By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
Quora link : https://www.quora.com/What-is-Pratibhasik-Satya-Vyavaharik-Satya-Parmarthik-Satya
Satya
is that which is true, that which is vastu-sthiti or real state of
affairs. There cannot be multiple truths for the same case. Some People
confuse others with examples, starting from dreams to snake-rope,
shell-silver to fake notes, etc.
People confuse with vyAvahArika satya, prAtibhAsika satya, etc.
There
is vyavahAra, there is pratibhAsa. But they are just mistaking one
satya for another. That is problem with individuals. The truth/satya is
truth/satya no matter what. By appending satya to “vyavahAra” and
“pratibhAsa” and describing as another reality is nonsense. There is no
such thing as apparent reality or relative reality.
I
will address all three examples (rope-snake, fake note, shell-silver)
of this to show the incorrect understanding. But before that, I will
give an example and show how their approach leads to ridiculous
conclusions.
Suppose P1, P2...P100 are
different persons or different groups of persons. Suppose T is one truth
or reality. Suppose P1, P2...P100 perceive T as T1, T2...T100. That is
P1 sees T as T1. P2 sees T as T2 and so on P100 sees T as T100. It is
ridiculous that T1 is a truth and labeled as P1-truth. T2 is a truth and
labeled as P2-truth. And so on. T100 is a truth and labeled as
P100-truth. And then call T as Paramarthika satya.
T
is T only. That is satya only. No need to coin another word
“pAramArthika satya”. If P1 saw T1 instead of T, that is the problem of
P1.
If someone mistook rope for snake, all the following happen.
1. It does not affect the reality of the rope at all.
2. The person had the knowledge of real snake.
3. The person mistook rope for the snake.
4.
The awareness that it is only rope comes only after the realization. In
other words it is based on the past. The person who mistook will not
say “Oh after couple of days I am going to realize that this is only a
rope, but not a snake.”
The rope will not think/say “Oh, this guy mistook me for a snake; let me become a snake”.
The
person got confused that the rope is snake and the external observer,
who knows all three things (rope, snake and the person mistaking) got
confused and label “the snake in the rope” as another kind of reality
“prAtibhAsika satya”. That is wrong. There is no snake in the rope.
Period.
It is ridiculous to say that the
world was never born or it is vyAvahArika satya. The world is temporary.
Allright. But it is satya only. No need to call all temporary ones as
vyAvahArika satya. The are just “ashAshvata”. If there is a pot today,
it is satya only, tomorrow it may be broken. But today it does its job
like holding water, etc.
Even in case of
mirage, the sand/road or a similar thing is real. The sun is real. The
refraction is real. A person may mistake that there is water. The
problem is with the person. What ever is real, is real.
If
some one mistakes a real 100 rupee note for fake or fake note for real,
the issue is with the person. The fake note is fake, the real note is
real. Both of them exist in their own way. Suppose a fake note is
mistaken for real note, the fake note is real only and real note is not
there in those exact same coordinates. Even when the currency is
demonitized, the value is changing from 100 rs to zero, but the
existence of that paper is true. If the note is burnt, the ashes are
real only. If the ashes are thrown into the ocean, they are there in the
ocean, even if one may not be able to extract from there.
Similarly
mistaking shell for the silver, the shell is real only. The issue is
with the person only. There is no silver in the same locus of the shell.
There
is vyavahAra, but no vyAvahArika satya. There is pratibhAsa, but no
prAtibhAsika satya. The creation of God is also satya only, though not
permanent. Calling that as vyAvahArika satya in stage one and calling
that as illusion in stage two, is wrong and incorrect. Surely things are
temporary here and that itself is proof for reality. No one would say
“The hare’s horn” is temporary. It just does not exist.
If
it is said that the world is like a dream, it means that the world is
temporary. The comparison is limited only regarding temporariness. It
does not mean that just as the dream objects are not like real objects,
the world objects are not real objects. Even in case of confusing one
real for another real, the original real object is there.
