[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Now we can answer the questions. What is Sat? It is Brahman this is
> Truth. What is Asat? This is not relevant question. There is no Asat
> at all. No Mithya also. There is a lot of confusion because of
> Mithyavada in Advaita. But there is nothing Mithya.  Why get confused
> by Mithyavada?
>
>
What a wonderful response! With this, I rest assured that you won't have
any reason to point faults in Gaudapada or Bhagavatpada or Mithyavada or
whatever you seem to be seeing trouble with. Why? Because you very clearly
asserted that "everything is sat" in which case Mithyavada is also sat
only, hare's horn are also sat only. Vaikuntha is also sat; why that,
Buddhist shunya is also sat only!

If you have any disagreement with what I understand of your post, kindly
revisit many requests asking you to define sat, asat and mithya. Please do
not get away by saying "advaita defines sat as..." because if its
irrelevant to you what advaita says about asat and mithya, then you need
not use advaita's sat also. Mention your own definition. Then define other
words before rejecting them, because to say there is nothing like asat or
mithya, you need to know what they are. Again, define them please, else
you're getting repetitive to no end.

--praveen