Enquiry into Unreality

 (According to Advaitasiddhi of Madhusudana Saraswati. The objections are based on Nyayamrta of Vyasatirtha)

 First Definition of Unreality

Unreality is the coexistence of the absence of existence and absence of non-existence.

Objection: If there is absence of existence, there cannot be absence of non-existence. 

Answer: Existence is the quality of not being subject to negation and non-existence is the incompetence of being perceived as existent in any given locus. They do coexist in silver that is superimposed on a shell.

Objection: Brahman, who is free from all attributes, also has the coexistence of the two, as Brahman does not have existence and non-existence as its attributes. Hence, the definition of unreality has over-coverage with respect to Brahman.

Answer: Brahman is free from the attributes of absence also. Hence the above definition cannot cover Brahman.

Second Definition of Unreality

Being subject to negation in present, past and future - all three times, on a locus where it is perceived.

The definition exists in silver that is superimposed on a shell. The silver that is perceived on the locus of shell is negated in all three times, as it does not exist at any point of time including the moments of its perception.

Objection: IS the negation real or unreal? If it is real, it endangers non-duality as you are forced to admit another reality in addition to Brahman. If it is unreal, the object stays unnegated in real terms. Hence the unreality of the object is not justified.

Answer: Even if the negation is real, it does not endanger non-duality, as negation is not admitted as an entity different from the locus of negation. Even if we assume the negation as unreal, it does not validate your objection. An unreal negation is capable of dismissing an object in real terms. For instance, an unreal tiger experienced in a dream can make the dream vanish.

Objection: What is negated? Is it the object in its very nature or the object as a real one? The first is not acceptable as the object that appears and has its functionality cannot be negated in its very nature. The second is also not correct. The real has to be defined in terms of the unreal, i.e., the one that is negated is unreal and real is the one that is distinct from the unreal. Hence, if you define unreality in terms of real, it leads to a logical flaw of mutual dependence.

Answer: We contend that the very nature of the object is negated. It does not affect the appearance and functionality of the object, as it is accepted even in snake that is superimposed on a rope. Even the superimposed rope is competent to appear and cause fear.