[Advaita-l] Some questions on 'khyAti vAda-s' - Theories of/on Error

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Anand ji,

Thank you for a brief and informative presentation.

This position of the Madhva system:

//JayatIrtha clarifies, in his PramANa paddhati, that  what is meant is
atyanta asat, a completely false entity , "atyanta-asadrajatAtmanA
pratibhAtItyAchAryAH" . //

and the refuting reason given by the BhAShyaratnaprabha:

 // If it is shUnya or void or asat (as claimed by the mAdhyamika school or
the mAdhva school), then it is not possible for it (silver) to be perceived.
//

seems reasonable.  How can one 'recognize' or 'cognize' even in a
bhrama-sthala an atyanta asat (vandhyAputra, hare's horn, etc) ?  For, to
recognize something now, I must have seen it before and have formed a smriti
in me.  But with reference to such atyanta asat vastu-s, we have not seen
them in our non-bhrama states and therefore no smriti of such a thing is
available in our mind.  Such being the case, how is it possible to get the
cognition: 'this is that?' about a shUnya, atyanta asat padArtha? . I can
see a (false) man in a distant pillar, but I can never see a vandhyaputra in
that pillar as  adhyasta.  I cannot even imagine, in a manoratha, a
vandhyAputra playing cricket with me.  The moment I visualize a boy of 18,
tall, dressed in whites, etc. I am imagining only a normal man, not a
vandhyAputra.  It is impossible to have any kalpana with regard to an
atyanta asat vastu.

