Advaita: MithyAtva Bhanga
The edifice of Advaita theology is built on the foundations of Mithyatva. As stated by Sri Madhusudan Saraswati :
तत्र अद्वैतसिद्धेः द्वैतमिथ्यात्वपूर्वकत्वात् द्वैतमिथ्यात्वमेव प्रतिदपानीयम्
Advaita is established by showing मिथ्यात्वम or falsity/illusion of द्वैत or Duality.
मिथ्यात्वम is not unreal or non-existing as is many times mistaken. In Nyaymruta Srila Vyasa Tirtha has gleaned 5 definitions of मिथ्यात्वम found in various Advaita texts and has worked to point out deficiencies in all these definitions. This was followed by Sri Madhusudan Saraswati's refutation from the Advaita side, this was then later refuted by Ramacharya in Tarangini.
Here are the five definitions.
1. Something which is quite distinct from both existence and non-existence (सदसत्वानिधकरणत्वरूपानिर्वच्यत्वम् मिथ्यात्वम् )
2. The counter positive of absolute negation of a thing in any locus where it appears (सर्वस्मिन् प्रतिपन्नोपाधौ त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वम् )
3. The capacity of being sublated by knowledge (ज्ञानत्वेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् ).
4. The appearance of a thing in a locus where it never exists in the paramarthika or in its own form (स्वात्यन्ताभावाधिकरण एव प्रतीमनत्वम् मिथात्वम् )
5. Something other than the object of valid knowledge. (सद्विविक्तत्वं / सत्वं प्रमाणसिद्धत्वम् तद्विवक्तत्वं मिथात्वम् )
Let us now look at the first definition.
Srila Vyasa Tirtha interprets सदसत्वानिधरणत्वरूपानिर्वच्यत्वम् मिथ्यात्वम् in 3 different ways:
1). (सत्वे सति असत्व रूप विशिष्टस्य अभाव ). मिथ्या is सत् , which is असत्वानिधरणत्व, i.e., being/existence which is qualified by absence of non-existence (a karmadharaya samasa). Which is very much acceptable by the Madhvas, because it means that statements like jagat mithya, would mean that the world is real. This interpretation is of course not accepted by the Advaitins (Madhusudan Saraswati). As this is not accepted by the Advaitins, we will not pursue this further.
2) (सत्व अत्यन्त अभाव असत्व अत्यन्त अभाव रूप धर्म द्वयं ) The second interpretation of the first definition is that मिथ्या has two characteristics -सत्व अत्यन्त अभाव , i.e., absolute absence of being-ness सत्व and असत्व अत्यन्त अभाव , i.e., absolute absence of non-being-ness असत्व
3) (सत्व अत्यन्त अभाववत्वे सति असत्व अत्यन्त अभावव्त्वरूपम् विशिष्टम् ) The third interpretation is
absolute absence of being-ness qualified by absolute absence of non-being-ness.
The second and third interpretations are acceptable to Advaitins.
(I do not see or understand much difference between 2 and 3). Both of them essentially mean absence of being (ससत्वाभाव ) and absence of non-being (असत्वाभाव ).
Srila Vyasa Tirtha points out that definition 2 and 3 both suffer from error, because of violating the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle is just that either something is True or False, there can not be anything in between the two. सत्वाभाव absence of being is 'non-being' and असत्वाभाव absence of 'non-being' is 'being'. Thus both being and non-being can't be present simultaneously, by the law of excluded middle.
To this Sri Madhusudan Saraswati provides a way out. Please see the diagram below.
We have the blue circle representing (सत्). Top left we have the orange triangle representing (असत्). The blue circle has a figure of light, representing Brahman, which is the only thing (सत्) and on the top left we have the famous rabbit with a horn, which is असत्, because it is an imaginary being, which never exists. Then at the bottom right we have the rajjusarpa or rope being mistaken for a snake, representing मिथ्या. The region apart from the blue circle represents the absence of being and the region apart from the orange part represents absence of non-being.
The green region represents what is common to both absence of being and absence of non-being, which is मिथ्या.
Basically what is happening here is, the nature of the three, being(सत्), non-being (असत्) and falsity/illusion(मिथ्या) are defined in such a way that being and non-being are mutually exclusive, but their absences are not mutually exclusive. And the point where both their absences are present, that is falsity/illusion (मिथ्या). Hence their definitions are as follows:
1. त्रिकालाबध्यत्वं सत्त्वम् | At all the three states of time (past, present, future), it is not sublated(can not be denied).
2. त्रिकालबध्यविलक्षणत्वे सति क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्वेन प्रतियमानत्वं मिथ्यात्वम् | It does not have the property of not being denied at all three points of time and in some upadhi/limitation it can be perceived/apprehended/presented.
3. त्रिकालबध्यविलक्षणत्वे सति क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्वेन प्रतीयमनत्वानधिकरण्त्वमसत्वम् |It does not have the property of not being denied at all three points of time and in any upadhi/limitation also it can not be perceived/apprehended/presented.
Thus Sri Madhusudan Saraswati avoids violating the law of excluded middle , but is such a division of reality valid ?
How can something which does not have any existence make itself presented ? When reality can be explained with lesser number of fundamental categories, why is it necessary to introduce another category ?
Consider this analogy of a room with a lamp. If the lamp is lit, then there is light (सत्), if not there is darkness (असत्)(Note: Darkness is just absence of light, not a separate substance or dravya even according to Tarka sangraha - तमसः तेजः अभाव रूपत्वात् ). Would it make sense to say that there is light (सत्) when the lamp is lit, but when it is not lit (सत् अभाव ), there could be darkness (असत्) or there could also be the appearance of there being light, but there is no light actually (मिथ्या)? Does this ever happen ?
Using the same analogy, we can explain falsity/मिथ्या in a different way. When the lamp is lit there is light (सत्), if the lamp is not lit, then there is darkness (असत्). When there is light (सत्), but due to the seer having a blindfold over his eyes is not able to see the light, hence believes there is no light. When the बाधक (the blindfold) is got rid of the seer is able to see light. This बाधक is the cause for wrong perception. Another person without the बाधक /blindfold is able to see the light, hence it is not the case that an object that is false-मिथ्या is presenting itself in a certain way, but it is the seer's defect.
In Tarangini, Sri Ramacharya also point out that in their definition, मिथ्यात्वम् can not be disti
nguished from असत्वम् on the grounds that one can be apprehended and the other can not, as there is no difference between objects which have non-being and which are false. The reasoning behind this argument is both when the object is असत् and when it is मिथ्या, both of them are non-existing. If in the case of मिथ्या, a non-entity can present itself, then why not the case of असत् as well ?
(And why should असत् be called such, if it is not the absence of सत् ?!?! )
So far we have presented some reasons why these definitions do not correspond to reality. But we can have an icing on the cake, if we can show that defining this way will result in a contradiction within the Advaita system itself.
(To be continued.....)
तत्र अद्वैतसिद्धेः द्वैतमिथ्यात्वपूर्वकत्वात् द्वैतमिथ्यात्वमेव प्रतिदपानीयम्
Advaita is established by showing मिथ्यात्वम or falsity/illusion of द्वैत or Duality.
मिथ्यात्वम is not unreal or non-existing as is many times mistaken. In Nyaymruta Srila Vyasa Tirtha has gleaned 5 definitions of मिथ्यात्वम found in various Advaita texts and has worked to point out deficiencies in all these definitions. This was followed by Sri Madhusudan Saraswati's refutation from the Advaita side, this was then later refuted by Ramacharya in Tarangini.
Here are the five definitions.
1. Something which is quite distinct from both existence and non-existence (सदसत्वानिधकरणत्वरूपानिर्वच्यत्वम् मिथ्यात्वम् )
2. The counter positive of absolute negation of a thing in any locus where it appears (सर्वस्मिन् प्रतिपन्नोपाधौ त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वम् )
3. The capacity of being sublated by knowledge (ज्ञानत्वेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् ).
4. The appearance of a thing in a locus where it never exists in the paramarthika or in its own form (स्वात्यन्ताभावाधिकरण एव प्रतीमनत्वम् मिथात्वम् )
5. Something other than the object of valid knowledge. (सद्विविक्तत्वं / सत्वं प्रमाणसिद्धत्वम् तद्विवक्तत्वं मिथात्वम् )
Let us now look at the first definition.
Srila Vyasa Tirtha interprets सदसत्वानिधरणत्वरूपानिर्वच्यत्वम् मिथ्यात्वम् in 3 different ways:
1). (सत्वे सति असत्व रूप विशिष्टस्य अभाव ). मिथ्या is सत् , which is असत्वानिधरणत्व, i.e., being/existence which is qualified by absence of non-existence (a karmadharaya samasa). Which is very much acceptable by the Madhvas, because it means that statements like jagat mithya, would mean that the world is real. This interpretation is of course not accepted by the Advaitins (Madhusudan Saraswati). As this is not accepted by the Advaitins, we will not pursue this further.
