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

[Ravi Kiran]

Thanks Venkatraghavanji


>> 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.
>
>
>
Ok,  its good to know, sat(Brahman) is accepted as a substratum by
nayyAyika.
does it have the same order of reality as other substrata (say, ground..) ?


> 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.
>

Suppose, we take the all-pervading space as the locus (or substratum) in
which all objects ( prithvi, stars, moon etc ) appear , what would be the
sambandha accepted by naiyyAyika's then?

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.
>

this type of logic statement seems both correct and incorrect :)

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
>

Thanks