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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Praveen ji.

//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.//

I fail to understand. Could you cite some references which says mithyA
exists for some period of time?

//traikAlikaniShedhapratiyogitva is different from
traikAlikAtyantAsatyatva.//

What is the difference between the two?

//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.//

Again traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam means same as non-existent in all
three periods of time.

We say there is ghaTa-abhAva. Means, there is ghaTa-nishedha. And ghaTa is
the pratiyogI of ghaTa-nishedha. Thus, ghaTa has nishedha-pratiyogitvam.

Now, if we say x has traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam, then there is
abhAva of x in all three periods of time.

If we say "सर्वत्र" त्रैकालिक निषेध प्रतियोगित्वम्, then it is same as
non-existence in all three periods of time because it removes the
possibility of traikAlika-abhAva in some locus. It implies non-existence in
all three periods of time in all locus.

Regards.

On Thu, 27 Jul, 2023, 8:16 pm Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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] */
>