[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 015 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 7)

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Venkatraghavanji

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> Space according to the naiyyAyika has no substratum, AdhAra, ie it does not
> have AdhAra Adheya  (locus-object) relationship with anything. It does not
> however mean that space is a non-existent entity in nyAya. As defined, the
> definition of mithyAtva (the absence of an object in a real substratum)
>

can we say:

naiyyAyika's dont accept real substratum(sat or Brahman) as the locus of
appearance of all objects (incl space) ...



> would also apply to space (as the absolute absence of space is present in
> all substrata, according to the naiyyAyika).


if so, will this not contradict to their claim that space is
*all-pervading* and eternal ?



>
>
> The naiyyAyika had said that space is avritti, and the absence of it is
> present in all substrata. If the advaitin wants to argue that mithyAtva is
> the absence of an object in (all) substrata,


But, advaitin, does not claim as such (all), as he only says absence of an
object in real substratum ( sat) ?

then what is established is
> avritti, not mithyAtva.
>


>
>
> *1) The adhikaraNa qualifier is not required in the definition. *
> The naiyyAyika had said, AkAsha is avritti, it has no substratum. Hence he
> had argued that its absence was in every substratum.
>
> यदि पुन: ध्वंसप्रागभावप्रतियोगित्वमिवात्यन्ताभावप्रतियोगित्वमाकाशादौ न
> स्यात् However, If instead we say - when space's destruction or creation is
> not accepted by the naiyyAyika, its absence also must not be accepted.
>
> साधकमानाभावस्य तुल्यत्वात् Because, just like in the case of destruction or
> creation, there is no proof for the absolute absence of space either. The
> naiyyAyika can say there is pramANa for atyantAbhAvam using the four
> pramANas at his disposal - pratyaksha, anumAna, upamAna, shabda. There is
> no scope for upamAna or shabda here, leaving only pratyaksha and anumAna.
>
> इहाकाशो नास्तीति प्रत्यक्षप्रतीत्यसम्भवात् One cannot use pratyaksha
> pramANa to say that "there is no space here". Because to prove the absence
> of something, the pratiyogi must have the yogyatA of pratIti. That is, the
> pratiyogi must be visible to begin with, so that its absence can also be
> perceived. There has to be yogyAnupalabdhi. According to nyAya, space
> cannot be seen. How can its absence be perceived? There is no pratyaksha
> basis for concluding that space has absence.
>
> अनुमाने चानुकूलतर्काभावात्, There is no anukUla tarka, or supportive logic
> that can be used to argue for the absence of space. What harm ensues if
> space's absence is denied?
>
> According to the founder of nyAya shAstra, *Gautama, *anukUla tarka can be
> of three kinds. Proving the cause through its effect (sheShavat), proving
> the effect through the cause (pUrvavat) and proving one through an
> unrelated other (sAmAnyato driShTa). The last of three, sAmAnyato driShTa,
> is quite difficult to prove.
>
> सामान्यतो दृष्टमात्रेण ध्वंसप्रागभावप्रतियोगित्वस्यापि सिद्धिप्रसङ्गात् if
> sAmAnyato driShTa anukUla tarka was used to prove atyantAbhAva, the same
> can be used to prove the dhvamsa and prAgabhAva of space too.
>
> तद्व्यतिरेकेण कस्यचित् कार्यस्यानुपपत्तेरभावाच्च By holding that space is
> never absent anywhere, no harm ensures anywhere.
>
> Thus there is no reason to hold that space is universally absent, therefore
> we need not qualify the specific nature of the locus in mithyAtva's
> definition to exclude space.
>

Thanks