[Advaita-l] Mithya/anirvacaniya/asattva.

[Srikanta Narayanaswami]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nareshpc at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Why is vandhyAputraH alIka (and not something that is  'mistakeable' for
> sthANu)? That is what I am trying to understand - and what types of asattva
> it illustrates.


As was pointed out, the प्रतीयमानत्वम् is the (one) lakShaNa for mithyA
vastu and अप्रतीयमानत्वम् is that for असद्वस्तु. That is why for
सदसद्विलक्षण (mithyA) the lakShaNa is : सत् चेत् न बाध्येत, *असत् चेत् न
प्रतीयेत* .  It is the latter part of the lakShaNa that is applicable for
our discussion regarding the alIka vastu.  If the illusory snake (the one
mistaken for a rope) were asat (like vandhyAputra), it would not have been
experienced.  But the fact is that it is being experienced as the
bhrAntapuruSha thinks/says: 'here is a snake'.  Such a situation will never
arise with regard to a vandhyAputra/gaganakusuma/shashaviShANa. These types
of 'objects' can never be a candidate for an error=adhyAsa.  That is the
reason why it was clarified: One can mistake a distant pillar (or a tree
shorn of branches) for a person: sthANau puruShabhramaH.  But no  one will
/ can mistake the sthANu for a vandhyAputraH. The vandhyAputra illustrates
प्रतीत्ययोग्य  type of asat (or अत्यन्तासत्).  We can, if we want, name the
mithyA type (rajju-sarpa) as अध्यस्तासत्.  By no means can the
वन्ध्यापुत्रादि  come under the अध्यस्तासत् category because they are never
capable of being mistaken for something.

regards
 
________________________________________________________________________________
The apt placement for "sadaasadvilakshana/anirvacaniya is ;"Durghata'-agahatita-ghatitam gatayati.If is treated with the notion of "sat'-it is asat,if it is treated with the notion of -asat,it is sat,if it is trated as both,then also it is notboth .
N.Srikanta.