[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 015 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 7)

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,

On 1 Nov 2017 3:50 a.m., "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavanji

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> Space according to the naiyyAyika has no substratum, AdhAra, ie it does not
> have AdhAra Adheya  (locus-object) relationship with anything. It does not
> however mean that space is a non-existent entity in nyAya. As defined, the
> definition of mithyAtva (the absence of an object in a real substratum)
>

can we say:

naiyyAyika's dont accept real substratum(sat or Brahman) as the locus of
appearance of all objects (incl space) ...

There are two aspects to your question:
1) Whether the nayyAyikas accept a real substratum: They accept a real
substratum for objects, eg in the example of a pot on the ground, the pot
is on the real substratum, AdhAra, of the ground. What they do not accept
is the view that if an object is absent in all substrata, it necessarily is
mithyA. Space is the exception where such a rule breaks down.
2) Whether that real substratum is limited to Brahman: As you will no doubt
recall, naiyyAyikas hold that external objects are real too, therefore in
their view, the real substratum in the definition of mithyA (as the absence
in a real substratum), is not limited to only Brahman.



would also apply to space (as the absolute absence of space is present in
> all substrata, according to the naiyyAyika).


if so, will this not contradict to their claim that space is
*all-pervading* and eternal ?


No, because what they are opposed to is space having any AdhAra. Thus,
space according to nyAya is all pervading, but space does not have AdhAra
Adheya sambandha with anything. It is only in that sense that they hold
that space is absent in all substrata, not that space is absent per se.


> The naiyyAyika had said that space is avritti, and the absence of it is
> present in all substrata. If the advaitin wants to argue that mithyAtva is
> the absence of an object in (all) substrata,


But, advaitin, does not claim as such (all), as he only says absence of an
object in real substratum ( sat) ?


True. But we also say that there is only one ultimately real object, and
saying an object is absent in the only real substratum is tantamount to
saying it is absent in 'all' real substrata. Secondly, if a pot is absent
(traikAlika niShedha pratiyogi) even where it appears (pratipanna upAdhau),
it is absent everywhere else too. Its perhaps easier to understand taking
the shell silver example. Is the shell silver present in any locus?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan