[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport

Srinath Vedagarbha svedagarbha at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 11:02:39 EDT 2019


On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 5:16 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> This question has been addressed by Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati. The
> niShedha of the niShedha need not necessarily lead to the affirmation of
> the pratiyogi. In some cases it happens, but not always. Where the negation
> of the pratiyogi and the negation of that negation are different, the
> negation of the  negation leads to the reality of pratiyogi.

We are not talking of niShedha of the niShedha here. When you do the
niShedha of this jagat, you may do another niShedha of this
"jagat-niShedha" itself no problem, but from where that outer niShedha
made? It can't be from vyavahAra as you agreed it will be negated. So, it
has to be from pAramArtha only as I am saying.

> The example given is where the nedam rajatam jnAna first arises and then
> is later negated. The negation of negation leads to the affirmation of the
> rajata in this case.
> But where both niShedha and pratiyogi are negated by the same negation -
> on the basis of the same dharma (niShedhyatA avacChedaka dharma being the
> same) - the negation of negation does not affirm the pratiyogi, because the
> pratiyogi has been negated by the very same negation.
> The example given is where both horse-ness and cow-ness dharma-s are
> negated by the same negation in an elephant. Where horse-ness is present
> elephant-ness is absent. Similarly cow-ness. Thus if the basis of negation
> is that everything that implies the absence of elephant-ness is to be
> negated, by such a negation, both cow-ness and horse-ness are negated.
> Similarly, in nyAya, when the dhvamsa (physical destruction) of the pot
> occurs, it is held that both the pot and its atyantAbhAva are negated. Thus
> the negation of atyantAbhAva need not lead to the affirmation of the
> pratiyogi, because the pratiyogi too is negated by the same dhvamsa
It is not correct. When the pot is destroyed, its pradhvamAbhAva is
affirmed. Your example is based on wrong argument because atyantAbhAva  is
negated in both the cases -- when pot was there and when pot was destroyed.
There is no specialty to be used as hEtu in instances of pot destruction.
Such usage suffers from ativyApti flaw.

> In the standard example of the rope-snake illusion, the false perception
>> of the snake and its subsequent negation are must be true at the end after
>> the illusion lapses. The man cannot deny that his perception of the snake
>> and its negation itself was false.
> If both the snake illusion and its negation are objects in a dream, they
> are both sublated upon waking up. The negation of the snake is not real,
> being an object in the dream. The negatability of the sarpa niShedha does
> not confer reality to the snake, it too being an object in the dream.
But that outer negation (negation of dream objects) has to be other
(higher) state than the state itself being subject of negation. I am saying
the same, negation of objects seen in  vyavahArika  and negation of
vyavahArika itself is only from (higher) state of pAramArthika. MS's
arguments are no arguments.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list