The Light of Vedic Advaita: Sixteen

2. Pratiyogī or Pratipakṣa (Locus/Substratum): The place or object in which the negation or absence is considered to exist—this is called 'pratipakṣa' or 'pratiyogī.' It is the substratum or locus of negation. Significance—this is the place or object where the absence resides. Example: "There is no pitcher on the table." Here, the table is the pratipakṣa (pratiyogī), because the table is the substratum of the pitcher's absence.

From a philosophical perspective, absence or negation is a concept understood in relation to two entities (anuyogī and pratiyogī): Absence (Negation) = Anuyāyī (that which is absent) + Pratiyogī (where the absence is). That is, absence can always be of something (anuyogī) and somewhere (pratiyogī). For instance, in the statement "A rabbit has no horns," the existence of 'horns' is being denied. Here 'horns' is the anuyāyī (that which is absent), and the rabbit becomes the locus of this negation, the entity in which 'horns' are not perceived. In other words, the entity in which the absence or non-existence of something is observed becomes the substratum of negation.

Similarly, when it is said that "jīva and Brahman are different," this does not mean that ignorance (avidyā) is the substratum of this difference. Ignorance is unconscious, therefore it cannot be the substratum of any concept. Rather, the substratum of this difference is somewhere or somehow the Self (ātman) itself. Because unconscious ignorance is not a conscious entity like jīva or Brahman that could harbor the concept of difference.

Moreover, difference cannot be understood as any applied relation (such as samavāya or conjoined samavāya). It is not a relational entity, but merely a conceptual difference. Difference does not indicate any real relationship; it is merely a mental projection or apparent appearance. In Advaita Vedanta, this difference is considered impermanent and illusory, having no ultimate reality. It is only empirical truth, which dissolves through Self-knowledge.

Applied Relations and Samavāya in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Philosophy: In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophy, the term 'applied relation' can be used in this context in two different but related senses—samavāya (Inherence) and conjoined samavāya (Saṁyukta Samavāya).

1. Samavāya (Inherence) or Eternal Relation: Samavāya is one of the six or seven recognized categories in Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophy and is an eternal and inseparable relation. The essential meaning and nature of samavāya is as follows:

Inseparable Relationship: Samavāya is a relationship between two entities such that one cannot be separated from the other without destroying it. That is, they are ayutasiddha (inseparably established).

Container-Contained Relation: In this relationship, one entity resides within another (e.g., 'whiteness exists in cloth').

Examples include:
Between parts and wholes: Such as the relationship between thread and cloth. Cloth cannot be separated from thread without destroying the thread.
Between quality and qualified: Such as an object and its quality (e.g., whiteness of cloth). The quality of whiteness cannot exist apart from the cloth.
Between action and substance: Such as the relationship between movement and the moving object.
Between universal and particular: Such as between humanity as a universal and individual humans.

Samavāya is that profound bond which inseparably connects an object to its inherent qualities, actions, or parts. It is the indispensable dharma of an entity.

2. Applied Relation or Conjoined Samavāya (Saṁyukta Samavāya): Conjoined samavāya is a method of perceptual knowledge. It is a process of knowledge acquisition where the sense organ perceives a quality of an object. It consists of a combination of two different relations (contacts): Conjoined Samavāya = Contact (Samyoga) + Inherence (Samavaya)

Contact (Samyoga): First, the sense organ (such as the eye) directly connects with the substance or object (such as a clay pitcher). This is an external or temporary relation.

Inherence (Samavāya): Then, since the quality of the object (such as the color of the pitcher) is connected to the object through inherence relation, the sense organ can also perceive that quality.

For example, perceiving the color of a pitcher: Your eye (sense organ) became connected to the pitcher (substance) through contact relation. The color of the pitcher (quality) is connected to the pitcher through inherence relation. Consequently, your eye could perceive the color of the pitcher through this conjoined inherence relation.

Conjoined samavāya is that relation through which we directly experience or perceive qualities or actions existing within substances through our senses. 'Samavāya' means the eternal inseparable relationship between two entities. And 'applied relation' or 'conjoined samavāya' means the process of perceiving that related quality through the senses.

In Advaita Vedanta, no such eternal or applied relation is acceptable regarding the difference between jīva and Brahman. Because difference is not considered ultimate reality.

Avidyā: Not a Part of Jīva, but an Upādhi. Ignorance is sometimes thought of as a part or quality of the jīva. But according to scriptural doctrine, avidyā is not any inherent quality of the jīva, but rather an upādhi (limiting adjunct)—a false superimposition or limiting condition. An upādhi is a condition that veils the true nature of an entity but is not part of the entity's being. For instance, a crystal appears red when a red flower is placed beside it, but the crystal's true color is not red. The crystal's fundamental purity remains intact; it only appears different due to an external upādhi. When clouds obscure the sun, they never become part of the sun.

