sribhashya-mahapurvapaksha-continued

[Guest guest]

When there is a contradiction,virodha, between perception and sruthi

the latter is claimed to be stronger. But here there is no virodha

and hence there is no need to prove that one is stronger than the

other, says the advaitin. Even through in perception only

attributeless Brahman is perceived, according to Advaita it is only

the unity through the existence,satthA, that is perceived and not

difference.

 

But how can the perception that 'this is a pot, this is a cloth

etc.,' be shown as sanmAthragrAhi, that of the existence alone? Only

when the knowledge is continously of one object , like that of a pot

alone, this can be true. Advaitn says, 'Yes it is true and we wish to

prove only that here ,namely the perception of all objects is that

of one only.

 

If the difference is perceived it cannot be simultaneous with the

object at hand. That is, when we see a pot its difference from a

cloth is not seen because the knowledge of the cloth is in the

memory. Probably what is meant here is that even if we see the pot

and the cloth at the same place when we look at the pot we do not see

the cloth. In the perception that the pot exists the 'isness' of the

pot does not give the knowledge of its difference from the cloth

because the knowledge of difference belongs to a different time other

than that of perception, which belongs to that moment only.

 

So as in the case of seeing nacre as silver, sukthirajatham, what is

perceived is only the attributeless Brahman which appears as a

different object because of bhrAnthi, illusion due to anAdhi avidhya.

 

Moreover the difference,bhedhah, cannot be defined, says the

Advaitin. The difference is not of the nature of the object in which

case only the difference will be perceived.That when we see the pot

we would also see its difference from the cloth which is not the

case.This sounds a bit confusing but it is not so. If ghata, pot and

its bhedha, difference from other objects, say, pata,cloth, is its

svsrupa then the two tems ghata and bhedha will be synonymous like

hastha and kara, both of which mean hand. So the object and its

difference are not the same.

 

On the other hand if it is said that the difference is the attribute

of the object, it must be assumed to be different from the object.

That is, the difference will be different from the essential nature

of the thing. Then the difference of the difference will be its

attribute and the same argument follows leading to anavasThA. Also

this difference of the object from others will be observed only when

the object belonging to the particular class as distinct from others

is observed. But the distinctness to be perceived requires the

knowledge of its difference from the others. So there is the defect

of anyonya AsrayaNam., mutual dependence and hence becomes

untenable.Therefore advaitn concludes that since the difference

cannot be proved the perception is of sanmmAthra, existence only.

 

Even in the perception of 'the pot exists, the cloth exists' etc

what persists is the existence alone and not the forms which are

perceived to disaappear after a while. In the perception this is pot

etc. the 'this' element persists in all and the forms change.So the

exitence signified by 'this' alone is paramArTHa, real, and the

others are unreal like rajjusarpa, snake in the rope. In the illusion

of the rope as snake, crack in the ground, stream of water etc., the

rope is the substratum of the illusion and hence is real whereas the

other illusory objects are unreal being separate, vyAvrtthi, from the

rope. So too the existence, 'sat,' alone is the substratum and is

therefore real.

 

But the reality of the rope is not due to persistence but due to the

fact that it is not sublated by any other knowledge as in the case of

snake etc. which again not unreal due to their being separate from

the rope but because they are sublated by the subsequent knowledge.

To this advaitin answers that in the perception that this is a pot

there is sublation of the perception of other objects like cloth and

vice versa. So there is sublation as a result of

distinctness ,vyAvrtthi. Thus everything else than satthA, existence

is apparmArTha , unreal. Advaitin clinches the argument by a

syllogism- sath paramArThah, anuvarthmAnatyhvAth,rajjusarpAdhou

rajjvAdhivath; ghatAdhayah aparamArThAh, vyAvarthamANathvAth,

rajjvAdgyaDHishthAna sarpAdhivath. The existence is real because it

persists (in all perceptions) like the rope in the illusion of snake

in a rope and the objects like pot etc. are unreal because they are

separate, vyAvartha, like the snake in the substratum of the rope.