A perspective - 20

[Guest guest]

Is the world is real or unreal?

 

That is the question that is being raised by Michael for Subbu. I agree with

Subbu’s answer. But here I am presenting two of the five definitions of

falsity that Shree Madhusudana presents defending previous aachaaryas’

positions. Shankara in his adhyaasa bhaaShya uses the world mithyaa for the

world- In his commentary of ManDukya kaarika, he makes a statement – I see it

therefore it is false – dRisyatvaat while the dvaitic position is I see it

therefore it is real – dRisyatvaat, where pratyaksha pramaaNa or direct

perception is given importance for reality. In his commentary on Shankara

bhaaShya, Padmapaada defines the mithyaa as – anirvacaniiyam, unexplainable,

in the sense that we cannot say it exists and we cannot say it does not exits.

This forms the first definition of falsity that dvaitins in NyaayamRita

criticize using Navya Nyaaya arguments. Some of the arguments of Michael are not

different from Purvapakshi presented in the text and

these have been treated exhaustively by our aachaaryaas. I am planning to write

these arguments and counter arguments later. I request Shree Sastriji also to

present the Advaita Siddhi’s arguments in the order discussed for the benefit

of others. Anand Hudli has done some.

 

The question is what is this world? Advaita answer is it is neither real nor

unreal or It is mithyaa. For this -Purvapakshi presents - What is mithyaa? In

countering the definition gives the argument that what is not sat or real, it

should be asat, unreal; and what is not asat, unreal, it should be sat. It

should be one or the other and you cannot have both real and unreal in the same

locus – That is the essence of argument of puurvapakshi saying that mutually

opposing qualities of sat and asat locussed on one, contributes to

self-contradiction, and therefore illogical and not acceptable. Madhusudana

says NO. There is no contradiction here. The contradiction comes only if one

considers them as mutually exclusive. But if one defines the real and unreal

correctly then there is no contradiction. This, as I see, forms the essence of

discussion between Michael and Subbu. These are definitions:

 

1. Real is that which is not negated in three periods of time. And by this

definition Brahman alone is real and nothing else. Brahman cannot be seen –

agotram -says the scripture. Hence whatever I perceive cannot come under Real.

 

2. Unreal is that where there is never a time and place to have a locus for its

existence. This should be actually called tuccham in stead of asat –

unfortunately the scriptures use the asat for this also. This cannot be

perceived too –since there is no locus of its existence as in vandhyaaputraH,

son of a barren woman.

 

3. Now there is a third category which does not fall under 1 and 2 – that is

the world – I see it therefore it is not UNREAL(This is also discussd in

B.sutra 2-28). But it undergoes continuous modification therefore it is not

trikaala abhaaditam, that is, it does not fulfill the definition of 1 or of

reality. Hence it is not REAL. Hence it is neither real nor unreal.

 

Hence it is anirvachaniiyam says Pancapaadika which Madhusudana justifies as

valid definition for the world where there is no contradiction that dvaitins

point out. Since if it is not 1, it can be 2 or 3 and if it is not 3, it can be

1 or 2 and if it is not 1 and 2 then it can be 3. It is not unreal since it is

experienced, and it is not real since it can be sublated. Hence it is only

transactionally real like our good old ring and bangle – vaacaarambhanam

vikaaro naamadheyam – there are there – naamkevaaste – but what is there

is really gold. Similarly what is there when I see the world is Brahman only in

varieties of names and forms – That is what is involved in tat tvam asi

statement too. aitadaatmyam idam sarvam tat satyam – sa aatma – tat tvam asi

– swetaketu. The essence of the whole universe (idam sarvam) is nothing but

the very existence principle – that you are. The discussion automatically

leads to the second definition of

mithyaa that Madhusudana presents.

 

2. This definition comes from Shree Prakaashaatma Yati who is also known as

VivaraNaacharya, who in further explaining Shankara adhyaasa bhaaShya justifies

the mithyaa aspect of the world using the scriptural statement – neha

naanaasti kinchana – there is nothing what so ever here.. Here being used in

terms world of perceptual presence now – that is as I am perceiving the world

right now – the declaration is there is nothing what so ever real here since

what is real is Brahman which cannot be perceived. Since non existence thing

cannot be perceived, therefore on the basis of the scriptural statement whatever

is perceived is mithyaa only since it is neither real nor unreal.

 

The definition for mithyaa is: pratipanna upaadhou

traikaalikanishedhapratiyogitvam vaa mithyaatvam’ – in essence where three

I am seeing now is not really there and what is there that is really present, I

cannot see. I am seeing pot there but pot is really not there – what is there

is only clay and not pot. Hence pot is mithyaa. I am seeing the world in front

of me, there where I am seeing the world, it is not there since in this case

what is there is only Brahman that I cannot see. Hence the second definition is

off-shoot of the first but comes with scriptural justification for the mithyaa

besides the vaachaarambhanam statement quoted above..

 

Hence real or unreal question should be really real, unreal or mithyaa which I

am echoing as anirivacaniiyam - indeterminate. The whole world itself is mithyaa

– this applies equally to waking world as well as the dream world. In that

sense there is not much difference. Hence Shankara says in aatma bodha:

 

Sakaale satyavat bhaati, prabodhe satyasat bhavet – it appears to be real in

its time, but when one is awaken its unreality is recognized. Here the term is

satyavat – meaning it is as though real that is it APPEARS to be real. The

similar statement Shankara makes in DakshiNamurthi first sloka – vishvam

darpaNa dRisyamaana nagarii tulyam nijaatargatam –exhaustive analysis has been

provided for these slokas by Shree Subbuji and is stored in the file section of

advaitin list.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda