Khyativada

Last updated • 4 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Khyātivāda (Sanskrit: ख्यातिवादाः) is the term used to refer to the Indian Theories of Perceptual Error – khyāti (ख्यातिः) besides referring to 'fame', 'renown' etc., in Samkhya philosophy refers to the 'erroneous conception' (of the Atman) or 'false apprehension', and vāda means - 'proposition', 'discourse', 'argument'. These are all theories that deal with the nature of the object of illusory perception and not with the nature of the subject, whether the error consists in the object or in the subject’s cognition. There are five principal theories dealing with perceptual errors, which are:-

An understanding of what is true and what is untrue is an integral part of philosophical study for acquisition of highest knowledge. Knowledge presupposes a subject of that knowledge and also the object corresponding to it. The nature of knowledge however depends upon the mind and the cognitive faculties of the subject as also on the conditions in which the object is situated in relation to the subject; an error is caused due to a peculiar relation formed by the perceiver and the position of the object. Inference, a valid mode of cognition, is based on previous perception, and an erroneous perception negates the value of perception. [1] [2] The first three of the afore-listed five theories admit that the object perceived illusorily is, in one way or the other, existent; the remaining two, do not accept this contention. [3]

Shankara explains that in Sampat Upasana there is the imposing (aropa) of a superior character on the inferior whereas in Pratika (adhyasa) Upasana the inferior form is contemplated as Brahman. Āropa or illusion is 'mis-cognition' ( avidyā ), 'mis-appearance' (avabhāsa), 'superimposition' ( adhyāsa ), a 'misapplication' or a 'mis-presentation' which is not consciously persuaded unlike misperception and misunderstanding; and in which, neither the agent nor the subject have any active role to play. But, Aropa is not Adhyasa because there has to be an appearance which can make the delusive illusory appearance of a particular appearance a distinct possibility. [4] Badarayana states that:-

पराभिध्यानातु तिरोहितं ततो ह्यस्य बन्धविपर्ययौ |
"From the meditation on the supreme Lord, however, becomes manifest that which remains obscured; because the soul’s bondage and freedom are derived from Him." - (Brahma Sutras III.ii.5)

which is so because bondage comes from the ignorance about the nature of God, and freedom comes from the knowledge of His reality when as a result of meditation on Him (with attributes) comes unsurpassable divinity and one becomes the Absolute with all the desires fulfilled. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad I.11). And that:-

अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत् |
"Hence also are the illustrations of the sun’s reflection (in water) etc." – (Brahma Sutras III.ii.19)

which statement, Shankara explains, means that the one with attributes created by limiting adjuncts is not real but though One and present in all beings is seen as many. [5]

Aropa can be verbal (śabdi), and it can also be based upon sense (arthi) (meaning or implied), sometimes it is not expressed but is conveyed. [6] Advaita Vedanta does not view the world of existence as an absolute reality, it is an imposition (aropa), it simply does not exist from the absolute standpoint; it is Anatman which the Atman accepts as a device for the purpose of self-realization, and for experiencing Divine Unity, the inseparableness of Atman and Anatman. [7]

The Dvaita School of Madhavacharya does not accept the Advaita illusionistic hypothesis or interpretation of reality as being deceptive and merely appearance-interpreting. Jayatirtha, while discussing Khyātivāda, rejects Prabhākara’s view of the fusion of two cognitions i.e. fusion of percept and memory, resulting in illusory cognition. [8]

Khyātivāda is based on the assumption that misperception is not simply the human failure to perceive correctly but is something which occurs due to some peculiar special circumstances, and that cognition can be either correct ( pratyaksha ) or incorrect (apratyaksha) depending upon the cognizing activity of the mind. Its theories are concerned with the nature of the object which is erroneously cognized and whose ontological status they logically examine. [9]

Related Research Articles

Maya, literally "illusion" or "magic", has multiple meanings in Indian philosophies depending on the context. In later Vedic texts, Māyā connotes a "magic show, an illusion where things appear to be present but are not what they seem". Māyā is also a spiritual concept connoting that which "is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal", and which "conceals the true character of spiritual reality".

