365bet娱乐

The Advaita-concept of Sadasadvilaksana means neither real or existing nor unreal or non-existing. The world, according to the Advaitins, is Sadasadvilaksana that means it is neither real nor unreal. As an example they refer to the Suktirajata or the shell-silver and Rajjusarpa or the rope-serpent. The Suktirajata and Rajjusarpa should be distinguished from a Sasavisana or hare's horn and Vandhyaputra/ The Sasavisana is totally non-existent whereas the Suktirajata, being real and unreal, is not or the san of a barren woman. + I totally eAsat. Hence it is Sadasadvilaksana. The Suktirajata or Rajjusarpa are real to the extent that they are not real because they are sublated. The Advaita-argument is 'Sat cet na badhyata, asat cet na pratiyeta.' Vadiraja says that this argument is defective and fallacious. Because, both the Rajjusarpa and the Suktirajata are also Asat. He argues that Asat-Pratiti, the knowledge of nonexistient is possible, that means there can be the knowledge of Sasavisana. But it is true that this knowledge of Asat is defective verbal comprehension. In ordinary verbal comprehension, true relation between the word and the corresponding object is necessary. But in the case of Asat it is not possible. Though defective, verbal comprehension is possible in the case of Asat. The defective comprehension or verbal experience of Suktirajata or Rajjusarpa does not lead to any Sat-Pratiti because the two are t

Asat. Vadiraja argues that there is no difference in both the experiences of Sasavisana and Suktirajata or Rajjusarpa. Because the non-existent state of the entity that is experienced, is common in both the cases. So there is no In the ground to treat them separately or differently. case of the Sasavisana, the defective experience is verbal and in the case of the Suktirajata, defective experience is perceptual. both. But experience, being defective, is common in And moreover, the entities, referred to in both the cases, are Asat. are Asat. Hence, both the experiences are about the Asat or non-existents. 1079 I But the Advaitins defend and argue that both the Suktirajata experience and the Sasavisana-experience are to be distinguished. 1 Because, illusion of Rajata takes place only in respect of Sukti and illusion of Sarpa in Rajju. 2 And this happens due to previous experience of Rajata or Sarpa. He, who has no previous experience of these, cannot have the illusions. So the contents of previous experience are not totally Asat. But in the case of the Sasavisanacomprehension the entity is totally Asat. But this argument is not correct. Because, the Rajata or Sarpa that were experienced earlier cannot be the contents of this experience because they are not physically present in this experience. It is the element of similarity of the objects

already experienced and of the object present before, that If there is no similarity then there leads to illusion. can be no illusion. experience are no doubt, real but the contents of this experience are as mush Asat as the Sabavisana. The previous experience, through similarity, leads to illusion but it cannot contribute the reality to the contents of this experience. The defects may be different in respect of the Suktirajata and the Sasavisana but common fact is that both the experiences are Asat-nature.. And as already mentioned, there is every possibility to have the verbal The contents or objects of previous cognition or perceptual cognition of the Asat. And this cognition is due to the defects involved. So the world cannot be Sadasadvilaksana. And its cognition is possible in either case, real or unreal, 359