2) (सत्व अत्यन्त अभाव असत्व अत्यन्त अभाव रूप धर्म द्वयं ) The second interpretation of the first definition is that मिथ्या has two characteristics -सत्व अत्यन्त अभाव , i.e., absolute absence of being-ness सत्व and असत्व अत्यन्त अभाव , i.e., absolute absence of non-being-ness असत्व
3) (सत्व अत्यन्त अभाववत्वे सति असत्व अत्यन्त अभावव्त्वरूपम् विशिष्टम् ) The third interpretation is
absolute absence of being-ness qualified by absolute absence of non-being-ness.
The second and third interpretations are acceptable to Advaitins.
(I do not see or understand much difference between 2 and 3). Both of them essentially mean absence of being (ससत्वाभाव ) and absence of non-being (असत्वाभाव ).
Srila Vyasa Tirtha points out that definition 2 and 3 both suffer from error, because of violating the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle is just that either something is True or False, there can not be anything in between the two. सत्वाभाव absence of being is 'non-being' and असत्वाभाव absence of 'non-being' is 'being'. Thus both being and non-being can't be present simultaneously, by the law of excluded middle.
To this Sri Madhusudan Saraswati provides a way out. Please see the diagram below.
We have the blue circle representing (सत्). Top left we have the orange triangle representing (असत्). The blue circle has a figure of light, representing Brahman, which is the only thing (सत्) and on the top left we have the famous rabbit with a horn, which is असत्, because it is an imaginary being, which never exists. Then at the bottom right we have the rajjusarpa or rope being mistaken for a snake, representing मिथ्या. The region apart from the blue circle represents the absence of being and the region apart from the orange part represents absence of non-being.
The green region represents what is common to both absence of being and absence of non-being, which is मिथ्या.
This is illustrated using an example of cows, horses and buffaloes. Just like absence of cow-ness and absence of horseness provides some space for buffalo-ness). This example points out that just like both the absence of cow-ness and the absence of horse-ness can be present in buffalo-ness, similarly the absence of being and the absence of non-being is present in falsity/illusion or मिथ्यात्वम् , thus there is no violation of the law of excluded being.
1. त्रिकालाबध्यत्वं सत्त्वम् | At all the three states of time (past, present, future), it is not sublated(can not be denied).
2. त्रिकालबध्यविलक्षणत्वे सति क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्वेन प्रतियमानत्वं मिथ्यात्वम् | It does not have the property of not being denied at all three points of time and in some upadhi/limitation it can be perceived/apprehended/presented.
3. त्रिकालबध्यविलक्षणत्वे सति क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्वेन प्रतीयमनत्वानधिकरण्त्वमसत्वम् |It does not have the property of not being denied at all three points of time and in any upadhi/limitation also it can not be perceived/apprehended/presented.
Thus Sri Madhusudan Saraswati avoids violating the law of excluded middle , but is such a division of reality valid ?
How can something which does not have any existence make itself presented ? When reality can be explained with lesser number of fundamental categories, why is it necessary to introduce another category ?
Consider this analogy of a room with a lamp. If the lamp is lit, then there is light (सत्), if not there is darkness (असत्)(Note: Darkness is just absence of light, not a separate substance or dravya even according to Tarka sangraha - तमसः तेजः अभाव रूपत्वात् ). Would it make sense to say that there is light (सत्) when the lamp is lit, but when it is not lit (सत् अभाव ), there could be darkness (असत्) or there could also be the appearance of there being light, but there is no light actually (मिथ्या)? Does this ever happen ?
Using the same analogy, we can explain falsity/मिथ्या in a different way. When the lamp is lit there is light (सत्), if the lamp is not lit, then there is darkness (असत्). When there is light (सत्), but due to the seer having a blindfold over his eyes is not able to see the light, hence believes there is no light. When the बाधक (the blindfold) is got rid of the seer is able to see light. This बाधक is the cause for wrong perception. Another person without the बाधक /blindfold is able to see the light, hence it is not the case that an object that is false-मिथ्या is presenting itself in a certain way, but it is the seer's defect.
In Tarangini, Sri Ramacharya also point out that in their definition, मिथ्यात्वम् can not be disti
nguished from असत्वम् on the grounds that one can be apprehended and the other can not, as there is no difference between objects which have non-being and which are false. The reasoning behind this argument is both when the object is असत् and when it is मिथ्या, both of them are non-existing. If in the case of मिथ्या, a non-entity can present itself, then why not the case of असत् as well ?
(And why should असत् be called such, if it is not the absence of सत् ?!?! )
So far we have presented some reasons why these definitions do not correspond to reality. But we can have an icing on the cake, if we can show that defining this way will result in a contradiction within the Advaita system itself.
(To be continued.....)
Comments
Post a Comment