[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

//Interestingly, while asat-pratiyogika-atyantAbhAva is not accepted in the
siddhAnta, asat-pratiyogika-anyonyAbhAva is accepted. In the first
definition of mithyAtva, the siddhikAra defines the sAdhya as
- सत्प्रतियोगिकासत्प्रतियोगिकभेदद्वयं वा साध्यम्. That is, mithyAtva is the
combination of two differences having sat and asat as their
counterpositives.//

(a) My understanding has been that, in siddhAnta, only atyanta-abhAva is
accepted and the other three abhAvAs are not admitted at all. What is
denoted by pot-pratiyogika-bheda is basically
pot-abheda-pratiyogika-atyanta-abhAva. So, asat-pratiyogika-bheda basically
stands for asat-abheda-pratiyogika-atyanta-abhAva. [Tattva-anusandhAnam,
DakshiNAmUrti Math edition, page 261].

As per this understanding, asat-pratiyogika-bheda does not imply that asat
is being accepted as pratiyogI of anyonya-abhAva in siddhAnta. However, we
need to still find out as to what is "asat-abheda". If asat-abheda is
mithyA, our problem is solved. But if asat-abheda is taken as asat, then
the problem stands.

If asat-pratiyogika-bheda is accepted by siddhAntI, then by the force of
reason, we will need to admit asat-abheda as mithyA.

(b) Further, if we see the flow of discussion in first mithyAtva vichAra,
then this definition सत्प्रतियोगिकासत्प्रतियोगिकभेदद्वयं is postulated as
tushyatu-durjana-nyAya and is not the first choice defintion, which is
सत्त्वात्यन्ताभावासत्त्वात्यन्ताभावरूपं धर्मद्वयम्. Only by accepting the
arthAntara-dosha of pUrvapakshI as a matter of tushyatu-durjana-nyAya, this
definition is postulated. So, we cannot rule out the possibility that the
siddhAntI is using the opponent's language to quieten him. Just as
siddhAntI does not accept prAk-abhAva, but still uses it in
avidyA-anumAna-vichAra as चैत्रप्रमा,
चैत्रगतप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्तानादिनिवर्तिका, प्रमात्वान्मैत्रप्रमावत्.

So, the usage by siddhAntI can be explained in this fashion as well.

In either case, I do not think that asat is accepted as pratiyogI of
anyonya-abhAva in siddhAnta. Please share your views.

//I believe the basis for this is that the perception of bheda only
requires anuyogi yogyatA (which Brahman/anirvachanIya objects have),
whereas perception (via anupalabdhi) of abhAva requires pratiyogi yogyatA,
which asat objects do not have.//

It appears quite convincing. Is there something to this effect mentioned
somewhere in any text?

//Interestingly, the madhva system accepts that asat can be the pratiyogi
of abhAva.//

Yes. And as per them, even shuktirUpya is within the ambit of asat.

Many thanks.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:17 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>
> Thank you for a very nice summary of the discussion and the illuminating
> points raised by you. I agree with your analysis and the refutation of
> asat-pratiyogika-abhAva, which forms the basis of the chapter on
> niShedhapratiyogitva anyathAnupapatti. from the siddhi.
>
> That chapter is based on the argumentation by Sri Anandapurna in
> nyAyachandrikA, wherein he argues that anirvachanIyatva stands proven
> because only anirvachanIya objects are capable of being abhAva-pratiyogi.
> To do this he proved that asat cannot be an abhAva-pratiyogi.
>
> Interestingly, while asat-pratiyogika-atyantAbhAva is not accepted in the
> siddhAnta, asat-pratiyogika-anyonyAbhAva is accepted. In the first
> definition of mithyAtva, the siddhikAra defines the sAdhya as
> - सत्प्रतियोगिकासत्प्रतियोगिकभेदद्वयं वा साध्यम्. That is, mithyAtva is the
> combination of two differences having sat and asat as their
> counterpositives.
>
> I believe the basis for this is that the perception of bheda only requires
> anuyogi yogyatA (which Brahman/anirvachanIya objects have), whereas
> perception (via anupalabdhi) of abhAva requires pratiyogi yogyatA, which
> asat objects do not have.
>
> Thus, if asat cannot be the pratiyogi of abhAva, one can argue that it
> falls outside the scope of the abhAva jnAna requiring pratiyogi jnAna rule.
>
> Interestingly, the madhva system accepts that asat can be the pratiyogi of
> abhAva.
>
> The siddhikAra in refuting the aprasiddhi argument of the mAdhva in the
> chapter on मिथ्यात्वानुमानस्यानुमानबाधोद्धारः says असत्प्रतियोगिकाभावं
> स्वीकुर्वतः पराभ्युपगममात्रेणैव प्रतियोगिप्रसिद्धिसंभवात् - for you, who
> accept that absence can have asat as a counterpositive, the acceptance of
> the prasiddhi of aniravachanIya avidyA on the basis of the opponent's
> system is not out of the question.
>
> Your point on asat being out of the scope of the topic under discussion is
> well made. Thank you for this discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com