Counterpositive Note

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

I have been looking again at V.P. on the subject of the counterpositive and the matter of error. The treatment of error in VP is focused on the fact of error itself and not on error as an analogy for superimposition. Sometimes error is just error. In the chapter on perception during a discussion of the status of false silver the concept of the counterpositive (pratiyogin) is introduced.

Pg.62: the remarks on counterpositiveness seem to be incomprehensible. I do not reproduce them as it would only confuse so I proceed directly to my understanding of what a counterpositive is. A counterpositive is that state i.e. the existence of silver, upon which the phenomenon of illusory silver is based. That illusory silver being contradicted (badhita) does not affect real silver. But they are linked to each other. It is the positive (silver) that makes the negative (illusory silver) possible. The positive is the counter to the negative.

This fascination with the illusory arises out of an unwarranted extension of the confusion analogy. Because in a naïve understanding the illusory is a superimposition and the real is also a superimposition there is a tendency to be led towards questions such as ‘how can we tell true from false perception’. As VP points out it is the fact of the counterpositive that allows the illusory to be illusory. There is no illusion without the reality. Without true currency there is no counterfeit possible. This is a distinctly realist position. Is it a form of naïve realism? No, because that would be saying ‘that’s the why’ which is not the case in the Advaitic system. Here the holding of a realist position brings a comprehensive metaphysical system in its train.

Nevertheless the probing goes on and DA continues to patiently allow the objections because their refutation is instructive. The objections are now more and more of the nature of ‘what do we know when we suffer from an illusion’. Fundamentally there is a simplistic view of what knowledge is. Each perception is an isolated event. The concept of the counterpositive brings to the fore the notion of the particular perception as being part of a web that is interconnected like the event in a game. An event in a game gets its comprehensibility from the rules of the game. The counterpositive is the background against which the individual perception takes place.

 

"Similarly, in other cases of erroneous perception also it may be shown that the general definition of perception is applicable, and that of a valid perception is inapplicable". Pg. 65.

When inference is treated pg. 77: "After inference has thus been set forth, it will prove the unreality of the entire universe, which is other than Brahman."

"Unreality consists in something being the counterpositive of the absolute non-existence that abides in whatever is supposed to be its substratum."

That last sentence is very difficult. My understanding of it is as follows. The counterpositive of illusory silver is actual silver. Without there being this counterpositive there cannot be something unreal. The silver does not exist in its substratum i.e. nacre, but somewhere there is real silver. ‘supposed to be’ covers this eventuality.

All the means of valid knowledge have to deal with the fact of error. It is the fundamental fact of existence that allows non-existence to be a fact of existence. Total unreality is therefore an impossibility.

It could also be said that we may infer absolute being as the counterpositive to relative being. Relative being can only come into consideration if there is absolute being as its counterpositive.

Pg.82: "And the counterpositiveness relating to which (the relative) is characterised by absoluteness".

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> I have been looking again at V.P. on the subject of the

counterpositive and the matter of error. The treatment of error in

VP is focused on the fact of error itself and not on error as an

analogy for superimposition. Sometimes error is just error. In the

chapter on perception during a discussion of the status of false

silver the concept of the counterpositive (pratiyogin) is

introduced.

>

> Pg.62: the remarks on counterpositiveness seem to be

incomprehensible. I do not reproduce them as it would only confuse

so I proceed directly to my understanding of what a counterpositive

is. A counterpositive is that state i.e. the existence of silver,

upon which the phenomenon of illusory silver is based. That illusory

silver being contradicted (badhita) does not affect real silver. But

they are linked to each other. It is the positive (silver) that

makes the negative (illusory silver) possible. The positive is the

counter to the negative.

 

> This fascination with the illusory arises out of an unwarranted

extension of the confusion analogy. Because in a naïve understanding

the illusory is a superimposition and the real is also a

superimposition there is a tendency to be led towards questions such

as 'how can we tell true from false perception'. As VP points out it

is the fact of the counterpositive that allows the illusory to be

illusory. There is no illusion without the reality. Without true

currency there is no counterfeit possible. This is a distinctly

realist position. Is it a form of naïve realism? No, because that

would be saying 'that's the why' which is not the case in the

Advaitic system. Here the holding of a realist position brings a

comprehensive metaphysical system in its train.

