[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Praveen ji.

Even mithyA is non-existent in all three periods of time. That is common to
> tuchchha and mithyA. So, non-existence is admissible in mithyA also.
>

//Not true. asat chet na bAdhyeta.//

What is not true in what I said? Non-existence is indeed common to tuchchha
and mithyA. And yet they are different. Not on account of the parameter of
existence (they both are equally non-existent), but on account of
eligibility of appearance as real. Tuchcha, while being non-existent, never
appears to exist as real but mithyA, while being non-existent, appears to
exist as real.

सर्वत्र त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वं यद्यपि तुच्छानिर्वाच्ययोः साधारणम् ;
तथापि क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् अत्यन्तासत्त्वम् ,
शूक्तिरूप्ये प्रपञ्चे च बाधात् पूर्वं नास्त्येवेति न तुच्छत्वापत्तिः ।
(Advaita SIddhi)

Rest of the points which you make are quite clear and acceptable. It is
indeed a matter of frame of reference. Situating in ajnAna, it can only be
logically described as anirvachanIyA or mithyA. But sitting in Brahman, it
is certainly horns of hare.

Regards.

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:17 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Correcting a typo pls:
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:12 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> However, you seem to be insisting that tuccha is something that shouldn't
>> appear at all, but it doesn't in ajnAnAvasthA. I think you are missing that
>> all definitions are from a perspective.
>>
>
> However, you seem to be insisting that tuccha is something that shouldn't
> appear at all, but it does in ajnAnAvasthA.
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com