prapanchamityatvanumanakhandana

PRAPANCHAMITHYATVANUMANA KHANDANA

By Bindu Madhavan on www.dvaita.org

This Prakarana of 29 lines analyses in minute details and refutes the well known Advaitic syllogism that is present in Advaitic standard texts in support of the concept of Mithya, ie illusory nature of the world. The syllogism reads as " Vimatam Mithya Drisyatvat". This claim is illustrated by Suktirajata mentioning it "yatha sampratipannam". One who mistakes a shell to be the silver, the silver seen by him is not actually present. It is not Sat ie true, because it is not actually present. It is not Asat ie it is not totally untrue, because it is seen. This status of something which is neither "real" nor "unreal" is designated as Mithya in Advaita. On the analogy of Suktirajata, ie shell-silver, they consider the whole world to be Mithya. To establish this concept, the above Syllogism is proposed by them. This Syllogism is critically reviewed by Sri Madhvacharya in this text.

To point out that a Syllogism is defective, certain fallacies with reference to the Paksa, Sadhya and Hetu are pointed out in a philosophical debate. Hetu is arguement, Sadhya is the point to be proved, Paksa is that with reference to which the point at issue is to be proved. For instance, when the presence of the fire on the hill is to be proved by observing the smoke, the presence of smoke on the hill is Hetu, ie Arguement, the presence of the fire on the hill is Sadhya, ie the point to be proved. The hill is Paksa, ie that with reference to which the point at issue is to be proved.

In the Syllogism proposed by the Advaitin, to prove the Mithyatva of the world, the world is Paksa. It is with reference to the world that the Mithyatva is proposed to be proved. However, according to Advaitin himself, the world is not true. Therefore the asraya, ie that with reference to which the Mithyatva is proposed to be proved, ie the World itself is not available to prove it. This is technically called the fallacy of Asrayasiddhi.

According to the Advaita, the term Mithya means Anirvachanya, ie that which can not be described as Sat or Asat. However, the possibility of such an entity is yet to be proved. Therefore, the Sadhya, ie the point to be proved is also not known to the parties concerned. This is a fallacy known as Aprasiddhavisesana.

The nature of the Hetu cannot be properly explained by the Advaitin. It is not real according to Advaita. Its anirvachaniyatva is yet to be established. Therefore, there is the fallacy of Hetu asiddhi also.

Further, there is no instance with reference to which anirvachaniyatva can be demonstrated, because, the concept of Anirvachaitva itself is yet to be established. Because of this, even Suktirajata is Vipaksa. The Hetu, ie Drisyatva is present in it. Therefore there is the fallacy of Viruddha also. Since the Hetu Drisyatva is found in Atman also, there is fallacy of Anaikantika. The fallacies of Kalatyayapadista, Prakarana, Sama etc also were pointed out.

In this way, all the fallacies are pointed out for this Syllogism. With a view to enable the students to know the terminology connected with the technical terms Paksa, Sapaksa, Vipaksa etc are also explained in this small text. This Syllogism is fully refuted, in minute details, by Sri Jayathirtha in Vadavali and later by Sri Vyasatirtha in Nyayamrta. The Khandanatraya is the foundation of these great works of Dvaita-Advaita