[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

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.