[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

For you to say that advaitis are making a jump from anityatva to mithyatva,
you need to first define those terms as per you. This is precisely what
Lalitaalaalithaji asked of you. As far as I can see, you're making
something out of mithyA that it is not! When you say that pot is a clay but
its real, you're saying the pot is a pot, regardless of its being clay and
that it shouldn't be called as clay as long as its a pot. This pot, for
some unknown reason, is only anitya vastu to you and still satya! On top of
it, you discard the mithya tag to it. Advaitis say that this appearance of
the pot as a pot while being clay is mithyA. I would also like to see your
problems with advaita mithyA after you've defined the terms sat, asat and
mithyA. Its becoming quite obvious that your definition of sat is
definitely not trikAlAbAdhita satya, why then would mithyA be a bother. In
such a case, it would be immaterial as to what dvaitis and vishishtAdvaitis
agree or disagree with in tattva, because the terminology itself is
different. eg, if your definition of who king is different from mine, you &
I can't discuss the boundaries of our rAjya, can we? :)

praNAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Advaitis are saying that.
> They are adding stuff to Sruti - 'Pot, tumbler, plate etc are Mithya.'
> They are making a jump to Mithyatva. The jump is from Anityatva to
> Mithyatva.  But Sruti is not saying this.
>