Best regards,
subrahmanian.v







On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> V Subrahmanian wrote:
> >AtmakhyAti - YogAchAra Bauddha (VijnAnavaada)
> >
> >asatkhyAti - MAdhyamika Bauddha (shUnyavAda)
> >
> >akhyAti - PrAbhAkara mImAmsA
> >
> >anyathAkhyAti - NyAya, Vaisheshika and BhATTa mImAmsA
> >
> >and anirvachaneeya khyAti - Vedantins (Advaita)
> >
> >to describe the phenomenon of error, adhyAsa.  The adhyAsa bhAshya
> contains
> >a reference to some or all of these vAda-s.
>
> Here are my notes on this topic. I have tried to explore the common ground
> among
> different khyAti vAdas and shown that anirvachanIya khyAti is the most
> suitable of
> them.
>
> There are a few others that one can add to the list:
> sadasatkhyAti of sAMkhya, satkhyAti of the vishiShTAdvaita, and
> abhinava-anyathAkhyAti
> of dvaita.
>
> Each school has its own theory about illusion, for example, the
> shukti-rajata, the illusion
> of silver in nacre or rope as snake. A nacre is mistaken for a piece of
> silver. A rope is
> mistaken for a snake. Shankara says regarding adhyAsa, "atasmin.h
> tadbuddhiH", cognition
> of one thing as another. This is the common ground among all schools, as
> far as illusion
> (bhrama) is concerned. If A is mistaken for B, where A is the substratum
> and B is the
> illusory object superimposed on A, then we have the following
> possibilities:
> 1) both A and B are unreal, 2) A is real, but B is unreal, 3) both A and B
> are real,
> 4) A is real, but B cannot be defined as real or unreal or both, 5) A is
> real, but B is both
> real and unreal. Here "real" is sat and "unreal" asat.
>
> In the asatkhyAti of mAdhyamikas, both the substratum of the error or
> illusion and
> the object of illusion are unreal (asat). The YogAchAra school holds that
> both the
> substratum (nacre) and the illusory object (silver) do not exist apart from
> their
> subjective cognitions, i.e., they are ideas in the mind. This is called
> AtmakhyAti.
>
> In early sAMkhya, for example, as expounded by Ishvarakrishna, there is no
> theory of
> perceptual error. Later contributors such as Aniruddha and VijnAnabhikShu
> put forth the
> theory of sadasatkhyAti. Aniruddha explains the silver-nacre illusion in
> his
>  sAMkhyasUtravritti -
> इदं रजतमिति पुरोवर्तिविषयतया सत् अबाधनात्, रजतविषयतया तु असत् बाधात्,
> तस्मात् सदसतो तत्त्वम् ।
> In the cognition, "this is silver", the thing before (the observer),
> the "this", is real (sat) because it is never sublated, (even after the
> illusion ends).
> The silver is false (asat), because it is sublated. Therefore, illusion or
> erroneous perception is the cognition of  both the sat and the asat.
>
> The PrabhAkara school of mImAMsA says there is non-apprehension (hence the
> name, akhyAti) of the distinction between the illusory object (silver) and
> the
> substratum (nacre).  Hence the illusion.
> शुक्तेश्चक्षुषा ग्रहणं रजतस्य च स्वातन्त्र्येण स्मरणं, "इदं न रजतं" इति
> भेदग्रह्स्याभावश्च
> त्रितयं कारणम् । The apprehension of nacre with the eye, the independent
> recollection of
> silver, and the absence of apprehension of the form "This is not silver" to
> differentiate
> (the thing in front from silver), - these three are jointly the causes.
>
> The nyAya school puts forth the theory of anyathAkhyAti. Here, the silver
> that was
> perceived at some other place at some other time is now perceived in nacre.
> This is
> made possible by something called a jnAna-lakShaNa-sannikarSha. Both the
> silver
> and nacre are real, but the silver that is being perceived was actually
> perceived at
> some other place at some other time. "sarvathA .asatve
> pratItyanupapattestatraiva
> sattve vA bAdhAnupapattiriti" - If the silver were completely false, it
> would not have
> appeared (before the observer). If it were present right in the place where
> it was
> perceived, there would be no sublation (of such a perception).
>
> The mAdhva theory of abhinava anyathAkhyAti says that the silver is false
> and the
> post-illusion experience "the false silver appeared" shows this. Unlike the
> naiyAyikas,
> the mAdhvas hold that silver, the illusory object, never occurs anywhere at
> any time.
> Cognition of a false (nonexistent) object in a substratum (adhiShThAna) is
> admitted in
> this system. Madhva holds that one cannot deny that a false object can be
> cognized
> even in illusion.
> न च असतो भ्रान्तावपि प्रतीतिर्नास्तीति वाच्यम् -विष्णुतत्त्वविनिर्णयः
> In fact, he explicitly denies what is cognized in an illusion is
> anirvachanIya, as the
> advaitins claim, and goes on to say that what is cognized in the illusion
> is asat.
> JayatIrtha clarifies, in his PramANa paddhati, that  what is meant is
> atyanta asat, a
> completely false entity , "atyanta-asadrajatAtmanA pratibhAtItyAchAryAH" .
> The following from the
>  विष्णुतत्त्वविनिर्णय of Madhva makes the definition of illusion or bhrama
> clear:
> असतः सत्त्वप्रतीतिः सतोऽसत्त्वप्रतीतिरित्यन्यथाप्रतीतिरेव भ्रान्तित्वात् ।
> The cognition of a
> nonexistent (false) entity as existing and an existing entity as
> nonexistent is called bhrama or illusion. This kind of cognizing one thing
> as another is illusion.
> The Kannada commentary by Shri Vishvesha Tirtha, Mathadhisha of the Pejawar
> Math clarifies this further:
> ಅಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ತೋರಿದ ಬೆಳ್ಳಿ ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ತೋರದೇ ಇರುವುದುರಿಂದ ಅದು ಅಸತ್ಯವೆಂಬುದರಲ್ಲಿ
> ಸಂದೇಹವೇ ಇಲ್ಲ.
> ಆದರೂ ಭ್ರಮೆಯ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ಅದು ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ.
>
> The vishiShTAdvaita theory of satkhyAti is also called yathArthakhyAti.
> According to
> this theory, all perceptual knowledge, whether it be of an illusion or
> otherwise, is
> valid. "satkhyAtirnAma jnAnaviShayasya satyatvam.h." This is the theory of
> satkhyAti
> which holds that the content (object) of a cognition is real. It recognizes
> bhrama or
> illusion only by virtue of the fact that there can be no meaningful
> activity with regard
> to the "illusory" object. The silver that is perceived in nacre is real but
> it cannot be part
> of any activity, such as picking it up. Therefore, the silver is bhrama.
> viShayavyavahArabAdhAt.h bhramatvam.h. How can silver possibly be really
> present
> in nacre? पञ्चीकरणप्रक्रियया पृथिव्यादिषु सर्वत्र सर्वभूतानां
> विद्यमानत्वात् । अत एव शुक्तिकादौ रजतांशस्य
> विद्यमानत्वात् ज्ञानविषयस्य सत्यत्वम् । By the process of panchIkaraNa,
> every element occurs in every element such as the earth. Therefore, the
> cognition of silver in nacre is true, since there is a (small) portion of
> silver (actually) in the nacre. If the silver in nacre is real, then it
> cannot be called illusory silver but real silver! However, this real silver
> occurs in a such a small quantity as to be practically of no use. तत्र
> रजतांशस्य स्वल्पत्वात् तत्र न व्यवहार इति तत् ज्ञानं
> भ्रमः । Because, the amount of silver (in nacre) is very small
> (infinitesimal) there cannot be any activity involving it.The theory of
> satkhyAti has its basis in
> the shrI-bhAShya statement by Ramanuja - "yathArthaM sarvavijnAnamiti
> vedavidAM
> matam.h"
>
> Finally, the advaita theory of anirvachanIyakhyAt holds that the illusory
> object, silver,
> cannot be categorized as sat or asat or both sat and asat. It cannot be
> sat, because
> it is sublated upon perceiving the substratum as it is. It cannot be asat,
> because it
> was perceived as existing during the illusion phase. An asat entity cannot
> be perceived
> even in an illusion. GauDapAdAchArya says (mANDUkya kArikA  3.28):
> असतो मायया जन्म तत्त्वतो नैव युज्यते ।
> वन्ध्यापुत्रो न तत्त्वेन मायया वाऽपि जायते ॥
> There can be no birth of a purely nonexistent thing either through mAyA or
> in reality.
> A barren-woman's son cannot be born either through mAyA or in reality.
> Therefore, by implication, the thing that is illusory and superimposed,
> e.g. a snake
>  on a substratum, e.g. a rope, cannot be asat or nonexistent, because a
> nonexistent
> thing is never cognized as occurring in a substratum. If it is not asat,
> then can it be
> sat? It cannot be sat as explained above. Therefore, it must be different
> from both sat
> and asat, i.e. anirvachanIya or something that cannot be described.
>
> This anirvachanIyatva concept is derived from Shankara's statement in the
> adhyAsa
> bhAShya, considering all views on adhyAsa (superimposition): "सर्वथापि
> त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां
> न व्यभिचरति".  Among all these views, what is common is the appearance of
> attributes of
> one thing in another. For example, nacre appears to have attributes of
> silver. A rope
> appears to have attributes of a snake.
> The bhAShyaratnaprabhA explains:
>
> एतेषु मतेषु परत्र परावभासत्वलक्षणसंवादमाह - सर्वथापि त्विति ।
>
> अन्यथाख्यातित्वादिप्रकारविवादेऽप्यध्यासः परत्र परावभासत्वलक्षणं न
> जहातीत्यर्थः ।
>
> शुक्तावपरोक्षस्य रजतस्य देशान्तरे बुद्धौ वा सत्त्वायोगात्, शून्यत्वे
> प्रत्यक्षत्वायोगात् ,
>
> शुक्तौ सत्त्वे बाधायोगात् मिथ्यात्वमेवेति भावः ।
>
>
>
> In all these views (of adhyAsa, illusion), the common characteristic is the
> appearance
>
> of one thing in the place of another thing. This is indicated in the
> bhAShya as "in all
>
> ways". Even the khyAti vAda's of other schools, such as anyathAkhyAti of
> nyAya, the
>
> characteristic of one thing appearing in the place of another is never
> given up. (However,
>
> the khyAti vAda's of other schools are defective.) In the illusion of
> silver in nacre,
>
> the silver is directly perceived in nacre and therefore it is not a
> suitable explanation to say
>
> that the silver was perceived in another place or it exists only as a
> (subjective) cognition
>
> or only in memory. (This refutes the theories of anyathAkhyAti of nyAya,
> the AtmakhyAti
>
> of YogAchAra, and the akhyAti of prAbhAkara mImAMsA.)
>
> If it is shUnya or void or asat (as claimed by the mAdhyamika school or the
> mAdhva
>
> school), then it is not possible for it (silver) to be perceived. If the
> silver really exists in
>
> nacre (as claimed by the satkhyAti of the vishiShTAdvaitins), then its
> sublation is not
>
> possible (when the illusion ends). (Also, it cannot be sadasat, as claimed
> by the
>
> sAMkhya school because that would be a contradiction.) (Since the khyAti
> vAda's of
>
> other schools are refuted), what remains as the correct khyAti vAda is that
> of
>
> mithyAtva or anirvachanIyatva.
>
>
>
> Anand
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>