Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Namaste Chittaranji, First of all I think 'counterpositive' should read 'contrapositive' which is a logical term. A contrapositive is a sort of immediate inference A contrapositive is got in the following manner: All S is P No non-P is S (contrapositive got by contradicting the Predicate and switching it with the Subject) Further you can get the obverse of the Contrapositive All non-P is non-S.(Predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate) All Cloth is coloured No non-coloured (thing) is cloth (contrapositive) All non-coloured is non-cloth (obverse of contrapositive) All cloth is woven No non-woven is cloth All non-woven is non-cloth (pg.79 V.P.) The absolute non existence of the woven proves that something is not cloth. The contrapositive of other propositional forms yield valid inferences eg. (E) No S is P...>Some non-P is S(I)...>Some non-P is not non-S (O) (I) Some S is P....>none.....>none (O) Some S is not P....>Some non-P is S (I)...>Some non-P is not non-S (O) All existence has Brahman as its substratum....>No non-having Brahman as Substratum is existent....>All non-having Brahman as substratum is non-existent (cf.pg.77 V.P.) Stebbing's 'A Modern Elementary Logic' lists as Immediate Inference original proposition Converse Obverse Obverted Converse Contrapositive Obverted Contrapositive Inverse Obverted Inverse Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 Hey Michael, I agree, it's usually called "contrapositive." You write, (A) >All cloth is woven >No non-woven is cloth >All non-woven is non-cloth The second sentence is the contrapositive. The third is the obverse of the contrapositive. But what does the sentence below mean? (B) >The absolute non existence of the woven proves that >something is not cloth. Is (B) it supposed to illustrate (A) above? Where does "absolute non existence of the woven" come in? According to (A), what doesn't exist is "non-woven cloth," or "cloth that is *not* woven." There are other non-woven things that might well exist, like sentences, or curry or e-mail. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2004 Report Share Posted January 27, 2004 advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > But what does the sentence below mean? > > (B) > >The absolute non existence of the woven proves that > >something is not cloth. > > > Is (B) it supposed to illustrate (A) above? Where does "absolute non existence of the woven" come in? According to (A), what doesn't exist is "non-woven cloth," or "cloth that is *not* woven." There are other non-woven things that might well exist, like sentences, or curry or e-mail. > > --Greg Namaste The following three mean the same thing. Each implies the other two. In other words all three are equivalent statements. They should be either all true or all false. 1. All triangular enclosures have three sides. 2. No enclosure with non-three sides is triangular. 3. All non-three sided enclosures are non-triangular. With this set-up we can now state B above in the following more understandable form: 4. The absolute non-existence of three-sided enclosures proves there exists no triangular enclosure. So once we accept the statement that "All cloth is woven", what would be implied is the following statement: "The absolute nonexistence of `the woven' will prove that `there exists no cloth'." Thus though Greg's remark , namely, "There are other non-woven things that might well exist, like sentences, or curry or e-mail", is also true, the more relevant conclusion from `the absolute non-existence of `the woven' is `there exists no cloth'. PraNAms to all advaitins Prof vk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Namaste all. >From the original text kindly quoted by Sunderji, I see that the first verse talks about the fibres of cloth inhering themselves silently in the cloth to render the nAma-rUpa of cloth. The example is effectively employed to explain the nature of miTyA. In the second stanza, this example is used to derive a general rule. The pratiyOgA derivatives appearing in both the verses, it looks like, should be understood as suggesting contrast and the meaning `as opposed to'. I am unable therefore to relate Chittaranjanji's quote, which mentions the attribute of colour, in any way to the above two verses. Perhaps, it has something to do with "digeShaiva guNaadiShu" appearing at the end of the second stanza. Honestly, I have found that part beyond me. Chittaranjanji, will you, therefore, kindly quote the entire scenario so that we may be able to understand the issue well without letting it pass over our heads in the usual manner? In this context, I am reminded of how Sw. Dayananda Saraswatiji explains miTyA to his audience. He picks a flower with stems and leaves (leaf supports) and asks them what it is. The audience roars in unison: "Flower". Then, he removes the stem and repeats the question. The audience says: "Stem". The question is repeated with the removal of the leaves and petals till ultimately nothing remains. With a cackle, Swamiji then asks: "Where is the flower"? That is miTyA as we all are what we suppose to be! PraNAms. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > What Chittaranjanji has quoted is a footnote by Swami > Madhavananda (translator of Paribhasha), in the 2nd chapter (On > Inference). The original text is: > > yadvaa ayaM paTa etattantiniShThaatyantaabhaavapratiyogii paTatvaat.h > paTaantaravat.h - ityaadyanumaanaM mithyaatve pramaaNam.h . > taduktam.h- > > " a.nshinaH svaa.nshagaatyantaabhaavasya pratiyoginaH . > a.nshitvaaditaraa.nshiiva digeShaiva guNaadiShu .. " iti . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Namaste All, Thank you Sadanandaji, Sunderji, Michaelji, Gregoryji, and Professor vkji, for the explanations and illustrations on double negation. They were helpful in clearing the mists from my mind. I am still uncomfortable with the phrase "absolute non existence". Maybe it is the English rendering that creates this difficulty. With regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 At 06:00 AM 1/28/2004 +0000, V. Krishnamurthy wrote: >4. The absolute non-existence of three-sided enclosures proves >there exists no triangular enclosure. .... >So once we accept the statement that >"All cloth is woven", >what would be implied is the following statement: >"The absolute nonexistence of `the woven' will prove that `there >exists no cloth'." .... Yes, this is a better explanation of (B). But what does "absolute nonexistence" mean? What's the difference between absolute nonexistence and regular, garden-variety nonexistence? Would you use the phrase to apply to three-sided triangles, four-sided triangles, sons of barren women, and Levi's denim cloth in the same way? Pranams, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 --- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > At 06:00 AM 1/28/2004 +0000, V. Krishnamurthy wrote: > > >4. The absolute non-existence of three-sided enclosures proves > >there exists no triangular enclosure. > > ... > > >So once we accept the statement that > >"All cloth is woven", > >what would be implied is the following statement: > >"The absolute nonexistence of `the woven' will prove that `there > >exists no cloth'." > > ... > > Yes, this is a better explanation of (B). But what does "absolute > nonexistence" mean? What's the difference between absolute > nonexistence and regular, garden-variety nonexistence? Would you use > the phrase to apply to three-sided triangles, four-sided triangles, > sons of barren women, and Levi's denim cloth in the same way? > > Pranams, > > --Greg > Absolute non-existence is having no locus at any time. Pot is called praagaabhaava pratiyogini - that is the current existence of pot has ended its privious non-existence. That may be what you call gardon-variety non-existence which may have potential for its existence. Pot was there before as a potential pot. I think I had discussed this long long time ago providing the definition from Advaitasiddhi in response to Murthy gaaru's question. Son of a barren woman has no potential existence as such a locus cannot be there (we do not consider adopted children!) Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting./ps/sb/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > At 06:00 AM 1/28/2004 +0000, V. Krishnamurthy wrote: > > > Absolute non-existence is having no locus at any time. Pot is called > praagaabhaava pratiyogini - that is the current existence of pot has > ended its privious non-existence. That may be what you call > garden-variety non-existence which may have potential for its existence. > Pot was there before as a potential pot. I think I had discussed this > long long time ago providing the definition from Advaitasiddhi in > response to Murthy gaaru's question. Namaste, Message #797 Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 Namaste Madathilji, My quote was taken from the Chapter on "Inference" and was an example (actually from the footnote as Sunderji pointed out) proferred for the definition of unreality which runs like this: "Unreality consists in something being the counter-(or contra-)positive of the absolute non-existence that abides in whatever is supposed to be its substratum." I did not have any difficulty with the cloth and thread example, because of the involution of the effect into the cause through name- form, but like you, I found something seeming to shift in the colour and cloth example (which was taken from the footnote). With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste all. > > From the original text kindly quoted by Sunderji, I see that the > first verse talks about the fibres of cloth inhering themselves > silently in the cloth to render the nAma-rUpa of cloth. The example > is effectively employed to explain the nature of miTyA. > > In the second stanza, this example is used to derive a general rule. > The pratiyOgA derivatives appearing in both the verses, it looks > like, should be understood as suggesting contrast and the meaning `as > opposed to'. > > I am unable therefore to relate Chittaranjanji's quote, which > mentions the attribute of colour, in any way to the above two > verses. Perhaps, it has something to do with "digeShaiva guNaadiShu" > appearing at the end of the second stanza. Honestly, I have found > that part beyond me. Chittaranjanji, will you, therefore, kindly > quote the entire scenario so that we may be able to understand the > issue well without letting it pass over our heads in the usual manner? > > In this context, I am reminded of how Sw. Dayananda Saraswatiji > explains miTyA to his audience. He picks a flower with stems and > leaves (leaf supports) and asks them what it is. The audience roars > in unison: "Flower". Then, he removes the stem and repeats the > question. The audience says: "Stem". The question is repeated with > the removal of the leaves and petals till ultimately nothing > remains. With a cackle, Swamiji then asks: "Where is the flower"? > That is miTyA as we all are what we suppose to be! > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > > > > advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> > wrote: > > What Chittaranjanji has quoted is a footnote by Swami > > Madhavananda (translator of Paribhasha), in the 2nd chapter (On > > Inference). The original text is: > > > > yadvaa ayaM paTa etattantiniShThaatyantaabhaavapratiyogii > paTatvaat.h > > paTaantaravat.h - ityaadyanumaanaM mithyaatve pramaaNam.h . > > taduktam.h- > > > > " a.nshinaH svaa.nshagaatyantaabhaavasya pratiyoginaH . > > a.nshitvaaditaraa.nshiiva digeShaiva guNaadiShu .. " iti . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2004 Report Share Posted January 28, 2004 advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Madathilji, > > My quote was taken from the Chapter on "Inference" and was an example > (actually from the footnote as Sunderji pointed out) proferred for > the definition of unreality which runs like this: "Unreality consists > in something being the counter-(or contra-)positive of the absolute > non-existence that abides in whatever is supposed to be its > substratum." The original text is: > > > > > > yadvaa ayaM paTa etattantuniShThaatyantaabhaavapratiyogii > > paTatvaat.h > > > paTaantaravat.h - ityaadyanumaanaM mithyaatve pramaaNam.h . > > > taduktam.h- > > > > > > " a.nshinaH svaa.nshagaatyantaabhaavasya pratiyoginaH . > > > a.nshitvaaditaraa.nshiiva digeShaiva guNaadiShu .. " iti . Namaste, A complete original translation of the paragraph may give a better picture of the argument - Sw. Madhavananda's translation of the paragraph reads as follows: " Or the proof of a thing's unreality is an inference like the following: ' The cloth is a counterpositive of the absolute non- existence abiding in these threads; because it is a cloth; as is the case with any other cloth.' So it has been said, 'Things that have parts are counterpositives of the non-existence abiding in those parts. , because they have parts; as in the case with other things that have parts. With regard to quality etc., (also) the same kind of inference holds good.' " Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.