sat & asat

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Within the upaniṣads ( praśna & chāndogya to name 2 of them¹) the notion of sat and asat is brought to one's attention and learning. I am wondering if any of our esteemed HDF members who have studied this knowledge has a point of view and perhaps an enlightened opinion on this matter.

Here is the point for conversation.

Sat सत् or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
Asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.The question at hand to ponder , is it even possible for not-being to even occur?

praṇām

references
praśna upaniṣad 2.5 & chāndogya upaniṣad 6.2.1

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

[quote]The question at hand to ponder , is it even possible for not-being to even occur?[quote]

I am unable to clearly understand what you want to ask but I see the given question in this way :

What do these words, "Sat" and "Asat" describe ?

"Sadaschaamritamcha yat" ===> Which is Sat and Asat and the Amrit. (Prasna Upanishad 2.5)

Chandogya Upanishad says :

" VI-ii-1: ‘In the beginning, dear boy, this was Being (Sat) alone, one only, without a second. Some say that, in the beginning, this was Non-being (Asat) alone, one only, without a second. From that Non-being (Asat) arose Being (Asat).’
VI-ii-2: Aruni said, ‘But now, indeed, dear boy, could it be so ? How could Being (Sat) arise from Non-being (Asat) ? In truth, dear boy, in the beginning (before creation), there was Being (Sat) alone, one only, without a second"


Bhagwad Gita says :

"Amritam chaiva Mrituscha sadaschaaham Arjuna" | BG 9. 19||

===> I am Amrit (which gives deathlessness) and also the Death. I alone am Sat and also Asat.

====>>> This verse states that Brahman is Sat and also Asat.

"Anaadimatparam brahma na satannasduchyate" || BG 13.12 ||

===> This beginningless Brahman is called neither Sat nor Asat.

===>>> This verse says that the Brahman is neither Sat nor Asat.

"Om tatsaditi nirdesho brahmaNstrividhah smritah | (BG 17.23||

Om, Tat and Sat are three ways by which Brahman is described.

====> This verse says that Sat denotes Brahman.

"Sadbhaave saadhubhaave cha sadityetatprayujyate |
Prashashte karmaNi tathaa sachchhabdah paartha yujyate" || 17.26||

"Sat" -- is used in describing "sadbhaava" (Truthful things/actions, thoughts or motive etc.) and also in describing good-bhaava (good things/actions, thoughts or motive etc.). It is also used to describe good -karmas.

====> This verse says that Sat word is also used to describe Truthful things/actions.

0000000000000000000000

Coming back to your question :

We have to see in what context this word has been used. Moreover, The Brahman has been described both as, "Sat as well as Asat" & "Neither Sat nor Asat".

How can both the statements be true simultaneously ? But both statements must be true simultaneously. It can only be possible if both Sat & Asat are mental concepts & so, they cannot describe the Brahman. Brahman is beyond all mental concepts ... & so it can be described in both contradictory ways.

Does Asat exist ? This concept of Sat is within mind & so is the concept of Asat. As long as concept of Sat exists, Asat must also exist. If Brahman is called the Sat ... the non-changing essence of everything ... which alone exists ... then all forms & names superimposed on the untainted "nirguna" substratum will be called as, "Asat".

The reality is beyond Sat & also Asat.

I don't claim that what I have stated above is without any error of understanding. Any improvement shall be appreciated.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté devotee,



Does Asat exist ? This concept of Sat is within mind & so is the concept of Asat. As long as concept of Sat exists, Asat must also exist. If Brahman is called the Sat ... the non-changing essence of everything ... which alone exists ... then all forms & names superimposed on the untainted "nirguna" substratum will be called as, "Asat".

The reality is beyond Sat & also Asat.

I don't claim that what I have stated above is without any error of understanding. Any improvement shall be appreciated.

OM

A very well reasoned post. The only way to talk of brahman is with words and they are limited because they reside within boundaries. They in turn are trying to describe the boundless. This is attempted by saying it is neither sat or asat, because if it was one or the other then it would be 'bound' to that word-concept. You quickly recognized this by suggesting both statements are true simultaneously... this is quite insightful.

I wish to add a few more ideas, and will do it in the next post for your review.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Here is the point for conversation.

Sat सत् or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
Asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.The question at hand to ponder , is it even possible for not-being to even occur?

Before adding a few more ideas to this notion I thought perhaps to poke at this idea/question just a bit more if I may; I find it intriguing and/also giving the expected results the ṛṣi-s may have intented - to stretch one's mind.

If we assume asat as non-being, where would it reside? Where would it exist? But the comment is, asat is non-existence, what are you talking about yajvan ? If Being/existence encompasses everything, it allows all to exist. This is why the ṛṣi-s use ākāśa so often as an example; it is ākāśa provides the perfect space for all to exist in, even conscious (cid-ākāśa) space.

So, if there is non-existence, what would remain? Absolulely nothing correct? ; Non-Being. And that is the definiton we consider with ākāśa - that space that is absolute, that allows all to exist - yet even this is within existence (sat). Hence the delima of words.


What is absolute non-being - how do we conceive if this? Some may say it is śūnyatā, yet this is defined as void which also = ākāśa.

Hence for one of rationale thought it brings one to consider that non-being is that which is not manifest, then non-being can occur. We can have a time when there is no manifestion, yet Being is just dormant at that time ( viṣṇu sleeping on ananta would be the picture). This we can conceive of, yet total non-Being as I see it brings one's comprehension to a stand-still.


praṇām

[Ekanta]

What is absolute non-being - how do we conceive if this? Some may say it is śūnyatā, yet this is defined as void which also = ākāśa.

Hence for one of rationale thought it brings one to consider that non-being is that which is not manifest, then non-being can occur. We can have a time when there is no manifestion, yet Being is just dormant at that time ( viṣṇu sleeping on ananta would be the picture). This we can conceive of, yet total non-Being as I see it brings one's comprehension to a stand-still.




Just some imput... (so we can continue to play)
śūnyatā can also mean Nirvikalpa (as in zero movement)
ākāśa can mean Brahman

Brahma Sutra 1.1.8.22 (Space)
Space (Akasa) is Brahman, for Brahman�s indicatory mark is in evidence.
[Sivananda comment: Adhikarana VIII: Sutra 22 shows that the ether (Akasa) from which according to Chh. Up. I-9 all beings originate, is not the elemental ether but the Supreme Brahman.]

Chh. Up. I-9
I-ix-1: (Salavatya) �What is the essence of this world ?� �Akasa� said (Pravahana); �All these beings arise from Akasa alone and are finally dissolved into Akasa; because Akasa alone is greater than all these and Akasa is the support at all times.�

Personal thoughts: "neither sat or asat" could indicate the state before "self awareness".
"I-iv-1: In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, '� am he'� Therefore he was called Aham (I)." (Brihadaranyanaka)

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,


The only way to talk of brahman is with words and they are limited because they reside within boundaries. They in turn are trying to describe the boundless. This is attempted by saying it is neither sat or asat, because if it was one or the other then it would be 'bound' to that word-concept.

Exactly ! The attempt is to describe which cannot be described by words & that results in these expression .... as none of these expressions can be considered false.


non-being is that which is not manifest, then non-being can occur. We can have a time when there is no manifestion, yet Being is just dormant at that time ( viṣṇu sleeping on ananta would be the picture).

Here you hit the nail on its head ! Our mental concept points to non-manifest as non-existent or Asat ... but this non-manifest (Brahman) is not really non-existent ... it is what manifests itself into everything .... or vice-versa.

Namaste Ekanta,

Beautiful short post ! :)

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté devotee and Ekanta,



If we assume asat as non-being, where would it reside? Where would it exist? But the comment is, asat is non-existence, what are you talking about yajvan ? If Being/existence encompasses everything, it allows all to exist. This is why the ṛṣi-s use ākāśa so often as an example; it is ākāśa provides the perfect space for all to exist in, even conscious (cid-ākāśa) space.

So, if there is non-existence, what would remain? Absolutely nothing correct? ; Non-Being. And that is the definition we consider with ākāśa - that space that is absolute, that allows all to exist - yet even this is within existence (sat). Hence the dilemma of words.

What is absolute non-being - how do we conceive if this? Some may say it is śūnyatā, yet this is defined as void which also = ākāśa.

Hence for one of rationale thought it brings one to consider that non-being is that which is not manifest, then non-being can occur. We can have a time when there is no manifestation, yet Being is just dormant at that time ( viṣṇu sleeping on ananta would be the picture). This we can conceive of, yet total non-Being as I see it brings one's comprehension to a stand-still.


Let me , if I may extend this idea by offering another POV that I rather find interesting and applicable. We have defined sat and asat , yet another view ( not different , just extended) of asat is that which appears to be real but is not i.e. a+sat or not truth, unreal is the firm definition of this word that accompanies non-being. This is the insight , the 'other way of viewing this' approach. It suggests the following:

Sat is Reality, Being , and asat is appearance. The example would be the ocean ( Reality) and the waves ( appearance). One looks to the ocean and sees only the waves ( life, actions, movement, change, the 3 guna) and fails to see it's totally supported by the ocean ( Reality). Like that sat supports asat.


I mentioned,

Hence for one of rationale thought it brings one to consider that non-being is that which is not manifest, then non-being can occur.
With this new perspective it stretches the rational mind to look at things differently. The example would be the viewing the sun rise every day and one says, Its obvious that the sun goes around the earth, just look up and watch the sun travel accross the sky. Then someone with keen vision says, think of it this way, we go around the sun and let me explain how that happens...

Like that we, within the boundries of our thinking/comprehension ability, ( words) may consider sat and asat as two - the Reality and the appearance as different as real and unreal - yet to the wise this whole universe is nothing but sat; there is no room for asat to exist.
It is from the point of view of the ocean that all the water is itself; it is from the wave's point of view that there is two ( or more ) that exist. Reality and the appearence.


praṇām

[soham3]

Naasadeeya suktam of Rigveda says that Sat & Asat both have originated from Gahanam Gabheeram which transcends Purush & Prakritti. It means that Para-Brahman or Unconditioned Absolute has polarized Itself into Spirit & Matter.

[Ekanta]

I checked up Shankara's Gita comment and I find it in line with what devotee said, i.e. how the words sat/asat are used in context. I marked the interpretation in blue [this regards the Gita comments only]
It appears that in these verses Sat indicate the manifested (vyakta) & Asat indicate unmanifested (Avyakta). ParaBrahman is indicated by neither. [At least according to Shankara :) ]

Gita
tapāmy aham ahaṃ varṣaṃ nigṛhṇāmy utsṛjāmi ca |
amṛtaṃ caiva mṛtyuś ca sad asac cāham arjuna || BhG 9.19 ||
9.19. (As the sun) I give heat; I withhold and send forth the rain; I am immortality and also death, existence [sat i.e. vyakta] and non-existence [asat i.e. avyakta], O Arjuna!

Shankara Bhashya:
I Myself am sat, existence-the effect which has come into being in relation to its cause; and its opposite, asat, nonexistence. [Nonexistence: the cause which has not become manifest as the effect possessing name and form, It cannot be admitted that the effect has absolute existence, for the Upanisad says, �All transformation has speech as it basis, and it is name only� (Ch.6. 1. 4). Nor can it be said that the cause has absolute non-existence, for there is the text,�...by what logic can the existent come verily out of nonexistence? But surely,...all this was Existence, one without a second� (op. cit. 6.2.2).] It is not that the Lord is Himself absolutely nonexistence; nor are effect and cause (absolutely) existence and nonexistent (respectively). Those men of Knowledge who meditate of Me while worshipping Me according to the respective forms of sacrifices mentioned above-regardomg Me as one or multifirious, etc. -, they attain Me alone according to their conceptions.

Gita
j�eyaṃ yat tat pravakṣyāmi yaj j�ātvāmṛtam aśnute |
anādimat paraṃ brahma na sat tan nāsad ucyate || BhG 13.13 || [in some versions 13.12]
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being [sat i.e. vyakta] nor non-being [asat i.e. avyakta].

Shankara Bhashya:
It (brahman) is said to be neither being nor non-being. The terms �being� and �non-being� cannot signify the nature of the self because It is neither effect nor cause. For It is called �being� (Sat) in the condition of effect when It has the form of gods etc. As It cannot possess names and forms in the condition of cause, It is said to be �non-being� or Asat. So the Sruti texts declare: �In the beginning, verily, this (brahman) was nonexistence; therefrom the being was born� (Tai. U., 2.7.1) and �Verily, this (brahman) was then undifferntiated. It became differentiated by names and forms� (Br. U., 1.4.7). The self�s conditions as effect and cause have arisen on account of veiling by Avidya or ignorant in the form of Karma. It is not an expression of Its real nature. So, the terms �being� and �non-being� do not signify the nature of the self, If it is argued that, in the passage �In the beginning, verily, this (Brahman) was non-existence� (Tai. U., 2.7.1), it is the Supreme Brahman in the state of cause that is described --- even then it can be pointed out that the Supreme Brahman in causal condition has, for His body, the conscient and non-conscient entities in a subtle state, incapable of being differentiated by names and forms. Such a description is therefore valid. On the same principle the nature of Ksetra (body) and Ksetrajna (individual self) in the state of cause can also be indicated by the term �non-being�. But this condition of the individual self has arisen due to Karma and such descriptions as �being� and �non-being� are applicable to the self only in the state of bondage. Its pure form cannot be signified by the terms �being� and �non-being�.

[soham3]

Ekantaji,

As per your interpretation, asat is higher than sat. Common understanding is that sat means Awareness-Consciousness and asat means illusory appearance that is this world / universe.

[atanu]

hariḥ oṁ
Sat is Reality, Being , and asat is appearance. The example would be the ocean ( Reality) and the waves ( appearance). praṇām

Namaste yajvan ji,

I could not read the full post and if i am erring because of partial reading, please pardon me.

In the context of Advaita (and sanskrit) asat is that which has no existence at all and which will never have any existence -- such as son of a barren mother. In that sense, asat is also equated with 'unmanifest', but one must be very careful as the 'manifest' is born of the 'unmanifest', so the 'unmanifest to the senses' that only manifests is not asat.

The word for wrong appearance is 'mithya'. For example, the 'manifest' we (the senses) know as 'sat', is mithya - appearance. The example is a rope appearing as a snake and more pertinent: Brahman appearing as Jagat.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Jivattatva]

Namaste

Yajvan

Your explanation is in line with my understanding as GV.

Sat is the inherent nature of the jiva and asat is a state when the jiva is not in union with Krishna.

[atanu]

Namaste
Yajvan

Your explanation is in line with my understanding as GV.

Sat is the inherent nature of the jiva and asat is a state when the jiva is not in union with Krishna.

Namaste Jivatattva,

But is anyone ever not in union with Krishna, who says "I am the Self"?

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté atanu,

yes I see and comprehend what you say. My notion on this string was/is to compare and contrast sat and asat.
sat सत् or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.

I took the liberty to expand the meaning of asat to include appearance. But where do I get such a notion? The praśna upaniṣad stimulates such notions with 6 questions that are pondered. That is, comparing and contrasting being to non-being exercised in this upaniṣad.
Its use, non-being, or asat can be viewed in different ways. In my posts I offer the notion of non-being = not existence =that which is appears to be real, but is not.
Yet in a earlier post we considered asat as the unmanifest - could this too be applied? Hence the notion of poking around this subject to ferret-out more insights.


I see and concur that mithyā is another way of saying this, which takes us to the end of the story in a much more rapid pace.

Hence the question along the way ( which we have not gotten to as yet) is mithyā = to asat? Is mithyā-dṛṣṭi the foundation of mithyājñāna ?

Like a good detective, you have arrived 1st before the questions have been posed.



praṇām

[smaranam]

Namaste

WARNING: People new to VedAnta or Advaita should not read this post.



Mithya :

* transient, not eternal.
* Antonym of Eternal [Existence] , Antonym of Sat.
* That which is of no consequence in the final equation.
* That which appears like ripples or waves that then appear to merge back into the still silence.

* As long as we ignorantly think we are the waves and ripples , that waves is IT, how can we know the Master stillness at deep down at the abyss ? That is ALL that exists, is Sat, not the waves we think [read hallucinate] we are.

* As long as we stay attached to the ornamental detail, how can we understand the Gold it is made of ? YOu think you are pretty bracelet ? You are hallucinating ! You are GOLD, wake up.

* What do dancing photons know about the plasma state at the core of the Sun ?



What this tells ....

To a jnani ,
Anything that is not eternally there, is a hallucination. asat as in transient , but more than that asat as in non-existent because it is not there at all times and in all stages (jagrat-waking, swapna-dream...)

To a dvaitin, this is probably indigestible, so mithya is simply [real because i-the-jiva see it] yet temporary only. To them it is temporary, nothing beyond.

Why indigestible ? Because this qn is not addressed : Who is the one that is hallucinating ? Not the real I, but the transient jiva-mind who does not really exist at all !

The one who is hallucinating does not exist.

:)

[smaranam]

Namaste

asat as a superset where mithya is its subset.

Asat http://www.babylon.com/definition/ASAT/English



Asat (Sanskrit) [from a not + sat being from the verbal root as to be] Not being, non-being; used in the Indian philosophies with two meanings almost diametrically opposed: firstly, as the false, the unreal, or the manifested universe, in contrast with sat, the real; secondly, in a profoundly mystical sense, as all that is beyond or higher than sat. "Sat is born from Asat, and Asat is begotten by Sat: the perpetual motion in a circle, truly; yet a circle that can be squared only at the supreme Initiation, at the threshold of Paranirvana" (SD 2:449-50).

In its lower sense, asat signifies the realms of objective nature built out of and from the various prakritis, and therefore regarded as illusory in contrast to the enduring Be-ness or sat.

In its higher sense asat is that boundless and eternal metaphysical essence of space out of which, in which, and from which even sat or Be-ness itself is and endures. Asat here is parabrahman-mulaprakriti in its most abstract meaning.



===================
Vedabase : http://vedabase.net/a/asat

asat 1: impermanent, illusiory, unreal, perishable
asat 2: unmanifest (avyakta prakrti ?)

sat-asat = effect-cause OR gross-subtle, matter-spirit
asat-aagraham = bodily concept of life
asat-drshti = polluted vision

asat as in impermanent BG17.28
aśraddhayā hutaḿ dattaḿ
tapas taptaḿ kṛtaḿ ca yat
asad ity ucyate pārtha
na ca tat pretya no iha
TRANSLATION
Anything done as sacrifice, charity or penance without faith in the Supreme, O son of Pṛthā, is impermanent. It is called asat and is useless both in this life and the next.