>

> Nevertheless the probing goes on and DA continues to patiently

allow the objections because their refutation is instructive. The

objections are now more and more of the nature of 'what do we know

when we suffer from an illusion'. Fundamentally there is a

simplistic view of what knowledge is. Each perception is an isolated

event. The concept of the counterpositive brings to the fore the

notion of the particular perception as being part of a web that is

interconnected like the event in a game. An event in a game gets its

comprehensibility from the rules of the game. The counterpositive is

the background against which the individual perception takes place.

 

Dear Michael-ji,

When the presence of a certain object is denied on a certain

substratum, the object whose presence is denied is known

as `pratiyogin' or counter-positive. When it is said, " There is no

pot on this floor " , pot is the pratiyogin and the floor is known as

anuyogin. When the person who thought there was silver discovers

that there is no silver (but only nacre), he says " It is not

silver " . Here silver is the counter-positive of the negation. This

negation is for all periods, past, present and future, because there

was only nacre all the time and there never was any silver. The

objection raised by the opponent is: Since silver was seen

previously, you can only say " Now there is no silver " and cannot

deny the presence of silver even in the past when you saw it and

even tried to take possession of it, thinking it to be genuine

silver. The answer to this is that what is being denied in all the

three periods of time is not the illusory silver, but real

(empirical) silver. That is to say, the fact that he saw silver is

not denied, but he has now discovered that even when he was seeing

it, it was not real silver, that is, the silver which one can use

for making vessels, etc, but only illusory silver. This is the

meaning of the passage on page 62 VP referred to.

 

 

Michael-ji:

> " Similarly, in other cases of erroneous perception also it may be

shown that the general definition of perception is applicable, and

that of a valid perception is inapplicable " . Pg. 65.

 

SNS;

Even an erroneous perception (bhrama) is a perception, but it is not

a valid perception (pramA) because it is contradicted subsequently.

 

Michael:

> When inference is treated pg. 77: " After inference has thus been

set forth, it will prove the unreality of the entire universe, which

is other than Brahman. "

>

> " Unreality consists in something being the counterpositive of the

absolute non-existence that abides in whatever is supposed to be its

substratum. "

>

> That last sentence is very difficult. My understanding of it is as

follows. The counterpositive of illusory silver is actual silver.

Without there being this counterpositive there cannot be something

unreal. The silver does not exist in its substratum i.e. nacre, but

somewhere there is real silver. 'supposed to be' covers this

eventuality.

 

SNS:

This is one of the five definitions of mithyAtva (unreality)

considered by Madhusudana Sarasvati in his work known as

Advaitasiddhi. The meaning put in simple language is: That which

does not exist at all in the substratum on which it appears. The

snake appears on the substratum, rope, but it is not there in all

the three periods of time. Similarly, this world appears on Brahman,

but it has no real existence at any time in the past, present or

future.

 

Michael:

> Pg.82: " And the counterpositiveness relating to which (the

relative) is characterised by absoluteness " .

 

As can be seen on reading the whole paragraph, this sentence is

based on the view that reality is threefold, which is the theory

most accepted in Advaita vedanta. The meaning of the statement is

that the world has no absolute (pAramArthika) reality in any of the

three periods of time. But its empirical reality when it is actually

experienced before the dawn of knowledge is not denied.

 

I have only explained what VP says. Different views may be held on

some of these points by some other Acharyas.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 10/28/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

SNS:

This is one of the five definitions of mithyAtva (unreality)

considered by Madhusudana Sarasvati in his work known as

Advaitasiddhi. The meaning put in simple language is: That which

does not exist at all in the substratum on which it appears. The

snake appears on the substratum, rope, but it is not there in all

the three periods of time. Similarly, this world appears on Brahman,

but it has no real existence at any time in the past, present or

future.

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

Sastriji - PraNAms.

 

The above definition of mithyaa that Madhusuudana provided as one of the five

appears to come from Citsukhii which VP quotes in P. 77. This was discussed in

relation to VP's discussion of the mithyaa aspect of the universe that we

experience. I have discussed this aspect in the last post - No. 27 of the

knowledge series

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda