from nonexistence.php?t=5562 No aMshataH siddhasAdhana (no partially redundant proof) MadhusUdana set the sAdhya. the unreality of duality. your proof will have the defect of partial siddhasAdhana. when you know that one of the two.vAchyam. not being a substratum of either existence or non-existence.nna siddha-sAdhanam. such that each can be independently proved. He also offered an alternative definition of sadasadanadhikaraNatva. MithyAtva is defined here as anirvachanIya. MadhusUdana explains. (Recall that the sAdhya is to be inferred from the invariable concomitance of the hetu with the sAdhya. one of the definitions taken up was the one from the panchapAdikA of PadmapAda. For example. which was clarified by MadhusUdana to be the absolute absence of sattva and the absolute absence of asattva.api militapratIteruddeshyatvA. in this case is the hetu for the CONJUNCTION (or combination) of absolute difference from existence AND absolute difference from nonexistence.

or equivalently.h | Translation: (And you) cannot charge that there is the defect of partial siddha-sAdhana (aMshataH siddhasAdhana) because the part (of the proof) consisting of (establishing) the absence of asattva (nonexistence) and the difference from nonexistence (in the alternative definition) is already established regarding the world. (You may say that the CONJUNCTION of ours is not justified. the bhATTas.hindudharmaforums. they say. the auspicious and the non-dual. no!) In the case of identical things such as a "pot" and a "jar" (which are terms that stand for the same thing)." (Therefore. even though the difference (of a quality from its possessor) is already proved.) the conjunction of difference and nondifference is intended to be established. they (the mAdhvas) say: "the quality and its possessor are different and non-different from each other because they can be cognized to be related by a relation of non-difference. Without such familiarity. of absence of sattva and absence of asattva). Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 11:07 PM. perceptibility (which is the hetu) and (so) the establishing of that CONJUNCTION is what is intended. difference from sattva and difference from asattva) is a prayojaka (a necessary factor) for dR^ in (our) present case (of establishing absence of sattva AND the absence of asattva) too.) Similarly. there is no cognition of difference and nondifference of the form "The pot is the jar." (So.php?t=5562 yathA tattvAbhede ghaTaH kuMbha iti sAmAnAdhi. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. tathA prakR^ite . The (mAdhvas) hold that a quality and the substance that possesses that quality are different AND non-different from each other. sAnkhyas. (This is your stand.karaNya-pratIteradarshanena militasiddhiruddeshyA.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi The Second Definition of Unreality The Second Definition Continuing with the series on the advaita-siddhi. 03 April 2010. we will next study the second definition of mithyAtva that is defended by MadhusUdana SarasvatI. etc. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. Thus Om is certainly the Self.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. the cessation of the phenomenal world. In arguing with the tArkikas (the naiyAyikas.h | 11 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . Similarly. the discussion below may not make much sense at all! advaita-siddhi text: pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhapratiyogitvaM vA mithyAtvam.) who accept the difference (of a quality from the possessor of the quality).) there is no siddha-sAdhana because the intended cognition (CONJUNCTION of difference and nondifference of a quality and its possessor) is NOT proved .) conjunction (of absence of sattva and absence of asattva. It is especially useful to be familiar with basic nyAya terminology as explained in the third and fourth parts of the series. (Therefore. So (we) cannot (be charged with) siddha-sAdhana (redundancy in reasoning).api sattvarahite tuchchhe dR^ishyatva-adarshanena militasya tatprayojakatayA militasiddhiruddeshyeti samAnam. But we say. beyond apprehension through ordinary means. the cognition that is intended (to be proved) is CONJUNCTION (combination of absence of sattva and absence of asattva). 11:42 AM #8 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. perceptibility is not (a characteristic of) a totally nonexistent thing that lacks existence (sattva).Advaita Siddhi . in the present case (ie.

PrakAshAtman. a chimera such as the horns of a hare. The Objection in brief: The objection by the opponent is aimed to trap the advaitin in an unrecoverable position by pointing out defects in any assignment of ontological status to the negation (sublation) used in the second definition of the mithyAtva. and future) in the very substratum where it (the thing) is cognized. The mithyAtva of the world is akin to the illusion of the snake over a rope or silver in nacre. mithyAtva is sadasadvilaxaNa. vyAvahArikatve . the Vedaanta paribhaashhaa of dharmaraaja adhvarin: yadvaa trividhaM sattvaM -. As per the first definition. which includes space etc. One important point to remember is that the in order for a thing to be mithyA or unreal according to this definition. the reality of the world).h.php?t=5562 Alternatively. and it will never be there in the future!" This is the mithyAtva (unreality) of the world that is being talked about. it is not there now.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. mithyAtva (unreality) of something is that which is the counter-positive or absential adjunct (pratiyogin) of an absolute negation (a negation for all three periods of time. present. etc. such as the world. MithyAtva is different from these two. is praatibhaasika satya. it MUST be cognized or perceived in some susbtratum. and the illusory appearance of silver in nacre (oyster-shell). what is alIka or a fictitious entity is NOT the mithyAtva that is used to describe the world. one exclaims "The snake is unreal. then the basic principle of advaita (non-dualism) is destroyed! (If the absolute negation) is only illusory (prAtibhAsika).com/showthread. if the absolute negation (of a thing. This is a necessary condition for something to be called mithyA. The first definition of mithyAtva is refined by the second definition. the empirical reality of the objective world. Upon realizing that the snake is illusory. The snake was never there to begin with. Even (if the absolute negation) is empirical (vyAvahArika). Rather it is asat.api tasya bAdhyatvena tAttvikasattvAvirodhitayA arthAntaraM. the author of the PanchapAdikA-vivaraNa. What is perceived is called mithyA.hindudharmaforums. As in the case of the first definition of mithyAtva.paaramaarthikasattvaM brahmaNaH. It is important to understand this definition and the significance of the terms involved. advaitashruter. is vyaavahaarika satya. "neha nAnAstI"tyAdishrutyarthe vivadamAnaM prati sAdhyAntaramAha". And Brahman is sat. past. That which can never be perceived.Advaita Siddhi . you will be proving something other than what you intended because (such negation) will not be opposed to the absolute 12 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . for example. pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhasya tAttvikatve advaita.. ie. This is the second definition of mithyAtva that is taken up by MadhusUdana in his defense of mithyAtva of dvaita. All that the first definition really says is that mithyA is something that is different from the absolutely real Brahman and from a fictitious entity. The second definition refines the first by saying that the thing that is mithyA is 1) sublated in the very locus where it is cognized and 2) and it is sublated so for ALL times. advaita-siddhi text: nanu. The second definition comes from the VivaraNAchArya. Objections to the second definition The objection of the opponent is based on the acceptance by advaitins of three orders of reality as defined in. vyaavahaarikaM sattvamaakaashaadeH. then you are proving what is already established (ie.atattvAvedakatvaM cha tatpratiyoginaH prAtibhAsikasya prapaJNchasya pAramArthikatvaM cha syAt. as BrahmAnanda says in his gauDabrahmAnandI. is NOT being called mithyA. the thing that is mithyA should be 1) cognized in some locus (substratum) and 2) be sublated (negated) at some time. praatibhaasikaM sattvaM shuktirajataadeH | The absolute reality of Brahman is paaramaarthika satya. Translation: Objection by the opponent: Now.hAniH prAtibhAsikatve siddha-sAdhanaM. that is being called mithyA as per the second definition) is absolutely real (pAramArthika). This alternative definition is based on shruti statements such as "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana".

So what is the result of accepting the world as pAramArthika and the negation of the world as vyAvahArika? These are the defects. Any such denial is erroneous. The shruti texts that are non-dualistic will be incapable of revealing the truth. Now. The opponent says: You define three orders of reality . Let us examine the opponent's objection in a little more detail. This compromises the non-duality principle.pAramArthika. 2) The negation of the world is prAtibhAsika. the absolute absence of the (erroneously) cognized negation is already established (in another system). In essence. And (if it be claimed that) the world is illusory. In other words. then you have two such realities . BrahmAnanda explains: siddha-sAdhanamiti | kapAle ghaTo nAstItyAdibhrame prAtItikasya. and so the world can only be pAramArthika. (A whole is said "inhere" in its parts as per nyAya.atyantAbhAvasya vishhayatvena siddha-sAdhanamityarthaH | siddha-sAdhana means that in cases of erroneous cognition or illusion such as denying the pot in its parts.php?t=5562 reality (of the world). In this case. This point is stated by BrahmAnanda as: prAtibhAsikatva-asaMbhavena pAramArthikatvameva balAtsyAditi bhAvaH | (Since the world) cannot possibly be illusory it is forced to be absolutely real (pAramArthika) only. So a whole. what you are saying is that the negation of the world will itself get sublated upon realization of Brahman. the world is prAtibhAsika or illusory. you have siddha-sAdhana-doshha. if you say the negation of the world is illusory or erroneous. illusory. if you say the negation is illusory. BrahmAnanda explains the objection: advaita-hAniH "neha nAne"tyAdishrutibodhitasya brahmaNi dR^ishyasAmAnyAbhAvasya virodhaH (There is) damage to the principle of non-duality as known from shruti statements such as "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" (there is no manifold-ness here whatsoever) (because) of the contradiction due to the common absence of the "perceived" (dR^ishya). vyAvahArika. And you have defined mithyAtva as the counterpositive-ness of the absolute negation (for all periods of time) in the very substratum where the thing that is mithyA is cognized. such as a pot.Advaita Siddhi . What does this mean? The world itself CANNOT be vyAvahArika because it is absurd (a contradiction) to say that the world as well as its negation get sublated upon Brahman realization. In this case.hindudharmaforums. you run into problems. First. Again. ViTThalesha explains why the world cannot be illusory when he comments on the term "prAtibhAsikatvaasaMbhavena" of BrahmAnanda: brahmaGYAnAnyAbAdhyatvAditi (The world cannot be illusory) because (it is admitted by the advaitin) to remain un-sublated (not negated) by anything other than knowledge of Brahman. So you are committing the mistake of siddha-sAdhana. you have a direct contradiction with the non-dual principle of and prAtibhAsika.) In other words. cannot be denied in its parts. such as the negation of a pot in its two halves.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www.1) Brahman. If the negation of the world is pAramArthika. Either the world or its negation can get sublated at the same time but not both! Therefore. such a position is already admitted by another system. 3)The negation of the world is vyAvahArika. This is the purport (of the opponent). In this case. you will have 13 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . you would like to categorize the world as mithyA. the world is pAramArthika or absolutely real OR (b). that is already admitted by the realist schools. (that will not hold) and (the world) would have absolute reality (pAramAthikatva). you are left with two possibilities – (a). is this negation vyAvahArika (empirical) ? Regardless of the type of reality you assign to this negation. what reality do you assign to such a negation of the world? 1) Is this negation pAramArthika (absolutely real)? 2) Is this negation prAtibhAsika (illusory) ? 3) Or. But you deny the world is illusory. and 2) the said negation of the world. 1) The negation of the world is pAramArthika.

