[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva
nareshpc at gmail.com
Fri Mar 15 20:44:11 CDT 2013
[Replying to both Sri Sadananda's and Sri Subramanian's notes.]
>> "Vandhyaa putraH is logical contradiction "
I don't see how it is a logical contradiction. Isn't it simply a
1. A woman who does not have children is called vandhyaa
2. A woman who does not have children (i.e, vandhyaa) does not have a son.
So where is the contradiction here?
> The idea of 'asat' 'objects' was conceived with a view to have examples for
> 'a knowledge or idea arising out of use of words while the object
> corresponding to that knowledge / word is not there'. Thus, when
> 'vandhyAputra' word is used one conceives of a barren woman and a person
> but when asked to show the person, he draws a blank. There are other
So if I understand this correctly, (a) what is thought of as tAtkAlika asat
today could indeed turn out to have a vyaavahaarika sattva tomorrow. (Mad
scientists designing a shashaviShaaNa or kUrmaroma, a kavi popularizing
megha as gaganakusuma, and so on). (b) The proverbial snake which has
vyaavahaarika sattva turns out to be asat, and is therefore designated
> Even here Vedanta has an unassailable point. Who is using the anumAna,
> etc. to predicate the existence of the world at a distant past independent
> of human or any other being's perception ? Is it not a human, the
> intelligent one? So, the existence of this world independent of anyone
perceiving it is dependent on an observer who uses anumAna, etc. to posit
> its existence then. It is this crucial 'dependence' on an entity external
> to itself that decides the anirvAchyatva/mithyAtva of the world. It is
Isn't it the same human mind that is thinking about 'sat' as well? Then
does the existence of sattva become paratantra to intelligent thought?
By statements like "world does not exist", then what is meant is the
"world is mithyaa". Is that correct?
The context to this question is a recent offline discussion in which
incidentally, one of Sri Sadananda's articles was offered in support of
arguing for a less nuanced point "world does not exist / world exists in
the mind / etc." where mithyaatva fell by the wayside.
It is one thing to say that we cannot be certain about the existence or
lack thereof of something (e.g., did a tree fall in the forest just now? I
don't know. I'm not in the forest now.), but quite another to say that it
does not exist.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list