[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Sadananda

The three categories Sat, Mithya, Asat are there in Advaita but I
think Asat and Mitya are same. Because they are seen in dream only. If
you wake up they are not there. In a dream you can see anything like a
Rabbit horns and Rabbit barking like a dog. Like this you can see
normal Rabbit also. Both are seen.

You are saying normal Rabbit is Mithya but Rabbit Horns is Asat. This
is not correct because both can be seen in a dream.

 If someone says we can never see Rabbit horns he is wrong. We can
draw a picture of Rabbit with horns and show it. We can show rabbit
animation pictures looking just like real rabbit with horns. In a
dream there is no impossible thing. You can see a Vandhya Putra and
his children also. You can see anything you want. But also anything in
a dream is not real except me. Both normal Rabbit and Rabbit with
horns are Asat only. There is no Mithya.

If you wake up from the dream there is only Sat.

Then why are you saying we must have three categories Sat, Mithya and
Asat ? There is a confusion.


On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:10 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda
<kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sir - PraNAms
> I have no
> problem if you are having fun with your vandhyaaputraH in your dreams. The
> logical contradiction exists in the very term vandhyaaputraH has been pointed
> out also by SrilaliltaalaalitaH.
> The point is
> asat is that which has no locus for existence and existence has been
> established by the knowledge of its existence - hence any object is called with
> naama and ruupa - naama stands for name and namability involves knowability
> since one cannot give a name without at least conceptually knowing it and ruupa
> stands for attributive content which differentiates one object from the other.
> sat is that which is
> nityaH as Goudapaada establishes in his Kaarika - hence it is trikaaala
> abhaaditam.
> Anything that you
> experience - praatibhaasika (in your case you can include if you wish the vadhyaa putraH
> that you dream) or vyaavahaarika - has apparent existence but not nityaH -
> therefore it is neither asat nor sat. Hence it is anirvacaniiyam. Mithyaa has
> been defined as sat asat vilakshanam. Sometimes asat word is used in the
> meaning of mithyaa.
> One can extend the
> examples to their limit and miss the essential point that is being made using
> the example. As per advaita there are three categories while other daarshanikas
> only subscribe to two; sat and asat, which are mutually exclusive - and based
> on their narrower classification they criticize mithyaa category. Ring and gold
> cannot be ontologically put in the same category since one has dependent
> existence and the other has independent existence in the relative frame of
> reference.
> I suggest the study of Advaita Siddhi where
> Shree Madhusudana provides the five definitions for falsity.
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
>
>> In dream there is no difference between Vandhya Putra and real Putra
>> because anything is possible in a dream. I can see anything.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh