advaita-siddhi 12 (Objection by opponent)

The objection of the opponent is based on the acceptance by advaitins of three orders of reality as defined in, for example, the Vedaanta paribhaashhaa of dharmaraaja adhvarin:

 yadvaa trividhaM sattvaM -- paaramaarthikasattvaM brahmaNaH,

 vyaavahaarikaM sattvamaakaashaadeH, praatibhaasikaM sattvaM

 shuktirajataadeH |

 The absolute reality of Brahman is paaramaarthika satya, the empirical reality of the objective world, which includes space etc., is vyaavahaarika satya, and the illusory appearance of silver in nacre (oyster-shell), etc. is  praatibhaasika satya.

The Objection in brief:

  The objection by the opponent is aimed to trap the advaitin in an unrecoverable position by pointing out defects in any assignment of ontological status to the negation (sublation) used in the second definition of the mithyAtva.

 advaita-siddhi text:

 nanu, pratipannopAdhau traikAlikanishhedhasya tAttvikatve advaita-

 hAniH prAtibhAsikatve siddha-sAdhanaM, vyAvahArikatve .api tasya

 bAdhyatvena tAttvikasattvAvirodhitayA arthAntaraM, advaitashruter-

 atattvAvedakatvaM cha tatpratiyoginaH prAtibhAsikasya prapaJNchasya

 pAramArthikatvaM cha syAt.h,

 Translation:

 Objection by the opponent: Now, if the absolute negation (of a thing, such as the world, that is being called mithyA as per the second definition) is absolutely real (pAramArthika), then the basic principle of advaita (non-dualism) is destroyed! (If the absolute negation) is only illusory (prAtibhAsika), then you are proving what is already established (ie. the reality of the world). Even (if the absolute negation) is empirical (vyAvahArika), you will be proving something other than what you intended because (such negation) will not be opposed to the absolute reality (of the world). The shruti texts that are non-dualistic will be incapable of revealing the truth. And (if it be claimed that) the world is illusory, (that will not hold) and (the world) would have absolute reality (pAramArthikatva).

 Let us examine the opponent's objection in more detail.

 The opponent says: You define three orders of reality - pAramArthika, vyAvahArika, and prAtibhAsika. And you have defined mithyAtva as the counter-positive-ness of the absolute negation (for all periods of time) in the very substratum where the thing that is mithyA is cognized. In essence, you would like to categorize the world as mithyA. Now, what reality do you assign to such a  negation of the world?

 1) Is this negation pAramArthika (absolutely real)?

 2) Is this negation prAtibhAsika (illusory) ?

 3) Or, is this negation vyAvahArika (empirical) ?

 Regardless of the type of reality you assign to this negation, you run into problems.

1) The negation of the world is pAramArthika. In this case, you   have a direct contradiction with the non-dual principle of   advaita. BrahmAnanda explains the objection:

  advaita-hAniH "neha nAne"tyAdishrutibodhitasya brahmaNi dR^ishya-

  sAmAnyAbhAvasya virodhaH

  (There is) damage to the principle of non-duality as known from  shruti statements such as "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" (there is no  manifold-ness here whatsoever) (because) of the contradiction due  to the common absence of the "perceived" (dR^ishya) in Brahman.

  If the negation of the world is pAramArthika, then you have two  such realities - 1) Brahman, and 2) the said negation of the world.  This compromises the non-duality principle.

 2) The negation of the world is prAtibhAsika, illusory. In this case,    you have siddha-sAdhana-doshha. BrahmAnanda explains:

    siddha-sAdhanamiti | kapAle ghaTo nAstItyAdibhrame prAtItikasya-

    atyantAbhAvasya vishhayatvena siddha-sAdhanamityarthaH |

    siddha-sAdhana means that in cases of erroneous cognition or illusion    such as denying the pot in its parts, the absolute absence of the    (erroneously) cognized negation is already established (in another    system).

   In other words, if you say the negation is illusory, such as the   negation of a pot in its two halves, such a position is already   admitted by another system (such as nyAya). (A whole is said "inhere"   in its parts as per nyAya. So a whole, such as a pot, cannot be denied   in its parts. Any such denial is erroneous.)

   In other words, if you say the negation of the world is illusory or  erroneous, that is already admitted by the realist schools. So you are  committing the mistake of siddha-sAdhana, proving what is already  established.

 3)The negation of the world is vyAvahArika. In this case, what   you are saying is that the negation of the world will itself get   sublated upon realization of Brahman. What does this mean?   The world itself CANNOT be vyAvahArika because it is absurd   (a contradiction) to say that the world as well as its negation   get sublated upon Brahman realization. Either the world or its   negation can get sublated at the same time but not both! Therefore,   you are left with two possibilities - a. the world is pAramArthika   (absolutely real) OR b. the world is prAtibhAsika (illusory).   But you deny the world is illusory yourself, and so the world can   only be pAramArthika. This point is stated by BrahmAnanda as:

   prAtibhAsikatva-asaMbhavena pAramArthikatvameva balAtsyAditi bhAvaH |

    (Since the world) cannot possibly be illusory it is forced to be   absolutely real (pAramArthika) only. This is the purport (of the   opponent).

    Again, ViTThalesha explains why the world cannot be illusory when   he comments on the term "prAtibhAsikatva-asaMbhavena" of BrahmAnanda:   brahmaGYAnAnyAbAdhyatvAditi

    (The world cannot be illusory) because (it is admitted by the advaitin)   to remain un-sublated (not negated) by anything other than knowledge   of Brahman.

    So what is the result of accepting the world as pAramArthika and the   negation of the world as vyAvahArika? These are the defects.   First, you will have established the world as absolutely real   which is different from what you set out to prove. This is the   defect of arthAntara. Second, the shruti texts that speak of   non-duality such as "neha nAnAsti kiJNchana" will have to be   accepted as NOT revealing the ultimate truth because they can   only reveal what is empirical ( vyAvahArika), ie. the negation of   the world.

  In response to the objection of the opponent, MadhusUdana now begins his reply:

   iti chet.h? na |

   If this is what you say, we say no!