what is false? From Advaitasiddhi

[Guest guest]

Here I am transcribing the relavent portion from Advaita-Siddhi by

Madhusudana Saraswati, one of the great adviatic teachers. He hails from

Bengal. The story goes that when he was a boy, he composed a beutiful

sanskrit sloka on a king but the ignorent king could not appreciate the

beauty packed in that simple sloka. He was disappointed and decided to

divert his attention to the King of all Kings, Lord Krishna. He was a

great advaitin and a great Krishna Bhakta too. The Geeta Dhaana slokas,

that is normally chanted before one studies Geeta - Om! paarthaya

pratibhodhitaam ..... are composed by Madhusudana Saraswati. He arrived in

the scence when two great gaints - Vedanta Deshika (he is known as lion of

Vedanta) from VshishhTaadvaita tradition, and another great logician from

Madhva tradition (I think the author of JNaana Sudha, some Swami Tirtha),

wrote exhaustive critiques on advaita philosophy. Some of the early

objections were answered in Panchadasi by Vidyaaranya Swami (one of the

beautiful advaitic texts), but Mudhusudana was the one who in Advaita

Siddhi answered systamatically all the objections. The text is not

generally studied since it is woven with intricate logic and presented in

highly compressed form. I am still looking for good traslation of the text

to study. Here I present discussions pertaining to falsity to address the

issues raised by Sri Gummuluru Murthy. Thanks to Murthy gaaru that forced

me to study the book again.

 

-

 

This is based on the translation of Advaita-Siddhih of Madhusudana

Saraswati by Karuna Bhattacharya, published by Indian Council of

Philosophical Research, New Delhi, 1992. In this text by Karuna

Bhattacharya, only part of the text related to falsity aspect is presented.

Of the five definitions of falsity, Madhusudana addresses the objections

raised against Padmapaada's first and that part is only presented here.

 

In the introduction of this book, the general editor, Professor Sibajiban

Bhatttacharyya, provides an interesting analysis of the Law of

Contradiction and the Concept of Cancellation or Negation, which are the

essential basis for the objections raised against the definition of falsity

as well in Madhusudana Saraswati's defense.

 

The central theme of Advaitasiddhi is to counteract the objections raised

against advaitic interpretation of the Brahman (nirguna aspect), the Jiiva

and the world (mithya aspect of it). In the text Karuna Bhattacharya

addresses only the falsity aspect. I present only the part of the text

that relates to the first definition.

 

There are five definitions of falsity that Madhusudana discusses.

The first definition is based on Padmapada in Panchapaadikaa - Padmapaada

defines the falsity as 'sadasatva-anadhikaraNatva-rupam'. False (mithya)

is that which is not the locus of existence (sat) and non-existence (asat)

and is indescribable (anirvaachya).

 

To explain this Madhusudana starts with the objectors views (Purva paksha)

for this definition of false and refutes their arguments while establishing

the validity of the definition.

 

Objectors arguments: The above definition admits three possibilities:

 

1. The absence of non-existence (asatva) as characterized by existence (satva).

 

This cannot be accepted - the world being the locus of existence(satva),

non-existence characterized by existence can nowhere be found. In addition,

this leads to sidda-sadhana - establishing what is already established

(redundancy)

 

2. The simultaneous absolute absence of non-existence(asatva) and absolute

absence of existence (satva).

 

The cannot be accepted since (a) it amounts to violation of the law of

contradiction. (presence of existence is same as absence of non-existence

and presence of non-existence is the same as absence of existence -

simultaneous absence of both leads to law of contradiction).

 

3. The absolute absence of asatva as characterized by the absolute absence

of satva.

This is also not acceptable since it also leads to law of contradiction.

 

The objectors claim that:

Besides the 2) and 3) lead to unintended thesis that the world is like

Brahman itself and as sadruupa instead of regarded as false or both as

false. And both 2 and 3 also lead to arguments to prove the falsity of the

world are defective in the seen in shell-silver, the cited example in

Prabhupada's text, the sadhya (the falsity of silver) is absent because the

absence of asatva (that the absence of the character of getting canceled)

is not determined by the absence of satva (the absence of non-cancellation

- shell-silver still shines like silver even after discovering its shell

nature since shell is not negated).

 

Since all the possibilities cannot be accepted, the advaiting

interpretation of the world as false itself is false.

 

Now Madhusudana's answers to the objections:

 

The objections to the original definition is unjustified. By the

definition of falsity we mean the two characters - the character of

absolute absence of satva or existence, as well as the character of

absolute absence of asatva or non-existence ( essentially neither sat nor

asat), and this definition of falsity is free from defects. - this does not

lead to any law of contradiction. The law of contradiction, if any, may

arise in three ways: 1) existence and non-existence are of the nature of

reciprocal absence i.e. existence is when non-existence is not, and

non-existence is when existence is not. 2) existence and non-existence

pervade each other's absence 3) existence and non-existence are pervaded by

each other's absence. Of the three the first is not acceptable since

Advaitins do not hold such a view (reciprocity) of existence and

non-existence. According to Advaitins, sattva or existence is

non-cancellation for all the times. But asatva is not negation of

existence in this sense i.e. it is not of the character of being canceled.

(Murthy gaaru- this part addresses your comments). Asatva, according to

Advaitins, is non-appearance as existence in any locus. Falsity is the

absence of sattva as well as the absence of asattva. This amounts to

saying that the false is what is presented as real in some locus and then

gets canceled upon inquiry. If such definition is accepted then one cannot

object that in the shell-silver the saadhya( falsity) is absent. According

to the objector, in the shell-silver, the falsity is absent because the

falsity is taken as the absence of sattava and absence asattva; asattava is

taken as the character of being canceled and this character belongs to

shell-silver. But Advaitin does not define the asattva as what is

canceled. The view of falsity does not also go against law of

contradiction because existence is not defined as the negation of

non-existence and non-existence as the negation of existence.

The second alternative is also not accepted by Advaitins. Existence and

non-existence cannot be said to pervade each other's absence. In the

shell-silver there is the absence of sattva and also the absence of asatva.

The acceptance of third alternative does not lead to any contradiction.

Where there is cowness there is absence of horseness and where there is

horseness there is absence of cowness; yet in a camel both cowness and

horseness are found to be absent at the same time and place.

To overcome the charge of unintended thesis by the objector, Madhusudana

further refines the definition of falsity;

The false is what is different from existence(sat) as well as non-existence

(asat). If false is different from existence and non-existence, then it

cannot be 1) both existence and non-existence or 2) only existence or 3)

only non-existence. With these three possibilities excluded there is no

possibility of proving the unintended thesis.

The opponent again objects : Brahman is devoid of all the characters as per

Advaita. Therefore neither existence nor non-existence can belong to

Brahman as characters. Hence Brahman is the locus of the absence of sat as

well as absence of asat. The definition of falsity therefore applies to

Brahman as well and hence it is too wide. Madhusudana dismisses the

objection. Brahman who is existence as such cannot be locus of its absolute

absence; further if Brahman is devoid of all characters, it cannot be locus

of negative character either.

 

The second and third definitions of falsity relate to responses to little

more subtle arguments of the objectors - they question whether the negation

process is true or false. It is one of the objections by Vedanta Deshika -

since the world is established as false by the negation process by

Advaitin, Vedanta Deshika argues that first it is important to inquire the

validity of the negation process and locus of the negation i.e. whether the

negation process that is used to negate the world - is that process real or

unreal or mithya! To say that the process Unreal will make the negated no

more negated that is it will make the world real thus establishing duality.

The processes cannot also called real since it again introduces duality

since 1)negation process that is different from Brahman and 2) Brahman as

two entities. And it cannot be called mithya, 1) since for it to be

considered as mithya, one has to use the process of negation again and this

leads to anavastu dosha - since then question arises if the second process

of negation is real, unreal or mithya thus infinite regression and 2) it

requires another locus, which is sat and back to duality.

 

Madhusudana tactfully addresses all these objections. For this Madhusudana

uses the definition of Prakaashatma Yati, disciple of Padmapaada : the

definition is "pratipanna upaadhau trikaalika nishedha pratiyogitvam

mithyatvam", falsity (mithyatva) consists in being pratiyogin (negatum) of

a negation (nishedha) which is trikaalika (all three periods of time) in a

locus (upaadhau) in which it appears (pratipanna) - The illusory silver is

false in the sense that it is negated for all the three periods of time in

the shell in which it is presented as an object of experience. It is an

extension of Padmapaada's definition, since locus is explicitly included in

the definition of mithya to clarify the advaitic definition of what is

mithya in contrast to asat.

----------------

The analysis is very involved and therefore I stop here before people stop

reading my posts.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, sadananda <sada wrote:

> By the

> definition of falsity we mean the two characters - the character of

> absolute absence of satva or existence, as well as the character of

> absolute absence of asatva or non-existence (essentially neither sat

> nor asat)

 

[ ...]

> Advaitins do not hold such a view (reciprocity) of existence and

> non-existence.

 

Ah! That is the verbal hole that I fall into: despite the separate

definitions of sat and asat, I nonetheless forget that they are not

recipocal, i.e. although the presence of both seems contradictory,

the absence of both is not.

> According to Advaitins, sattva or existence is

> non-cancellation for all the times. But asatva is not negation of

> existence in this sense, i.e. it is not of the character of being

> cancelled. Asatva, according to Advaitins, is non-appearance as

> existence in any locus.

 

So, without falling into the hole ...

> Falsity is the absence of sattva as well as the absence of asattva.

> This amounts to saying that the false is what is presented as real

> in some locus and then gets cancelled upon enquiry.

 

The original post [Archive 13] is well worth examining carefully,

for it goes on to refine the definition.

 

Sadananda, thanks you very much for your persistent efforts in

patiently repeating the point until it is finally understood.

As a process, it has certainly demonstrated the necessity for

mananam to follow "srAvanam.

 

I shall not fall into that hole again! (Famous last words :-)

 

Thanks again for clarifying that point.

Kind regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

>Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

>Thanks again for clarifying that point.

>Kind regards, Charles.

 

Charles - Thanks you too for highlighting the essential points of the Sri

Madhusuudana's Advaita Siddhis' article.

 

I copied your previous long response to study at home and respond tomorrow

when I can find time. Now that may not be necessary.

 

What a change! -For being persistent and keep hammering the points that I

believe are the true import of Advaita Vedanta, I was accused by some in

the previous list-serve that I am mis-interpreting the doctrine or the

related posts or quoting out of context, etc., and was even asked to

apologize. Lord plays in mysterious ways!

 

If we have an open learning mind, the advaitin- discussion group can be a

great asset for mananam and nidhidhyaasanam. Personally I use this for my

own growth and learning to reflect on and to transcend all gagabubuu's.

We all have to thank Murthy gaaru for raising the topic for everybody's

clarification and forcing all of us to think deeper on the problems.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998 sadananda <sada wrote:

> I copied your previous long response to study at home and respond tomorrow

> when I can find time. Now that may not be necessary.

 

Let it rest for the moment: it will come up again. Meanwhile, I have

four weeks of accumulated karma piled on my desk to work through.

> What a change! -For being persistent and keep hammering the points that I

> believe are the true import of Advaita Vedanta, I was accused by some in

> the previous list-serve that I am mis-interpreting the doctrine or the

> related posts or quoting out of context, etc., and was even asked to

> apologize.

 

It is just saMskAra playing itself out: don't be concerned about it.

PrakRti will test the strength of your belief from time to time: simply

hold to what you believe to be true and have no concern for the results.

Dogmatic assertions of right and wrong are seldom helpful, and often

set up a polarity that causes both parties to defend their beliefs more

strongly, with the result that they cling more firmly to their respective

beliefs. As you have discovered, withdrawal into silence is the best

policy in such circumstances. It seems to me that the spiritual path

is one of transcending beliefs, i.e. one holds to a certain belief until

a larger, more embracing, more universal belief is accepted, then one

lets go of the lesser and holds to the larger belief: it is not that the

lesser belief is necessarily wrong as such, but simply has a more limited

scope.

> Lord plays in mysterious ways!

 

It seems that there are some that take the play very seriously!

In so doing, they completely forget the audience (saakshii).

> If we have an open learning mind, the advaitin- discussion group can be a

> great asset for mananam and nidhidhyaasanam. Personally I use this for my

> own growth and learning to reflect on and to transcend all gagabubuu's.

 

Learn and teach, learn and teach (svaadhyaayapravacana) is how it is

expressed in Tait.1.9.1. Sharing one's understanding leads to discourse

which often enlarges and refines and enlarges that understanding. It is

a win-win situation.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

>Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>Learn and teach, learn and teach (svaadhyaayapravacana) is how it is

>expressed in Tait.1.9.1. Sharing one's understanding leads to discourse

>which often enlarges and refines and enlarges that understanding. It is

>a win-win situation.

>

>Regards, Charles.

 

Every situation is a win-win situation is worth to remember - it helps one

to grow.

 

Thanks Charles.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623