Prapancha Mithyatva Anumana khandanam – teeka of Sri Jayatheertha is published in Kannada and Sanskrit PDF downloadable formant
Prapancha Mithyatvanumana Khandana is one of the three texts that are known as Khandanatraya. Mayavada Khandana and Upadi khandana are the two other texts in this group
In the Advaita classics the syllogism ‘विमतं मिथ्या दृश्यत्वात्’ is proposed to establish the Mithyatva of the world. शुक्तिरजत is given as दृष्टान्त.This syllogism is reviewed in detail in the present text and rejected. In the course of the review, the fallacies in respect of पक्ष, साध्य, हेतु and दृष्टान्त are pointed out. The Text is very brief. However, Sri Jayatheertha has discussed each fallacy in detail. The Fallacies are stated as under :
1. जगतः अभावान् आश्रयासिद्धः पक्षः।
Since the world is not real according to Advaita, it does not exist. Hence this syllogism suffers from the fallacy of आश्रयासिद्धि, that is to say the very locus to establish the साध्य is not existent.
2. अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेः अप्रसिद्धविशेषणः ।
The साध्य i.e. मिथ्यात्वis defined as अनिर्वचनीय in Advaita. Since, the very concept of अनिर्वचनीयत्व cannot be established, the साध्य which is an adjective of पक्ष is not be be found. Hence, this syllogism suffers from the fallacy of अप्रसिद्धविशेषणता।
3. In case, मिथ्यात्व is defined as सदसद्विलक्षण, the syllogism will suffer from सिद्धसाधनता. The expression सदसद्विलक्षण could be explained in two ways : 1)सदसल्क्षण्यविशिष्टा (ii)सद्वैलक्षण्यम्। In either case it will lead to सिद्धासाधनता। Every, सत object is distinct from the other सत् objects. Therefore, without accepting anything new, it states what is already known. The same is the case with the other prase viz. सदसत्त्वानाश्रय. An object has either सत्त्व or असत्त्व.Therefore, this phrase also does not convey any new concept. It states what is ready known. Hence, this definition of Mithyatva leads to सिद्धसाधनता.
These three fallacies point out the draw backs of प्रतिज्ञा i.e. the statement of the proposition.
4.दृश्यत्वाभावादसिद्धो हेतुः। अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेः।
The हेतु viz. दृश्यत्व also suffers from असिद्धि। in Advaita दृष्यत्व is also not सत्. It is also अनिर्वचनीय. This अनिर्वचनीयत्व is not yet established. Therefore, this हेतु also suffers from असिद्धि.
5. अनिर्वचनीयासिद्धेरेव सपक्षाभावाद् विरुद्धः।
Since the concept of अनिर्वचनीयत्व cannot be established, no entity with this attribute is available to be considered as सपक्ष. On the other hand, since, वियत् etc. all objects are included in the पक्ष, शुक्तिरजत has to be treated as विपक्ष. The हेतु suffers from अनिर्वचनीयत्व is present in it according to Advaita. This results in the हेतु suffering from the fallacy विरुद्ध.
6. The आत्मन् which is विपक्ष for this syllogism has दृषटत्व. Therefore, the हेतु suffers from अनैकान्तिक i.e. being present in विपक्ष। Though advaitin is reluctant to accept दृश्यत्व for आत्मन् he has to accept it ब्रह्मज्ञानाय प्रवृत्तानां वैयर्थ्यापत्त्यादियुक्तिभिः आत्मनि दृश्यत्वस्य तं प्रति समर्थनात्। More over, it is stated by Advaitin himself that सर्वप्रत्ययवेद्य ब्रह्मरूपे व्यवस्थिते and दृश्यत्व is accepted.
7. जगतो अभावे अऩुमानस्यापि अभावः इति तर्कबाधितत्वेन अनध्यवसितः।
If the world were not real, then, the syllogism that is proposed to establish the unreality is also unreal, hence, this हेतु suffers from the fallacy of अनध्यवसित.
8. प्रत्यक्षादिविरुद्धत्वात् ‘विश्वं सत्यम्’ इत्यादिवाक्यविरुद्धत्वाच्च कालात्ययापदिष्टः।
Since the very concept of Mithyatva i.e. the unreality of the world is against the perception and the scripture the syllogism proposed to establish it suffers from the fallacy कालात्ययापदिष्टः
9. शुक्तिरजतस्यापि अनिर्वचनीयत्वाभावात् साध्यविकलो दृष्टान्तः।
Even शुक्तिरजत is not अनिर्वचनीय. It is असत्. Therefore, this syllogism suffer from the fallacy दृष्टान्ते साध्यवैकल्य.
10. उक्तप्रकारेण दृस्यत्वाभावात् साधनविकलश्च।
It is already pointed out the sukti rajata experience is an erroneous experience. Therefore, it has no दृश्यत्व. It is not an object of a valid experience. Hence, the दृश्यत्वsuffers from the fallacy of साधन वैकल्य.
Finally the प्रमाणविरुद्धत्व is an उपाधि here.
Fom the above statement of fallacies. It is clear that all the fallacies of a syllogism are found in this one syllogism. All these arise out of one drawback i.e. the inability to decline Mithyatva and the untenabilityof definitions given in advaita for this concept. Suktirajata is taken as model to conceive this concept. Howeer, sukti rajata is as much असत् as शशविषाण. Therefore, it cannot serve as a ground to conceive a सदसदनिर्वचनीय entity.
Prapancha Mithyatvanumana Khandana is a very short treatise. However, the points made here are develoed in Vadavali by Shree Jayatheertha, in Vadaratnavali by Sri Visnudasacharya and finally in Nyayamrita by Sri Vyasatirtha.
On the Advaita side also many good works are composed on this topic. Prominent among these is Advaita Siddhi. A vast commentatorial literature also has developed on Nyayamrita and Advaita Siddhi. Thus, this text is a starting point for vast polemical literature of Dvaita-Advaita.
In addition to this text, Sri Madhvacharya discusses this syllogism in Anuvyakhyana, and his other works also. His brief observations in all these works are fully developed in the works stated above.
This small text also has given rise to good many commentaries. Sri Jayathirtha’s Teeka explains this text in a compact very judicial way.
A reader will acquire higher skill in identifying the merits and the fallacies of syllogism. He will develop his logical faculty more, than merely acquiring the vedantic thought.
Fortune has brought us here to delve on this crisp intellectual work. Without hesitation, shall we ponder on this work. Then click the below link and enjoy :
07-Kan-PrapanchaMithyathwAnumAnaKhandan-Teeka231120141
07-San-PrapanchaMithyathwAnumAnaKhandan-Teeka23112014
We profoundly thank Sri Dr G M Jayateertha for permitting us to upload his extremely useful Kannada translation of this work. Readers would be highly benefited if this Kannada translation could be used. Here is this attachment too :
SRIMADHVYASA 
This Prakarana Granth of Shrimadacharya is one of the most difficult treatise to understand and also involves lot of Nyaaya technical terms. These terms are very difficult to comprehend unless you have depth of understanding. That too put the granth in English perspective is too difficult unless you have mastery in both English and Sanskrit.
Please avoid putting such shallow English translation (even though its just an introduction) of the text which doesn’t convey its depth and make a mockery of translation. It not only conveys very wrong notion to so called English educated class who neither know Sanskrit nor Kannada, about Dvaita studies but also does more harm leading to great misunderstandings.
I do appreciate your work on putting davita literature on the net.