=========

sat-asat = effect-cause ?
BG 11.37 - it says Lord is akshara , beyond asat (avyakta prakrti i.e. unmanifest nature) and sat (matter - manifested)
kasmāc ca te na nameran mahātman
garīyase brahmaṇo 'py ādi-kartre
ananta deveśa jagan-nivāsa
tvam akṣaraḿ sad-asat tat paraḿ yat
TRANSLATION
O great one, greater even than Brahmā, You are the original creator. Why then should they not offer their respectful obeisances unto You? O limitless one, God of gods, refuge of the universe! You are the invincible source, the cause of all causes, transcendental to this material manifestation.

========

sat-asat as in gross matter vs. subtle (manifest Vs. unmanifest)
BG 9.19
tapāmy aham ahaḿ varṣaḿ
nigṛhṇāmy utsṛjāmi ca
amṛtaḿ caiva mṛtyuś ca
sad asac cāham arjuna
TRANSLATION
O Arjuna, I give heat, and I withhold and send forth the rain. I am immortality, and I am also death personified. Both spirit and matter are in Me.


SB1.3.33
yatreme sad-asad-rūpe
pratiṣiddhe sva-saḿvidā
avidyayātmani kṛte
iti tad brahma-darśanam
TRANSLATION
Whenever a person experiences, by self-realization, that both the gross and subtle bodies have nothing to do with the pure self, at that time he sees himself as well as the Lord.

asat as in perishable (same as impermanent, transient)
SB 3.9.6
tāvad bhayaḿ draviṇa-deha-suhṛn-nimittaḿ
śokaḥ spṛhā paribhavo vipulaś ca lobhaḥ
tāvan mamety asad-avagraha ārti-mūlaḿ
yāvan na te 'ńghrim abhayaḿ pravṛṇīta lokaḥ
TRANSLATION
O my Lord, the people of the world are embarrassed by all material anxieties — they are always afraid. They always try to protect wealth, body and friends, they are filled with lamentation and unlawful desires and paraphernalia, and they avariciously base their undertakings on the perishable conceptions of "my" and "mine." As long as they do not take shelter of Your safe lotus feet, they are full of such anxieties.


===========


Ekantaji,

As per your interpretation, asat is higher than sat. Common understanding is that sat means Awareness-Consciousness and asat means illusory appearance that is this world or universe.

That is right, Ekantaji's post #9 is in line with the 2 meanings in the first defN (quote) above.

[atanu]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast� atanu,

yes I see and comprehend what you say. My notion on this string was/is to compare and contast sat and asat.
sat सत् or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.

I took the liberty to expand the meaning of asat to include appearance. But where do I get such a notion? The praśna upaniṣad stimulates such notions with 6 questions that are pondered. That is, comparing and contrasting being to non-being exercised in this upaniṣad.
Its use, non-being, or asat can be viewed in different ways. In my posts I offer the notion of non-being = not existence =that which is appears to be real, but is not.
Yet in a earlier post we considered asat as the unmanifest - could this too be applied? Hence the notion of poking around this subject to ferret-out more insights.


I see and concur that mithyā is another way of saying this, which takes us to the end of the story in a much more rapid pace.

Hence the question along the way ( which we have not gotten to as yet) is mithyā = to asat? Is mithyā-dṛṣṭi the foundation of mithyāj�āna ?

Like a good detective, you have arrived 1st before the questions have been posed.

praṇām

Namaste yajvanji,

Thank you for the opportunity. When I speak here about asat and mithya, it is only in the context of Advaita teaching of Shankara, since a lot of confusion exists. Some thinkers are amazed as to how the Universe can be totally unreal or non-existent. Some thinkers also confidently state that the later Neo thinkers have altered Shankara's teaching beyond recognition.

Only to remove this modicum of doubt, I assert and re-assert that Shankara himself clarified what asat and mithya meant.

Shankara exemplifies asat with son of a barren woman.
Shankara exemplifies mithya with mirage or a rope seen as a snake.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[smaranam]

praNAm everyone on this thread

I do not think there is any confusion at least on this thread, although careful reading is required.
Atanuji, I do understand what you are saying.
This thread is to expand on the words sat and asat, and my post # 16 is an attempt to supplement or support all that Devoteeji, Ekantaji and Yajvanji have said so far, and get a better understand along the way. I have edited it to make it clearer , also using more colours. Just stating this to make sure it is readable.

You bring up a very good point, but it seems even Adi Guru ShankarAcharya
used the 2 different meanings in the context of Gita BhAsya, Brhama Sutra etc.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté atanu




Namaste yajvanji,

Some thinkers are amazed as to how the Universe can be totally unreal or non-existent. Some thinkers also confidently state that the later Neo

Yes, I hear this often - it is quite in vogue to consider this point as a fashionable view. I am not of the opinion that the universe is unreal.This is just a play with words and confuses many a new arrival to sanātana dharma.



Shankara exemplifies asat with son of a barren woman.
Shankara exemplifies mithya with mirage or a rope seen as a snake

Or the milk from a bird is often used. These idioms need to be tools to help one comprehend and wake up the mind.

praṇām

[smaranam]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by atanu
Namaste yajvanji,

Some thinkers are amazed as to how the Universe can be totally unreal or non-existent. Some thinkers also confidently state that the later Neo
namasté atanu

Yes, I hear this often - it is quiet in vogue to consider this point as a fasionable view. I am not of the opinion that the universe is unreal.This is just a play with words and confuses many a new arrival to sanātana dharma.


Namaste

I agree, and this reaction can be easily observed , also predicted. That is why it is safest for a newcomer (to SD or Advaita) to stay with "The Universe is impermanent, temporary. What is eternal is the AtmA principle that pervades it. So do not be attached to it, or think mine and yours , me , you , they." Gita saar.

I need feedback on post #15.
If you think its too much for people to digest , please let us ask Satayji to delete it.

I thought this is "Uttara" and not a topic for new comers.

That being said, Shankara's Advaita itself is not for casual learning from forums by newcomers to SanAtan Dharma - unless they are guided where to begin.

[devotee]

Namaste Smaranam,

You do ask profound questions ! :)



Anything that is not eternally there, is a hallucination. asat as in transient , but more than that asat as in non-existent because it is not there at all times and in all stages (jagrat-waking, swapna-dream...)

To a dvaitin, this is probably indigestible, so mithya is simply [real because i-the-jiva see it] yet temporary only. To them it is temporary, nothing beyond.

Why indigestible ? Because this qn is not addressed : Who is the one that is hallucinating ? Not the real I, but the transient jiva-mind who does not really exist at all !

The one who is hallucinating does not exist.

:)

These questions arise because we are accustomed to think in a predetermined pattern due to our limitations of cognition. We can only think that something is either Sat or Asat. Can we think of a possibility wherein something is both Sat and Asat at the same time ? Can we think of a possibility that there may be something which is neither Sat nor Asat ?

I gave an example of a solid wall of iron somewhere. I also showed by scientific knowledge known so far to mankind that the 100 % solid wall of iron is actually more than 99.99 % space ... so the wall as seen & perceived doesn't exist (this 'exist' is in relative sense). Now tell me, does this wall exist or it doesn't exist ? Is it Sat or Asat ?

Pondering over this dilemma will give the answer that you seek.

OM

[smaranam]

Namaste Smaranam,

You do ask profound questions ! :)

These questions arise because we are accustomed to think in a predetermined pattern due to our limitations of cognition. We can only think that something is either Sat or Asat. Can we think of a possibility wherein something is both Sat and Asat at the same time ? Can we think of a possibility that there may be something which is neither Sat nor Asat ?

I gave an example of a solid wall of iron somewhere. I also showed by scientific knowledge known so far to mankind that the 100 % solid wall of iron is actually more than 99.99 % space ... so the wall as seen & perceived doesn't exist (this 'exist' is in relative sense). Now tell me, does this wall exist or it doesn't exist ? Is it Sat or Asat ?

Pondering over this dilemma will give the answer that you seek.

OM

Devoteeji, praNAm

Thank you. You have as always , a lot of weight , packed here, and you make science links that backs VedAnta . That is amazing.

Let me see ... the iron wall is sat, asat, and also neither i.e. beyond sat and asat.
[ asat defN1: impermanent, illusiory, unreal, perishable
asat defN2: unmanifest (avyakta prakrti ?) ]


1. Sat because it is a manifestation of/by prakrti , that we call jad-prakrti.

2. Asat because it is impermanent, not eternal, made up of the 5 elements, that will eventually perish, be destroyed.

3. Sat because it is Brahman in jad form, so it exists.

4. Asat because although it is part of that ONE Brahman, its like a bubble on boiling water or wave of ocean. Look once , its there , look again , its not there. So as far as Brahman or TuryAvasthA being the blank cinema screen goes, it comes and goes on the cinema screen, it is kshaNabhangur, like a dream, AbhAs, an illusion ? . Is this an example of prAtibhAsik at all ? Or is it vyAvahArik satya so we do not bang into it ?

5. Asat & Sat.
Asat because it is energy that appears as molecules ->atoms ->protons which is really just same Shakti/prakrti clustered at different points in different degrees. So it is very close to or as good as avyakta prakrti - unmanifest Nature, hence asat (by defN 2), and eternally exists. So the matter is not really matter, we perceive it that way. In that sense , the matter does not exist, the energy eternally exists.

[ Since this asat avyakta prakrti is eternal, and an aspect of Brahman, it is Sat (by defN 1) and eternally exists. ]


6. Finally, since the wall is Brahman after all, just appearing as jad due to energy distribution, and this energy is prakrti that is Brahman,
And since we know that Brahman is akshar - indestructible, beyond sat and asat , it is neither and beyond sat and asat too.


:) I am keeping you busy, as if you don't have enough to do.

[Ekanta]

Nice post & summary Smaranam

But I want to ask you something if thats alright.



5. Sat as in eternal Brahman because its 99.99% space, AkAsh, and Brahma Sutras say AkAsh is Brahman.

If we say something is Brahman because its 99.99% space then what about the other 0.01 %?

[smaranam]

If we say something is Brahman because its 99.99% space then what about the other 0.01 %?

Namaste Ekantaji

You are right. That is not correct by itself (point 5),
Perhaps considerable as point 6 - below ? so I shall correct that , thanks :)


6. Asat because it is energy that appears as molecules ->atoms ->protons which is really just same Shakti/prakrti clustered at different points in different degrees. So it is very close to or as good as avyakta prakrti - unmanifest Nature, hence asat (by defN 2), and eternally exists. So the matter is not really matter, we perceive it that way. In that sense , the matter does not exist, the energy eternally exists.

[ Since this asat avyakta prakrti is eternal, and an aspect of Brahman, it is Sat (by defN 1) and eternally exists. ]

[devotee]

Beautiful answer, Smaranam ! What I wanted to pointed out that even we don't accept Vedanta ... it is scientific fact, that the Solid Iron wall is really not solid (99.99 % space or whatever ... it doesn't matter) ... it is not exactly as we perceive. And that is illusion ... that is what Vedanta says. The solid iron wall does exist (it is Sat) but not as we perceive (it is asat). And as all our perceptions are within mental realm as cognised by senses/mind ... what it really is, is beyond all mental perceptions.

OM

[atanu]

praNAm everyone on this thread

I do not think there is any confusion at least on this thread, although careful reading is required.
Atanuji, I do understand what you are saying.
This thread is to expand on the words sat and asat, and my post # 16 is an attempt to supplement or support all that Devoteeji, Ekantaji and Yajvanji have said so far, and get a better understand along the way. I have edited it to make it clearer , also using more colours. Just stating this to make sure it is readable.

You bring up a very good point, but it seems even Adi Guru ShankarAcharya used the 2 different meanings in the context of Gita BhAsya, Brhama Sutra etc.

Namaste smaranam,

Thank you for your reply. Your analysis is correct since you reach the same conclusion. Regarding Shankara holding 2 different meanings for asat, I think I have an alternative perspective that will not falsify your understanding, yet it may be helpful.