187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi MadhusUdana's reply to the objection to the Second Definition To understand MadhusUdana's reply to the objection (advaita-siddhi 12)." So what is being denied ultimate reality is the "blueness" and "potness" of the object but not pure existence indicated by "is". "the cloth is" (san. yadvishhayA vyabhicharati tat." What is illusion is "the blue pot. constant.Advaita Siddhi . such as a pot.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. Thus Om is certainly the Self. and "the cloth is". and permanent factor among all cognitions.php?t=5562 established the world as absolutely real which is different from what you set out to prove. "the pot is" (san. This Existence is the common.h ghaTaH). beyond apprehension through ordinary means. In another cognition. the auspicious and the non-dual. and permanent is the factor. MadhusUdana now begins his reply: iti chet. the permanent factor is " is" which indicates the underlying existence. Generalizing this to all cognitions." What is an illusion has to do with "the cloth.] In the cognition. but the moment you start associating them with names and forms. unchanging.h paTaH). What is an illusion is "the pot". Shankara states in his commentary on gItA 2. In response to the objection of the opponent.hindudharmaforums. 14 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . Another type of cognition tries to assert an adjective or attribute of an object. What is cognized is just this permanent factor but it is falsely understood to be a pot by the super-imposition (adhyAsa) of the name-and-form on the underlying Existence (sat). the illusion begins. the shruti texts that speak of non-duality such as "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" will have to be accepted as NOT revealing the ultimate truth because they can only reveal what is empirical ( vyAvahArika). [Please note that Shankara's usage of asat corresponds to mithyA. all objects are real as far as they are treated as pure existence. constant. between the cognitions "the pot is". the negation of the world." What we see above is a cognition where the cognizer gives a name to a cognized object.h sat.h asat. we say no! __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. That cognition which does not change is real (sat) and that which changes is unreal (mithyA)." In other words. permanent factor is "is. again what is common.h? na | If this is what you say. "is. "the blue pot is". we need to find out what it means to negate something in the world. sadbuddhiH asadbuddhiH iti | yadvishhayA buddhiH na vyabhicharati tat. and permanent is the factor "is. again the common. 11:44 AM #9 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4. cloth etc. This is the defect of arthAntara. what is common.16: sarvatra buddhidvayopalabdheH. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.cognition of the real and cognition of the unreal. Second. the cessation of the phenomenal world. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 11:11 PM.h.h| There are two cognitions everywhere (in any cognition in the world) . 03 April 2010. In the cognition.

X.hindudharmaforums. vyAvahArika.a real part. The real component (pAramArthika) is identical with Brahman (sat) and the unreal component is of the same order of reality as the world. name-and-form (nAma-rUpa). The bhATTas. The questions are: 1) Is abhAva a category (padArtha) in itself? in other words. The negation of the world has two components. .Advaita Siddhi . of the pot. then there is no damage done to the non-duality principle. we are really only saying that we perceive the ground alone where a pot was supposed to have been present. advaita-siddhi text: prapaJNchanishhedha-adhikaraNIbhUta-brahmAbhinnatvAnnishhedhasya tAtvikatve . can NEVER be So every cognition is made of two parts . and hold that abhAva can be known through standard pramANas such as perception. This means only one thing. 15 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . Existence (Being) and 2) an unreal component that negates only the unreal component. This is essentially what MadhusUdana says. nor is there a pramANa such as anupalabdhi. inference.1) a real component.pratiyoginaH prapaJNchasya tAtvikApattiH. which is Existence. an absence or negation of a pot is being asserted with respect to the ground. we need to examine how negation or absence (abhAva) is treated in different systems. naiyAyikas. E and an unreal part. status of anything in the world may be said to be comprised of two components 1) a Real part and 2) an unreal part. The naiyAyikas and MAdhvas hold that abhAva is a separate category but they do not recognize a separate pramANa like anupalabdhi for it. We will first see how MadhusUdana explains the real component of the negation. We do not perceive such a thing as "absence of pot" on the ground. Here. Shankara assures us that the real part E remains the same for all cognitions while the unreal part X changes. and MAdhvas all accept that the absence of pot on the ground is cognized as separate from the ground. for example. One of the greatest prAbhAkara mImAMsakas.bhUtale ghaTo nAsti.