Traditional As a philosophical term anavastha refers to the non-finality of a proposition or endless series of statements or regressus ad infinitum (infinite regress).
The expression literally means: that which does not stand down, non-resting, unstable, holding no definite position, un-grounded or without foundation.
In three words denoting a) 'oneness of Brahman', the svajatiya-bheda, b) 'restriction', the svagata-bheda and 3) 'rejection of duality', the vijatiya-bheda, these three differences are negated by the Sruti texts (Panchadasi Stanzas II.20&21).
[9] The created things are many, a chain of causes and effects is also present, but to avoid the fallacy of anavastha, it is necessary to consider Brahman as the root cause.
[10] Vedanta does not admit the existence of the relation of samvaya (the inseparable inherence or concomitant cause or combining force) as subsisting between two different entities such as substance and qualities.
[18] According to Hemachandra, Anavastha is a Dosha, a defect or fault along with virodha, vaiyadhikarana, samkara, samsaya, vyatikara, apratipatti and abhava.
[19] It is also one of the dialectical principles applied alongside atmasraya, anyonyasraya, cakraka, atiprasanga, ubhayatahspasa and the like employed by logicians from very early times.
[20] Sriharsa explains that dialectical reasoning, which has its foundation in pervasion, can lead to contradiction when the reasoning becomes fallacious, it is the limit of doubt; and since differing unwanted contrary options create new doubts difficult to resolve which lead to anavastha or infinite regress and there is the absence of finality.
[22] Nagarjuna states that if there is a characteristic of the conditioned other than origination (utpada), existence (stithi), and destruction (bhanga), there would be infinite regress (anavastha).
[24] The Abhidharma system which attributes svabhava to dharma because dharmas, the foundational components of the world, are independent of causes and conditions in a specific sense, retains the concept that dependently originated entities (pratityasamutpanna) are separate from the dependently designated entities (prajnaptisat).
Nagarjuna tends to equate lack of svabhava with dependence on causes and conditions and not with parts, and his argument that dependently originated things lacked svabhava and were prajnaptisat or conventionally existing entities, and that all dharmas are prajnapisat does lead to an infinite regress or anavastha and is, therefore, not valid.