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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
Apologies about having to resend this, but I noticed that all the
formatting was lost in the previous email, so I am appending the identity
of the speaker for each statement here.

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:02 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:
Srinath:

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.


Venkatraghavan:
It does not have to be pAramArthika. That is the argument being made - even
if the niShedha is prAtibhAsika like a dream negation of a dream object, it
can still do a bAdha. What remains after the niShedha is pAramArthika
advaita, because the niShedha negates all dvaita, including itself.

Srinath:

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.


Venkatraghavan:
That is why two examples were given. The first example is to show that with
the same niShedhyatA avacChedaka dharma it is possible to negate every
non-elephant attribute. The second example is to show that the niShedha
does not have to be only of bhAva rUpa padArtha alone, even abhAva padArtha
can be negated. Now, you seem to think that atyantAbhAva is negated when
the pratiyogi is present. That is not correct.

In nyAya, it is very much possible to say that a pot and its atyantAbhAva
are present in the same locus. In the cognition "the pot is on the ground",
bhUtale ghaTa:, the naiyyAyika will argue that bhUtale samavAya sambandhena
ghaTasya atyAntAbhava: asti - the atyantAbhAva of the pot with a samavAya
sambandha with the ground is present. Now, both the pot and pot
atyantAbhAva exist in the same locus. When ghaTa dhvamsa occurs, it is
possible for me to argue that the very dhvamsa is the hetu for the niShedha
for both the pot and its atyantAbhAva.

Srinath:

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.

Venkatraghavan:
The last statement is uncalled for and rude. Anyway, ignoring that, there
is no rule that says that the niShedha of niShedha requires that the outer
one, as you call it, has to have a higher order of reality than the second.
The sublatability of the outer negation has no bearing on its sublation of
the former. A rope can be mistaken for a snake. If there is a subsequent
illusion that it is a crack in the ground, that can still negate the snake
illusion. However, both the crack in the ground and the snake are equally
illusory.

One may argue that such a negation is not bAdha, or Atyantika nivRtti. For
a jnAna to qualify as bAdhaka jnAna, it must be a vyAvrittAkAra jnAna
revealing the adhiShThAna of the bhrama. Brahman is the adhiShThAna of
everything - including both the jagat and brahma jnAna, thus by that one
brahma jnAna, both the jagat and brahmajnAna itself are sublated.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:02 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Namaste,
>
> 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.
>
> /sv
>
>
>