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. So we come to the interesting question: what does it mean to negate something in the world.api na-advaitahAnikaratvam. The unreal component of the negation only negates the unreal component of the world. the substratum. tAtvikAbhAvapratiyogini shuktirajatAdau kalpite vyabhichArAt.h | Translation: (If we hold that) the negation (of the world) is non-different from Brahman which is the substratum of the negation of the world. such as a pot? It is clear that the real component of the pot. shAlikanAtha defines abhAva in the prakaraNa-paJNchikA : dR^ishye pratiyogini yA tadekavishhayA buddhiH sA tadabhAvo vyapadishyate | (prakaraNapaJNchikA) abhAva (negation or absence) is the cognition of the (substratum) alone while the pratiyogin (the thing that is negated) is supposed to have been perceived (had it been present). the substratum itself.h | na cha tAtvikAbhAva. However. consider the sentence "there is no pot on the ground". The prAbhAkaramImAMsakas hold that abhAva is not a category in itself. But the prAbhAkara-mImAMsakas hold that the absence of the pot is really identical to the ground.php?t=5562 Therefore.) An exception (to this rule which proves the rule to be erroneous) is the silver-in-nacre that is (illusory only) and its negation (at the end of illusion) which is real. the unreal name-and-form (nAma-rUpa) component of the pot can be negated. hold that abhAva is a separate category and it is cognized through a separate pramANa called anupalabdhi or non-apprehension. And the world as the counterpositive (pratiyogin) of the absolutely real (pAramArthika) negation cannot be (forced to be) absolutely real (based on an erroneous rule that the pratiyogin of a negation and the negation itself must necessarily belong to the same order of reality. and verbal testimony. The negation of the pot also has two components . For example. do we have a cognition of abhAva? 2) Through what means of cognition (pramANa) is abhAva cognized? The bhATTa-mImAMsakas. When we say "there is no pot on the ground". To understand MadhusUdana's stand. ie.

identical with Brahman. the substratum.187 Reputation: 10120 atanu Member Re: Advaita Siddhi prapaJNchaniShedha (negation of the world) can also be vyAvahArika BRIEF RECAP: MadhusUdana started by accepting the definition of unreality (of the world) as "pratipannaupAdhau traikAlikanishhedha-pratiyogitvam. Last edited by atanu : 03 April 2010 at 12:15 PM. Thus Om is certainly the Self. the cessation of the phenomenal world. ifthe substratum is taken to be nacre.Advaita Siddhi . MadhusUdana now shows how the negation may also be treated as vyAvahArika.h | AdyatrayaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam. 2) Consciousness 3) Bliss. the first three are of the nature of Brahman and the last two (Name and Form) belong to the world.1) a real component. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. and agrees with the PrAbhAkara mImAMsA view of negation that equates the negation with the substratum. how do you classify this absolute negation that you speak of? Is this absolute negation pAramArthika. So the opponent asks: Now. Here the pot which is supposed to have been present but not seen is the pratiyogin. basis of this approach to analyzing the negation is found in such treatises as the dR^ig-dR^ishya-viveka which says: asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAma chetyaMshapaJNchakam. Unreality is that which is subject to absolute negation (negation for all times) in the substratum where it is cognized. is discussed next by MadhusUdana. beyond apprehension through ordinary means. The real component can be identified with Brahman. 4) Name. The unreal component of the negation. 03 April 2010.h narAdishhu | abhinnAssachchidAnandAH bhidyete rUpanAmanI || 21 || 16 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . there is no harm done to the non-duality principle. In doing so. Having shown how the negation can be pAramArthika. and 5) Form.h || 20 || Everything has five factors: 1) Existence. the silver is illusory (prAtibhAsika) but the negation of the silver (at the end of the illusion) is real or vyAvahArika at best which is of a different order of reality. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. This corresponds to the unreal part of the negation. vyAvahArika or prAtibhAsika? We have seen how MadhusUdana has answered this question by pointing out that the absolute negation can be treated as pAramArthika.php?t=5562 Therefore. it was stated that the negation of the world has two components .hindudharmaforums. The illusory silver is prAtibhAsika but its negation is pAramArthika if the substratum of illusion is treated as Brahman Itself or at least vyAvahArika. the substratum. 11:47 AM #10 Join Date: March 2006 Location: India Posts: 4.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www.h" (please see advaita-siddhi 10). which is vyAvahArika. "absence of pot" is the same as the ground alone. the opponent cannot insist on the rule that a negation and its counter-positive (pratiyogin)have to have the same order of reality (sama-sattAka). because an exception that breaks the rule is readily found in the case of an illusion such as the silver-in-nacre illusion. Earlier. As to the objection that the negation and the thing negated must both belong to the same order of reality. the auspicious and the non-dual. MadhusUdana says this rule is flawed because there is an exception. In the illusion of silver in nacre. Existence (sat) and 2) an unreal component that is the negation of the name-and-form aspects of the world. Of these. khaMvAyvagnijalorvIshhu devatiryaN^.

