[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

>
> Yes. But then it must also be remembered that in the ultimate analysis
> "world does not exist" means that it does not exist in all the three
> periods of time in the locus Brahman.  'mithyAtva' is characterized by '
> 'सत् चेत् न बाध्येत, असत् चेत् न प्रतीयेत’.  Since the pratIti of jagat is
> there, it is marked as different from the category of vandhyAputra (which
> is also not existent in all the three periods of time) which can not even
> come to be experienced, pratIti.  That is why Advaitins do not say 'the
> world is asat'; they hold it to be mithyA alone.
>
>
RV:  It is not there and not experienced - asat (hare's horn). It is not
there but experienced  - mithya (pot). It is there but not experienced as
an object - sat (atman). Is there a category "It is there and experienced"?
Can brahman become an object of experience without losing its svarupa? I
think that is Ishwara but am sure many would disagree who say Ishwara is
mithya.