Shri KrishNArpaNamastu !!
Dear Mr. kesava Rao!
ReplyDelete"Surely things are temporary here and that itself is proof for reality. "
You said it correctly. Temporariness is vyAvahArika and the reality is
Satya and therefore it is called vyAvahArika satyam. what is your problem
with the term?
There is absolutely only one kind of truth or satya. People get mixed up between truth and view point/perspective/outlook and wrongly label them as the truth. Is there meaning in calling "your truth","my truth", "John's truth", "Peter's truth", etc? That is how relative truth or vyAvahArika satya came about. Further people do wrong translations. Temporariness is not vyAvahArika. They are two different animals. Temporariness is anityatva. A crude and insufficient translation for vyAvahArika will be practical or transactional. Not only temporariness and vyAvahArika are semantically different, they are different parts of speech as well, the former being noun and the latter adjective.
ReplyDeleteIf Tom sees a rope and mistakes for a snake and Harry sees a rope only, which is vyAvahArika here? Rope or snake? The Advaita confused itself and confused others also with this non-existent entity called "vyvahArika satya". Similarly another absurd expression is "prAtibhAsika satya". It is like saying "white black". The moment you say "prAtibhAsika", it is not satya. Why label it as satya?
Among vyAvahArika entities, there is a mixture of truths, delusions, and practical usages, which we just use for convenience.
1. You see a pot with water, you are thirsty, you have a cup, you take water and you quench your thirst. All these are real.
2. You see a mirage and mistake that there is water there, but you can never quench your thirst with the illusory water.
3. You see a rope and mistake for a snake, but you will never be bitten by that illusory snake.
4. The Earth is rotating and you see the Sun in the horizon and you know that Sun is not actually rising. But still for practical purpose even NASA calls it Sunrise only and we know what exactly it means (the appearance of sun in the Eastern horizon as Earth revolves around its own axis - instead of such long expression, we just say Sunrise).
Where is mithya here? One may attempt to use 2, 3 and 4 to drive mithya. In case of 2 - the Sun is real, sunlight is real, the road or sand or the ground surface is real, the reflection/refraction phenomenon is real. There is also knowledge of real water, which the person saw elsewhere.
In case of 3, the rope is real, there is also knowledge of real snake, which the person saw elsewhere.
In case of 4, the Earth is real, the Sun is real, the sun being seen on the horizon is real. There is knowledge of real event.
All these are possible in a Real world. There are only two possibilities - satya or not satya. Then among satya, there are two kinds - nitya and anitya. There is no point in a three step misguiding -
1. First call anitya as vyAvahArika satya and then
2. label vyAvahArika satya as mithya (again a wrong translation) and then 3. call mithya as asatya.
So finally an anitya vastu ends up being called an asatya vastu.
The travesty is in denying one reality, the Advaita is forced to accept multiple realities and to escape from this conundrum, a devious device was devised.
If vishvaM mithyA dRushyatvAt , shuktirajatavat, rajjusarpavat. (the world is illusory because we see it like seeing silver in the nacre or a snake in the rope),
one can also say vishvaM satyaM dRushyatvAt , ghaTapaTAdivat, ghaTagatajalavat. (the world is real because we see it like seeing a pot, a cloth, etc., or water in the pot.
How can any one use an example to propound a theory? PratyakSha anubhava is enough to speak of reality. Put a hand in the fire and it burns. And to force-fit the mithya, the vyAvahArika satya is formed to slowly transport to mithya in an absurd way.
Agree.It appears philosophies are constructs with tools of terminologies appealing at that point of time .Mithya being anithya can be taken as temporary perceived reality.Again it is person specific.May be it is worthwhile to ficus on ultimate reality of changing one's thought dimension to transcend beyond the temporary travails of the world.Weneed to have a concept of constructive philosophy instead of dogmatic comparative philosophy.
ReplyDelete