Advaita Vedanta School of Hindu philosophy; a classic path to spiritual realization

Advaita Vedānta is a school of Hindu philosophy and "spiritual experience." The term Advaita refers to the idea that Brahman alone is ultimately real, the phenomenal transient world is an illusory appearance (maya) of Brahman, and Pure Consciousness, the true self, atman, is identical with Brahman.

Anātman in Sanskrit means that "which is different from atman" or "non-self". In Hinduism, the former definition is found in some texts, while in Buddhism, anātman or anattā means non-self.

Non-difference is the nearest English translation of the Sanskrit word abheda, meaning non-existence of difference. In Vedanta philosophy this word plays a vital role in explaining the indicatory mark in respect of the unity of the individual self with the Infinite or Brahman.

According to Sarira Traya, the Doctrine of the Three bodies in Hinduism, the human being is composed of three shariras or "bodies" emanating from Brahman by avidya, "ignorance" or "nescience". They are often equated with the five koshas (sheaths), which cover the atman. The Three Bodies Doctrine is an essential doctrine in Indian philosophy and religion, especially Yoga, Advaita Vedanta and Tantra.

In Indian philosophy, Paroksha refers to mediate knowledge or indirect cognition, mediated by sensory-intellectual apparatus, in which thought systems psychological insights that have evolved in the context of two levels of realities, empirical and transcendental, are gained through both direct cognition and indirect cognition of things that exist in the universe.

Vivartavada is the Vedantic theory of causation; it is the method of asserting this doctrine.

Asatkalpa, this Sanskrit term is derived from the word, asat, meaning 'unreal' combined with the word, kalpa, here in the context of Advaita Vedanta philosophy meaning 'a little less than complete', and is another word for mithya meaning 'the almost unreal world' or 'unreal conceptuality'. In the context of Yogacara school of Buddhism it is one of the three transformed modes of the mind which three are – parikalpa, 'the act of imagination', abh utaparikalpa, 'the act of imagining the unreal forms', and asatkalpa, 'the act of imagining the non-existent'.

Mithyātva means "false belief", and an important concept in Jainism and Hinduism. Mithyātva, states Jayatirtha, cannot be easily defined as 'indefinable', 'non-existent', 'something other than real', 'which cannot be proved, produced by avidya or as its effect', or as 'the nature of being perceived in the same locus along with its own absolute non-existence'.

Jivatva means – the state of life or the state of the individual soul. Jivatva is the state of life of the Jiva, the living entity, which is a particular manifestation of Atman, the embodied being limited to psycho-physical states, and the source of avidya that suffers (repeated) transmigration as result of its actions. Until ignorance ceases the Jiva remains caught in experience of the results of actions bringing merit and demerit, and in the state of individuality (jivatva), and so long as the connection with the intellect as conditioning adjunct lasts, so long the individuality and transmigration of soul lasts.

Abhasavada is the term derived from the word Abhasa meaning mere or fallacious appearance, reflection, looking like, light, semblance of reason, intention. In Hindu philosophy this term refers to the Theory of Appearance, both of the Shaivite school and the Advaita Vedanta, though with differing connotations.

Pratibimbavada or the theory of reflection, whose origin can be traced to the Brahma Sutra II.iii.50, is credited to Padmapada, the founder of the Vivarna School of Advaita Vedanta and the author of Pancapadika which is a commentary on Sankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhasya. According to the Vivarna School, Brahman is the locus of Avidya, and which, with regard to the relation existing between the Jiva and Brahman, concludes that the Jiva is a mere reflection (pratibimba) of its prototype (bimba) i.e. of Brahman, and therefore, identical with its essence, Brahman. This school holds the view that the mahavakya, tat tvam asi, is sufficient for the attainment of enlightenment, of the realization of the identity between the self and Reality.

Pradhāna is an adjective meaning "most important, prime, chief or major". The Shatapatha Brahmana gives its meaning as "the chief cause of the material nature" (S.B.7.15.27) or "the creative principle of nature" (S.B.10.85.3). The Samkhya School of Indian philosophy employs the word to mean the creative principle of nature, as the original root of matter, the Prime Matter but which according to Badarayana’s logic is the unintelligent principle which cannot be the one consisting of bliss.

The Upanishadic philosophy of experience expounded by Gaudapada is based on the cryptic references made by the sage of the Mandukya Upanishad to the experience of the individual self of its own apparent manifestations in the three fundamental states of consciousness, and to the Fourth known as Turiya. Turiya is identified with “that goal which all the Vedas declare” - सर्वे वेदा यत् पदमानन्ति, and whose characteristics are not dissimilar to those of the non-dual Brahman.

