[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:44 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Praveen ji.
>
> Even mithyA is non-existent in all three periods of time. That is common
>> to tuchchha and mithyA. So, non-existence is admissible in mithyA also.
>>
>
> //Not true. asat chet na bAdhyeta.//
>
> What is not true in what I said? Non-existence is indeed common to
> tuchchha and mithyA.
>
The complete phrase you used is "non-existence in all three periods of
time". That is not common between tucCha and mithyA, but only it is only
for the former.

And yet they are different. Not on account of the parameter of existence
> (they both are equally non-existent), but on account of eligibility of
> appearance as real. Tuchcha, while being non-existent, never appears to
> exist as real but mithyA, while being non-existent, appears to exist as
> real.
>
> सर्वत्र त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वं यद्यपि तुच्छानिर्वाच्ययोः साधारणम् ;
> तथापि क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् अत्यन्तासत्त्वम् ,
> शूक्तिरूप्ये प्रपञ्चे च बाधात् पूर्वं नास्त्येवेति न तुच्छत्वापत्तिः ।
> (Advaita SIddhi)
>

traikAlikaniShedhapratiyogitva is different from traikAlikAtyantAsatyatva.
If you meant the former by *non-existence* in all three periods of time, I
agree there too. I took it as the latter as that is the meaning in common
parlance.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */