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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:29 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> //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?
>
>From the laukika perspective, bAdhAt pUrvaM, it is separated from tucCha as
kvachidapyupadhau pratityarha as opposed to anarha; the same difference you
made across perspective, I am making both from the vyAvahArika perspective.

Further, as I clarified in the next line earlier and do so now too in the
next line...

//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.
>

It depends on what you and I translate non-existence from. As I said if you
translated it from niShedha, I said I agree, but not if its from
atyantAsat. abhAva = niShedha is what you were saying and I understood it
as atyantAbhAva = niShedha, which may or may not be agreeable all the time.
else there is no reason to differentiate between mithyA and tucCha at all.