Vidya figures prominently in all texts pertaining to Indian philosophy – mean science, learning, knowledge and scholarship; most importantly, it refers to valid knowledge, which cannot be contradicted, and true knowledge, which is the intuitively-gained knowledge of the self. Vidya is not mere intellectual knowledge, for the Vedas demand understanding.

Pratiyogitvam, a Sanskrit term, means recognizing 'difference' by noting the 'otherness' in another thing; 'difference' means 'the want of the total characteristic of one thing in another'. Differences are of three kinds: (a) 'difference existing in oneself' (svajātiya-bheda), (b) 'difference in species' (svagata-bheda), and (c) 'difference of genus' (vijātiya-bheda). These differences do not exist in Brahman who is one without a second. The Upanishads negate these differences in Brahman who is self-revealing and can be experienced when all mentations cease, what is then experienced is not nothing, for there can be no knowledge of a thing that does not exist.

Abhutaparikalpa is a concept which was developed by the Yogacara/Vijnanavada school of Buddhism with regard to definitions of reality identifying it as the dependent nature among the three natures postulated, and is described as neither empty nor not empty by adopting a neither nor position, that it is both existent and not existent. As paratantrasvabhava it exists as such but does not exist as it appears when affected by the 'subject-object duality' of parikalpitasvabhava freed from which it is the perfect nature of parinishpannasvabhava.

Āropya variously means – to be placed or fixed in or on; to be planted; to be strung ; to be attributed, interposed, supplied, having made to ascend or mount; it also means – putting on, keeping, raising or lifting. Aropya is one of the four kinds of abharna (jewelry) which is put around the neck, wrist or waist. According to Sanskrit grammar, if a principal object is metaphorically figured or represented together with subordinates then it is Entire Metaphor that either dwells in all objects when all constituent metaphors (aropyas) are expressed or resides in a part when any is understood. In Sanskrit literature, Rudha Laksana gives the meaning which is derived from convention; in it is also seen the reflection of the popular figure of speech – Metonymy, in which the name of a particular thing is changed and given another name. In Gauni Saropa the projected object (aropyamana) and the subject on which such a projection is made are identified with each other. A metaphor consists of two parts or units – a) 'tenor' i.e. the thing to be discussed and b) 'vehicle' i.e. the thing to which an object is compared; the former is aropya or upameya and the latter, aropyamana or upamana.

In Hindu thought, Anubhava or anubhavah refers to personal knowledge or aesthetic experience.

Bhrama, in the context of Hindu thought, means – error, mistake, illusion, confusion, perplexity. But, it literally means – that which is not steady; and refers to error etc., caused by defects in the perceptive system. The seeing of snake in a rope in darkness, silver nacre in moonlight, water in a mirage on a hot day and a person in a stump of tree are four classic instances quoted in Vedantic texts. Bhrama is a mistake, it is a confusion about one object which exists for another object which does not exist, it merely refers to the fallibility of human perception.

References

  1. ↑ J.Mohanty (2000). Classical Indian Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 33–34. ISBN   9780847689330.
  2. ↑ S.N.Sastri. "Theories about erroneous cognition" (PDF).
  3. ↑ E.I.Warrier (1995). The Contribution of Anandabodha to Advaita. Mittal Publications. p. 77. ISBN   9788170995975.
  4. ↑ Shyamam Kumar Chattopadhyaya (2000). the Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita Vedanta. Sarup & Sons. pp. 64, 86, 164. ISBN   9788176252225.
  5. ↑ Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya. Advaita Ashrama. pp. 595, 615. ASIN   8175051051.
  6. ↑ G.Parthasarthy Rao (1992). Alankararatna, a study. p. 65. ISBN   9788170994060.
  7. ↑ V.J.Kirtikar (1924). Studies in Vedanta. D.B.Taraporevala Sons & Co. p. 71.
  8. ↑ B.N.Krishnamurti Sharma (2000). A History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 257. ISBN   9788120815759.
  9. ↑ Srinivasa Rao (January 1998). Perceptual Error: The Indian Theories. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 2, 14. ISBN   9780824819583.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.