we perceive. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. advaita-siddhi text: atAtvika eva vA nishhedho . The nAma-rUpa aspects are negated. although we continue to perceive the ground. Both the pot and its absence have been forgotten. but empirical (vyAvahArika). in Gods. Page 1 of 2 1 2 > « Previous Thread | Next Thread » Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies Forum Jump Advaita Go 17 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM . but on the negation's being of a lower order of reality than the thing that is negated.h kathaM na virodhitvam.h. Thus Om is certainly the Self. Suppose we see a pot on the ground. the world). animals." (Why?) Because. During this phase.h | svApnArthasya svApnanishhedhena bAdhadarshanAt. the pratiyogin. ie. and the absence of the pot. A rough analogy. the auspicious and the non-dual. (and other things in the world) what is non-different (constant. the sachchidAnanda aspect. What are different (among all these things) are the Name and Form aspects. Even though it is unreal. of the instance of sublation of a dream-object along with its dream-negation.h | nishhedhasya bAdhyatvaM pAramArthikasattva-avirodhitve na tantram.php?t=5562 In the elements. This is what MadhusUdana says next.] When the world is negated. kiMtu nishhedhyApexayA nyUnasattAkatvam. we are only aware of the ground. not the pot or its absence. At this point.h | atAtvikatve . Consciousness. beyond apprehension through ordinary means. may be given to illustratethe two aspects of negation. [The first verse above also occurs in the sarasvatI-rahasya-upanishhad. there is the defect of proving something other than intended. the negation can be taken to be the same order of reality as the thing that is negated.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. we "feel" the absence of the pot.h | prakR^ite cha tulyasattAkatvAt. These were never real to begin with. __________________ That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth. fire. which is un-negatable. in some sense. there is equality of the order of reality (of the negation and the thing that is negated.ayam. There is no memory of either having existed. and earth. space. air.tarhi nishhedhasya bAdhyatvena tAtvikasattvaavirodhitvAdarthAntaram-iti vAchyam. And (you) cannot say:"Since the negation. There is nodependence or implication of the non-opposition to absolute reality on the sublatability of the negation. unchanging) are Existence.api na prAtibhAsikaH. water. and humans. remains.Advaita Siddhi . Subsequently. that has its own limitations. that is itself sublatable. kiMtu vyAvahArikaH| nacha . In the present case. In such a case.hindudharmaforums. it is not illusory (prAtibhAsika). cannot be in opposition to the reality (of the world). where the negation is cognized as different from the substratum. For a while after the pot has been removed. So how is there no opposition (to the reality of the world)? MadhusUdana says here that the negation of the world can be viewed as vyAvahArika. Then the pot is removed.h | Meaning: Or we may say that this negation (of the world) is unreal. we forget all about the pot. the cessation of the phenomenal world. as well as the ground. Yoga of Bhagavad Gita Online experiential course. Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. www. The time now is 11:01 PM. Deep revelation & sadhana guidance.Hindu Dharma Forums http://www. Copyright Hindu Dharma Forums 18 of 18 6/14/12 9:48 AM .Advaita Siddhi .USRonline. www.Top Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.hindudharmaforums.php?t=5562 Posting Rules You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Meditation .com/showthread.4 Copyright ©2000 .6. Hindu Dharma Forums .net Siddhi Advaita Mantra Kundalini Yoga All times are GMT -5.Free MP3s The essence of all practice is to be cool.Archive .