Mithyātvānumānakhaṇḍanam (मिथ्यात्वानुमानखण्डनम्)

मिथ्यात्वानुमानखण्डनम्

Refutation of the inference of falsity

‘विमतं मिथ्या दृश्यत्वात्, यदित्थं तत्तथा, यथा सम्प्रतिपन्नम्(शुक्तिरजतम्) ’

“The disputed subject is false, because it is an object of cognition. Whatever is such is so, as in the agreed-upon instance of shell-silver.”

इत्युक्ते जगतोऽभावादाश्रयासिद्धः पक्षः । अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेरप्रसिद्धविशेषणः । सदसद्वैलक्षण्ये मिथ्यात्वे सिद्धसाधनता । दृश्यत्वाभावादसिद्धो हेतुः । अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेरेव सपक्षाभावाद्विरुद्धः । आत्मनोऽपि दृश्यत्वादनैकान्तिकः । जगतोऽभावेऽनुमानस्याप्यभाव इति तर्कबाधितत्वेनानध्यवसितः ।

When it is stated thus, because the world is nonexistent, the subject of inference is unestablished as to its locus. Since indefinability is unestablished, the subject has an unestablished qualifier. If falsity consists in being distinct from both the real and the unreal, there is the fault of proving what is already established. Since being an object of cognition is absent, the reason is unestablished. Precisely because indefinability is unestablished, the reason is contradictory, since there is no similar instance. Since the self too is an object of cognition, it is inconclusive. It is unascertained, being refuted by the counter-reasoning: “If the world is nonexistent, the inference too is nonexistent.”

प्रत्यक्षादिविरुद्धत्वाद्

Because it contradicts perception and the other means of valid knowledge...

‘विश्वं सत्यम्’

“The universe is real.”

इत्यादिवाक्यविरुद्धत्वाच्च कालात्ययापदिष्टः ।

And because it is contradicted by statements such as this, it is a reason precluded by prior proof.

‘रजतं दृष्टम्’

“Silver was seen”

इति भ्रममात्रत्वात्

because what is stated thus is nothing but an error

‘विमतं सत्यं दृश्यत्वात्, आत्मवत्’

“The subject under dispute is real, because it is an object of cognition, like the self.”

इत्यपि प्रयोज्यत्वात् प्रकरणसमः ।

Because an argument can also be adduced in this form, the reason is equal to the issue.

‘विमतं सत्यं प्रमाणदृष्टत्वात्, यदित्थं तत्तथा, यथात्मा’

“The disputed subject is real because it is cognized by a valid means of knowledge. Whatever is thus is so, as in the case of the self.”

इति प्रयोगात् सप्रतिसाधनः । शुक्तिरजतस्याप्यनिर्वचनीयत्वाभावात् साध्यविकलो दृष्टान्तः । उक्तप्रकारेण दृश्यत्वाभावात् साधनविकलः । प्रमाणविरुद्धत्वमुपाधिः ।

Because it is formulated thus, it has a counter-proof. Since even shell-silver lacks indefinability, the example lacks the property to be proved. Since shell-silver lacks perceptibility in the stated manner, the example lacks the probans. Being contradicted by a valid means of knowledge is the limiting condition.

साध्यधर्मविशिष्टः पक्षः । साध्यसमानधर्मविशिष्टः सपक्षः । साध्यविपरीतधर्मविशिष्टः विपक्षः । पक्षवचनं प्रतिज्ञा । लिङ्गं हेतुः । निदर्शनं दृष्टान्तः ॥

The inferential subject is qualified by the probandum-property. The positive instance is qualified by a property concordant with the probandum. The negative instance is qualified by a property contrary to the probandum. A statement concerning the inferential subject is the thesis. The inferential mark is the reason. An illustration is the example.

यो दृश्यते सदानन्दनित्यव्यक्तचिदात्मना । निर्दोषाखिलकल्याणगुणं वन्दे रमापतिम् ॥

I bow to the Lord of Ramā, who is perceived as being by nature perpetual bliss and eternally manifest consciousness, free from defects and possessing all auspicious qualities.

इति श्रीमदानन्दतीर्थभगवत्पादाचार्यविरचितं प्रपञ्चमिथ्यात्वानुमानखण्डनम् ॥

Thus, the Refutation of the Inference of the Falsity of the World, composed by the illustrious Ānandatīrtha Bhagavatpādācārya.