Bhāmatī School and Avidyā: The Bhāmatī school argues that for the experience "I am ignorant" in the jīva's experience, avidyā is discovered in the jīva's being itself; but this is actually the result of the false 'I-body' conception. That is, when the jīva identifies itself with the body and mind, ignorance is superimposed upon it. This ignorance is not the jīva's fundamental nature, but an imposed identity.

Vivaraṇa School and Avidyā: The Vivaraṇa school rejects this notion. According to them, Brahman itself contains avidyā within its self-luminous consciousness, and that same self-luminous pure consciousness is temporarily veiled by avidyā. In this view, avidyā is not directly superimposed on any jīva, but rather an imposed condition upon Brahman itself. Avidyā does not affect Brahman, it merely temporarily veils its manifestation.

Therefore, liberation from avidyā does not mean severing any part of the jīva's true being; rather, it means removing false identity. It is the process of discovering the Self's fundamental purity through Self-realization. When avidyā is removed, it becomes clear that the jīva's true nature is Brahman.

The ultimate goal of Advaita Vedanta is mokṣa, which is accomplished through the realization of the jīva's unity with Brahman. This realization occurs when Self-knowledge (ātmajñāna) destroys avidyā. Avidyā is explained through the rope-snake analogy; just as bringing a lamp removes the illusion of a snake, similarly when Brahman-knowledge arrives, the apparent reality of the world dissolves. Just as mistaking a rope for a snake does not change the rope's being, avidyā does not change Brahman's nature, it merely creates false perception.

When Brahman-knowledge is attained, the notion of jīvahood (psycho-physical limitation induced by upādhis) completely dissolves, because jīvahood is a superimposed and adventitious condition, not an essential nature of Brahman. The power of avidyā keeps the jīva bound in the cycle of saṁsāra, and this bondage is severed through the attainment of Self-knowledge. Though avidyā is beginningless, its end occurs when Self-knowledge is attained, because avidyā is something to be removed by knowledge.

In Advaita Vedanta, the difference (bheda) between Brahman, jīva, and avidyā is entirely empirical (vyāvahārika), born of ignorance and an illusion created by upādhis. At the ultimate level, there is no difference. To prove this nature of difference, the pot-space analogy and the rope-snake analogy are used. The debate regarding the unity (ekatva) of avidyā is essentially based on the argument of parsimony, which is a philosophical attempt to maintain Brahman's indivisible unity.

A extremely important argument or principle in Indian Nyāya Philosophy is the principle of parsimony or simplicity (Principle of Parsimony / Principle of Simplicity). Let us see what lāghava tarka (Argument of Parsimony) is:

Lāghava tarka is a philosophical and logical principle according to which when multiple possible causes or theories exist to explain a particular matter, the simplest and least assumption-dependent cause should be accepted. The word 'lāghava' means light, simple, or brevity (Simplicity/Lightness/Economy). The word 'tarka' means reasonable inference or reasoning (Reasoning/Hypothetical Argument). The essence of lāghava tarka is: "Where less suffices, one should not adopt more or superfluous things." This is comparable to the famous principle of Western philosophy, Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika philosophy and other Indian schools of logic, this lāghava tarka is often used as a supporting principle for decision-making. In explaining cause and effect, when explaining the cause of an event and multiple causal possibilities exist, the Naiyāyikas accept as lāghava the cause that assumes less power or fewer entities. Example: If there are two theories for the cause of world creation—a complex multi-powered God or a single and simple God—lāghava tarka generally supports (in the context of Navya-Nyāya) the concept of a single, beginningless, and omnipotent God as simpler.

Assistance in inference—This is not a proof (pramāṇa), but a supporting argument that aids proof. When doubt arises about the validity of an inference or conclusion, lāghava tarka is used to prove that adopting the opposite notion (i.e., gaurava, or excessive complexity) is illogical. On the other hand, the opposite of lāghava is gaurava (Heaviness/Complexity), which means unnecessary complexity, imagining additional entities or excessive causes. Gaurava is considered a fault in reasoning. In summary, lāghava tarka is that logical principle which helps us determine truth based on simplicity, brevity, and necessity.

The ultimate message of Advaita Vedanta is: the jīva is ultimately non-different from Brahman (jīvo brahmaiva na aparah). The experience of difference is neither permanent nor eternal, but dissolves after attaining Self-knowledge. According to Ācārya Śaṅkara, this realization is that ultimate state where the jīva can know its own nature as pure consciousness—"I am pure consciousness, eternally non-dual." In this state, the jīva transcends all duality and experiences its non-difference from Brahman, and this is the supreme puruṣārtha or mokṣa.