I see only one meaning each for asat, sat, and mithya, as per Advaita. Unmanifest (avvaykta) is asat since it is not a second truth and it never was a second truth. Moola Prakriti is not a second truth or a second being. Sat is only one and without a second. Mithya, on the other hand, is to consider the various shapes and names , which are dependent on sat as the sat itself.

Brahman gave a beautiful example:

One (alone) is real, not a second,
What is unreal, indeed, seems as being real.
The Siva Lingam is stone itself,
Not a second made by the mason.

The shape of Shiva Lingam is however, eternally in dvaita relationship with the stone, just as transcendental Turya is different from the relative realms of revealed Pragnya, Taijjassa, and Shushupti. Shape is an idea and stone is the subject. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish name and form Universe from the spandan free Brahman and Neti-Neti is the prescription.

Another example given by Gaudapada himself, is of a Fire Brand. When the Fire Brand is rotated, a circular shape of fire emerges. The circular shape has occured because of the fire brand, which has however remained unchanged.

Om Namah Shivaya

[smaranam]

Devoteeji, you have no idea how much difference the science angle makes.
Not just for those who do not accept VedAnta, but those that try to understand it, firmly believing that VedAnta is a science. Even though one appreciates it philosophically, science removes any remaining vagueness. Thank You for making me go thru' this exercise.

Atanuji, thanks for the explanation. Yes, I understand. Mithya is easy, it was never the problem. I had not thought about asat that much till the past 2 days.

I love this :


Brahman gave a beautiful example:

One (alone) is real, not a second,
What is unreal, indeed, seems as being real.
The Siva Lingam is stone itself,
Not a second made by the mason.

The shape of Shiva Lingam is however, eternally in dvaita relationship with the stone, just as transcendental Turya is different from the relative realms of revealed Pragnya, Taijjassa, and Shushupti. Shape is an idea and stone is the subject. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish name and form Universe from the spandan free Brahman and Neti-Neti is the prescription.

Another example given by Gaudapada himself, is of a Fire Brand. When the Fire Brand is rotated, a circular shape of fire emerges. The circular shape has occured because of the fire brand, which has however remained unchanged.

Om Namah Shivaya



I have learnt so much in the past few days, especially from this thread itself, just by participating. Thank You everyone.

koti praNAms

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Where is there another view on this matter that is reasonable to consider? Lets not look any further then the Bhāgavad gītā, chapter 2, 16th śloka - kṛṣṇa says the following:
nāsato vidyate bhāvo
nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ |
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo'ntastv
anayos tattvadarśibhiḥ ||

Here is my view and translation ( I have taken care to present this translation truthfully yet all blemishes in the translation are attributable only to me).

Nor or not (na) the unreal ( asat ) know that , or it should be understood that (vid+yat) being, existence (bhāva)
Never (na) being (bhāva) know that (vid+yat) the Real, Being, Existence(sataḥ or sat) |

Both (ubhayor or of the two) as well, although, never the less (api) perceived, viewed (dṛṣṭi) concluded, end, as far as (anta)
but (tu)¹ by the seers (darśibhiḥ¹) Reality, true or real state (tattva ) ||

Know that the unreal has no being and the Real never ceases to be |
The conclusion or the final truth about them (them =sat and asat or real and unreal) has been perceived or viewed by the seers of Reality. ||


What does this mean (as I see it) ? I see a few views we can discuss:

On an personal and experiential level; one possessed of clear vision, established in Reality (brahman)
On another level that tells us about the overall structure of being and non-being and Reality in total.
On the level of Reality being the foundation of all multiplicityI thought to bring this up, as when we talk we ( me) tend to co-mingle the concepts and ideas together and this has the possibility of bringing fuzzy-ness to the conversation.

That is why I have offered in a past post the notion of asat being appearance. This notion has 'legs' as they say but requires parsing out the total ideas mentioned about ( for those that are interested) to bring a better view on this matter.

Also, this is why this conversation resides in the Uttara folder. We may need to hold several ideas in our awareness as we continue the conversation - without one idea trumping another one and then defending one point of view. The fullness (bhūman) me thinks comes out when we entertain all 3 ideas, without stepping on any one at the expense of the other.

I hope others offer their opinions and insights on this matter as we take sat and asat a bit further. I will add more to the 3 ideas once others that wish to participate weigh in.

praṇām

words

The word dṛṣṭo'ntastv in the śloka that has been disassembled for its translation
darśibhiḥ brings us to darśana - seeing, knowing also exhibiting, teaching - hence the knowers ~seers~ ; the ones that possess Reality, from ;
da prefixed to this word darśana - da is rooted in (√) do=day= to possess.

[kallol]

Lots of good analysis is passing around. However I see some confusion.

Sat and Asat are terms which are mostly related to permanence and non permanence.

That which is permanently same is Sat i.e. which is timeless, infinite attributeless, etc which is the Higher nature or the Brahman, or consciousness or paraprakriti.

That which is non permanent and is changing, time dependent, having attributes is called Asat. Why Asat ? - as one cannot hold on to it (in a time scale) as eternal TRUTH. This is the Lower nature, aparaprakriti or prakriti.

Let us understand this on a time scale.

100 years : A man is there but a unicell which has life of 1 minute is not considered

1 million years : Human species was there but indiiduality is lost

1 billion years : Life was there. Other granularity is lost

100 billion years : Our Solar system was there

1 trillion years : Present Universe was there

100 trillion years : A few more universes were there

100000 trillion years : Energy is there, which manifests

Timeless infinite : Energy is there

So you see with change in time scale the individuality is lost and the manifested creations are lost.

It is like dream. When in it, it seems so true. But when out of it, it is Mithya. It is not that it did not happen. It happened in one perspective (which is like our state) but it mithya from another perspective (from infinite or God point of view).

That is why we have Maya which we take as true. This is because we get attached to Asat or parkriti or aparprakrity or lower nature, which is not permanent, which is finite and limited. All our unhappiness and problems are because of this attachment.

Once we move out to get attached to the higher nature or the Sat part, we become liberated.

Loves and best wishes

[atanu]

Lots of good analysis is passing around. However I see some confusion.

Sat and Asat are terms which are mostly related to permanence and non permanence.

