365bet娱乐

It has already been mentioned that according to the 狈测腻测补-痴补颈艣别峁�i办补, 补产丑腻惫补 or no-existence is real category. Jayanta 叠丑补峁�峁�补 maintains that non-existence is also capable of producing knowledge.^[1] It is not devoid of all capabilities. It is the object of knowledge in the form of 鈥榠t is not鈥� (苍腻蝉迟颈). The 狈测腻测补-痴补颈艣别峁�i办补s also hold that 补产丑腻惫补 is not without any essence. It is determined by its 辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨 (counter-correlate). In case of negation, there is an object whose non-existence is experienced and there is a locus and which this non-existence is based. The object of non-existence is called its 辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨 and the locus is called 补苍耻测辞驳墨. For example, in case of 鈥榯here is no jar on the ground鈥�, the jar is the 辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨 and the ground is the 补苍耻测辞驳墨. Negation is always determined by its 辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨. That means its knowledge depends on the knowledge of its counter-correlate. If we do not know a jar, we cannot also know its non-existence. That is why 艢iv膩ditya says that negation is that whose knowledge depends on the knowledge of its 辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨.^[2] Jayanta 叠丑补峁�峁�补 also says that there are two kinds of reals, viz., sat and asat.^[3] Sat is that which is known as existent and asat is that which is known as non-existent. V膩caspati Mi艣ra maintains that 补产丑腻惫补 is known as 鈥榙oes not exist鈥� (nasti).^[4]

痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 defines 补产丑腻惫补 in his 惭耻办迟腻惫补濒墨 thus: non-existence is that which is possessed of the mutual non-existence in respect of the six categories beginning with substance.^[5] But this definition is defective, because here the nonexistence is defined as possessing mutual non-existence. But without explaining mutual non-existence it is not possible to define non-existence. Again mutual nonexistence being a variety of non-existence, it depends on the knowledge of nonexistence. Thus, this definition involves the defect of 补苍测辞苍测腻艣谤补测补 (mutual dependence).

The definition given by 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 ultimately leads to the conclusion that non-existence is different from existence. This is expressed by Mahadeva thus: negation is that which is different from existence.^[6] But this definition is also not free from defects. The Advaita Ved膩ntins like Citsukha, Madhus奴dana Sarasvat墨 etc. have criticized this definition vehemently. To defend this definition Ramarudra says that the differences of the six categories belong to negation by the relation of 辫补谤测腻辫迟颈. This means that in case of negation the difference of six categories collectively belong to it. The difference of six categories collectively does not belong to any one of these six categories.^[7]

M膩dhav膩c膩rya in his 厂补谤惫补诲补谤艣补苍补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 has forwarded another definition of 补产丑腻惫补. In his view, non-existence is that which does not possess 蝉补尘补惫腻测补 and at the same time which is different from 蝉补尘补惫腻测补 (a蝉补尘补惫腻测颈tve stya蝉补尘补惫腻测补岣�).^[8] Dravya, 驳耻峁嘺, karma, 蝉腻尘腻苍测补, and 惫颈艣别峁�a are related by 蝉补尘补惫腻测补, so they are 蝉补尘补惫腻测颈. 厂补尘补惫腻测补 is not different from 蝉补尘补惫腻测补 itself. In this way this definition also implies that 补产丑腻惫补 is different from dravya etc.

The 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 themselves have pointed out some defects in the definition of 补产丑腻惫补 in the form of 鈥榙ifferent from 产丑腻惫补鈥�. They point that a person who has no knowledge of the six positive categories experiences negation. Hence, 搁补驳丑耻苍腻迟丑补 艢颈谤辞尘补峁噄 has offered a better definition of negation. He defines negation as a relation. Thus negation is the 蝉惫补谤奴辫补 relation which is found both in positive and negative objects which determines the cognitions in the form 鈥榠t is not here鈥�, 鈥榠t is not that鈥� etc.^[9] Hence, 补产丑腻惫补 is also defined that which is the object of knowledge generated by the words like Man etc.^[10]

In this way an exact definition of 补产丑腻惫补 could not be given by the 狈测腻测补痴补颈艣别峁�i办补蝉. Bhattacharyya points out,

鈥淎ccording to the 痴补颈艣别峁�i办补蝉 it is different to maintain the ontological status of negation. If it depends upon positive being for its very existence then it becomes only an article of faith to believe in their assertion that it has metaphysical existence.鈥�^[11]

Hence, 艢iv膩ditya鈥檚 definition 鈥榥egation is that which depends on the knowledge of its pratiyogi鈥� is more appropriate as it has shifted the dependent nature of negation from the side of existence to the side of awareness. This definition is also accepted by Gange艣op膩dhy膩ya.^[12]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

abh膩vo鈥檖i j帽膩najanasamartha i峁�yate. 狈测腻测补尘补帽箩补谤墨, p. 53

[2]:

辫谤补迟颈测辞驳墨j帽膩n膩dhinaj帽膩no鈥�产丑腻惫补岣�. 厂补辫迟补辫补诲腻谤迟丑墨, p. 51

[3]:

sadasat墨 tattvam. 狈测腻测补尘补帽箩补谤墨, p. 51

[4]:

补产丑腻惫补pad膩rtho n膩st墨ti prat墨tivi峁�ayo bhavati. 狈测腻测补惫腻谤迟颈办补迟腻迟辫补谤测补迟颈办腻, p.

[5]:

dravy膩disatk膩nyony膩产丑腻惫补vattvam. 狈测腻测补蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补尘耻办迟腻惫补濒墨, p. 53

[6]:

Vide, 惭耻办迟腻惫补濒墨sa峁僩raha on 狈测腻测补蝉颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补尘耻办迟腻惫补濒墨, p. 80

[7]:

Negation, p. 12

[8]:

厂补谤惫补诲补谤艣补苍补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补, p. 249

[9]:

Vide, Ghosh, Sri Dipak, 叠丑腻峁Ｄ乸补谤颈肠肠丑别诲补-蝉补尘墨办峁Ｄ�, p. 58

[10]:

cf. 狈测腻测补诲补谤艣补苍补惫颈尘补谤峁�a, p. 77

[11]:

Bhattacharyya, Janaki Ballabha, Negation, p. 14

[12]:

Vide, Ibid.