That which is permanently same is Sat ---

That which is non permanent and is changing, time dependent, having attributes is called Asat. Why Asat ? -

It is like dream. When in it, it seems so true. But when out of it, it is Mithya. It is not that it did not happen. It happened in one perspective (which is like our state) but it mithya from another perspective (from infinite or God point of view).

That is why we have Maya which we take as true.

Loves and best wishes

Namaste Kallol.

By above definition, it would seem that there was a changeless entity called 'sat' and another changeful entity called 'asat'. You are not correct, if you are talking in terms of Advaita darshana. Advaita believes that there is sat alone and no second. Sat alone appears changeable due to an inexplicable magical power called mAyA, which is not another entity.

From Advaita perspective, as far as I understand, Asat is like a barren woman's son -- that which never was. On the other hand, Mithya is like mistaking a post for a ghost or a rope for a snake etc. Literature abounds with examples of asat as equivalent of a 'barren woman's son' or a 'city in sky', so there is no scope for confusion. The following is an example of asat from Tripura Rahasya:

9-11. ”A clown once related a story that a barren woman's son mounted a chariot reflected in a mirror and decorated with silver taken from the sheen of mother-of-pearl, armed himself with weapons made of human horn, fought in the battle-field of the sky, killed the future king, subdued the city of aerial hosts and enjoyed himself with dream maidens on the banks of the waters of a mirage.

Based on Shankara's teaching: BRAHMA SATYAM JAGAT MITHYAA, JEEVO BRAHMAIVA NA APRAAH, it is necessary to distinguish between Asat and Mithya.

As further proof, Shankara's criticism of Buddhist only-mind concept can be seen. Sankara, himself an absolute idealist, scoffed at the mind-only Buddhist: ‘If externality is such an impossibility, how come things even appear to be external? No one is even mistaken for a barren woman's son!’

If asat is that which causes only mistake (illusion-mAyA) then asat and mithya are same. But according to Shankara: No one is even mistaken for a barren woman's son. So, it is impossible for asat (unreal-non existent) to even give rise to any illusion. Since, Brahman is the only truth, all other entitities are ultimately asat but mAyA, which is the inexplicable power gives rise to illusion - mithya, of many.

I hope that the distinction and the need for the disctinction between asat and mithya (in advaita darshana) will be clear. If this disctinction is not made then the question arises as to why Shankara did not say "Jagat asat" instead of "jagat mithya"?

Om Namah Shivaya

[kallol]

Dear Atanu,

I am not well read in scriptures. So there might be some mistakes in understanding the terminologies here and there.

But what I can say confidently is that there is no magic and the science of God is a pure logic, science (present and future) and the ultimate TRUTH. The theory being so complex for general people to understand, people came out with different ways to prepare the mind, body and intellect towards understanding the knowledge which by itself is realisation of God. There is no quetion of just believing for the knowledgeable people. They are supposed to question the logic and science behind, where ever they are stuck. The knowledge assimilation goes by Shrabanam, Mananam and Nividhyasanam.

Let us be sure that there are only two components Paraprakriti or Higher nature, Brahman, Sat, Purusha, Consciousness, etc. and Aparaprakriti or prakriti, or lower nature, etc.

If I take all permeating Brahman or consciousness as Sat and the Jagat i.e. the universe as Mithya, then where does that Asat lie ?

As Sat and Mithya become the two extreme, the Asat has to lie in between. What might be that ?

You have also mentioned that Asat is out of Sat.

As far as I can comprehend, the Asat might be the reflected consciousness which the ego is attached with. The consciousness as reflected by the mind gets clubbed with the mind and body to create a sense of false "I" which is the ego and may be termed as Asat. This Asat or the false "I" is an entity which we cannot do away with, as we have this body and mind.

I will do a bit of research and analysis to understand this better.

Love and best wishes

[atanu]

Dear Atanu,

I am not well read in scriptures. So there might be some mistakes in understanding the terminologies here and there.

But what I can say confidently is that there is no magic and the science of God is a pure logic, science (present and future) and the ultimate TRUTH. The theory being so complex for general people to understand, people came out with different ways to prepare the mind, body and intellect towards understanding the knowledge which by itself is realisation of God. There is no quetion of just believing for the knowledgeable people. They are supposed to question the logic and science behind, where ever they are stuck. The knowledge assimilation goes by Shrabanam, Mananam and Nividhyasanam.

Let us be sure that there are only two components Paraprakriti or Higher nature, Brahman, Sat, Purusha, Consciousness, etc. and Aparaprakriti or prakriti, or lower nature, etc.

If I take all permeating Brahman or consciousness as Sat and the Jagat i.e. the universe as Mithya, then where does that Asat lie ?

As Sat and Mithya become the two extreme, the Asat has to lie in between. What might be that ?

You have also mentioned that Asat is out of Sat.

As far as I can comprehend, the Asat might be the reflected consciousness which the ego is attached with. The consciousness as reflected by the mind gets clubbed with the mind and body to create a sense of false "I" which is the ego and may be termed as Asat. This Asat or the false "I" is an entity which we cannot do away with, as we have this body and mind.

I will do a bit of research and analysis to understand this better.

Love and best wishes

Namaste Kallol

Thank you for the explanations, which I will study.

At this stage, I am concerned with Mithyaa as in: BRAHMA SATYAM JAGAT MITHYAA, JEEVO BRAHMAIVA NA APRAAH,

My point is that this mithyaa is not same as asat in advaita darshana, as explained in the previous post.

Om Namah Shivaya

[kallol]

Namaste Kallol

Thank you for the explanations, which I will study.

At this stage, I am concerned with Mithyaa as in: BRAHMA SATYAM JAGAT MITHYAA, JEEVO BRAHMAIVA NA APRAAH,

My point is that this mithyaa is not same as asat in advaita darshana, as explained in the previous post.

Om Namah Shivaya


This Mithya part should be clear as it is out of Maya or unmanifested aparaprakriti only and is temporary. Being temporary, the original form i.e. the unmanifested form remains hidden and our external senses latches on to this manifested form only.

Bramha Satyam is also clear as this is the consciousness and praprakriti which is permanent, attributeless, changeless and unmanifested.

Jagat is dependent on Brahman for existence and not vice versa.

This is part of advaita theory only.

One version of Asat is I found : Sat is still within the realm of perception. Asat is beyond that Sat - It is beyond perception, beyond, attributes, beyond time & space, etc.

Love and best wishes

[atanu]

One version of Asat is I found : Sat is still within the realm of perception. Asat is beyond that Sat - It is beyond perception, beyond, attributes, beyond time & space, etc.

Love and best wishes

:) That's good. That asat, however will not be known by any one.

Om

[Ekanta]

Namaste! Some time since I posted in this thread but perhaps this is an interesting perspective:

"Oṃ summarizes the Vedas and their teachings. Oṃ-tat-sat, says the Gītā. Tat (that) which sat (is) is Oṃ, the One. All this is Brahman, the One without a second. Tat is used to indicate that the objective world is taken by the senses to be separate and afar; it means "that" and "that" is always far, and separate. Sat means "is", "the is", "this"! When you recognize the tat as "is" or sat, it becomes "this"; it is no longer object, it is subject, and the merging of object and subject manifests as the Oṃ!" - Sathya Sai Speaks VII, p. 455

"There are two entities at first: "I" and "You". Tat and tvam, aham and brahma. But a third, this prakṛti, has come between, or rather deludes us as being in between ... When "I" and "you" have united, prakṛti, disappears. Its role is to reveal the "you" to the "I" that is all." - Sathya Sai Speaks VII, p. 291

tat has "entered creation" as sat (jīva)
"The Lord first created the gross world and then as jīva, He entered it and rendered it cit, by His caitanya. This is declared clearly in the Vedas. You must consider the aparā-prakṛti to be the sva-bhāva of parama-īśvara and the parā-prakṛti to be His sva-rūpa. Dwell on the meaning of these sva-bhāva and sva-rūpa and grasp it well. The gross is bound by the dictates of caitanya, which is sarva-sva-tantra, complete master, ever free." (Gita Vahini)

--------
So it could be looked at this way:

tat - nirguṇa brahman/ neither sat or asat!
tvam - aham (I) � jīva = sat!
asi - māyā - prakṛti = asat!

So when sat (I) know itself as tat, the division of sat/asat disappears... or something like that...

[kallol]

Thanks Ekanta.

In my understanding the so called creations are a manifestations of our (all jivas') karma. Which is a cycle called karma chakra.

This happens in the level of aparaprakriti in the presence of paraparkriti, though paraprakriti has nothing to do with that. Like one murders or does good job in presence of light but light has nothing to do with that. But light is required, otherwise the presence of objects are lost.

As paraprakiti is something beyond the comprehension of mind and beyond the feeling of "I" it is beyond Sat and Mithya (which is mostly tagged to the aparaprakriti or Maya).

Asat is something which is not Sat or Mithya or in between. It is the other side of Sat or beyond Sat, as anthing from Mithya to Sat is comprehensible.

Love and best wishes

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Let me ask this about sat and asat¹ and look at it from another POV.

If I were viewing the question about non-existence from the nyāya school of thinking I may also call this asat abhāva , which is defined as non-existence , nullity , absence.

I could say this non-existence generates the cognition of ' is not' as in it does not exist. Just as 'sat' also called bhāva , meaning becoming , being , existing , occurring , appearance can generate the cognition of 'it is' or it does exist.

So the question, can someone inform me where abhāva exists so it can be perceived/cognized?

Examples of this type of thinking:
1. I see a earthen jar in the corner of the room; it exists therefore it has the quality of bhāva
2. I no longer see the earthen jar in the corner of the room , therefore it has the quality of abhāva.
3. The space in the earthen jar was there before and after the jar was removed. It too exists before and after bhāva and abhāva.

Now starting with abhāva as the idea:
I see no mice in the house, therefore I can conclude there are cats residing here. The mice are abhāva.

If in its most pure condition, can there be abhāva=asat? Could there be absolutely No-thing? I think there can yet I do not think there can no existence - sattā.
Yajvan, you play with words! , you say.
Here is my point. There can be no-thing, no object, no mice and no jar... yet there cannot be no existence. IMHO asat is the absence of presence of objects, but not the absence of existence. Existence whether manifest or unmanifest is sattā.

I am not the final authority on this matter yet that is my comprehension.

praṇām

words

sat or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.
abhāva - non-existence , nullity , absence; non-entity
bhāva - existence, becoming , being , existing , occurring , appearance

[Onkara]

So the question, can someone inform me where abhāva exists so it can be perceived/cognized?

Namasté Yajvan Ji
I agree with your logic. Nothingness or abhāva is only known through the subtraction of something. For abhāva or emptiness to be known we must first assume something to be removed. An empty box is only empty when we choose to ignore the walls of the box.

Both the knowing of abhāva and the subtraction to come to know abhāva both depend on existence. So abhāva only exists in your knowing. This knowing takes a different form, rather it is itself self-illuminated knowledge as it is not separable from consciousness - chit, which illuminates existance/being.

In fact you are the final authority as it is your existence which brought you to this statement. You are existence, as to take yourself to be that which changes is incorrect. One could go further to say that it is your existence which has shown to you that all is existence - Being or Sat. The circle is complete and to step out of it you must use mind or imagination to define the boundary: this is the illusion. However body and mind is itself supported by existence, so you can never be separated from it without the use of mind.

Best wishes

[atanu]

The meanings of sat, asat, and mithya are explained well in the following:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/khyAti_vAda2.htm

The contextual part is reproduced below:


Unreal or asat is defined as that which has no locus of existence at any time. The classical example for asat is vandhyA putraH or the son of a barren women – there is no locus for existence of such an entity at any time for us to have any experience. Hence, the unreal cannot be experienced. Therefore, one cannot have both sat and asat at the same time. But there can be a third category, which is experienced but which does not remain the same all the time. It undergoes change with time, hence it cannot be real, since the definition of real is restrictive and does not allow any change. Since it is experienced, at least momentarily, it cannot be called unreal, like the son of a barren woman. In fact, the whole world comes under this category, as per advaita vedAnta, since the whole world is continuously changing without ever remaining the same, yet it is experienced.

There is no confusion regarding sat and asat in any darshana. Regarding 'mithya' advaita holds it as neither sat nor asat. Whereas dvaita contests it, saying that what is not sat has to be asat and since asat cannot give rise to any experience, the world appearance cannot be maya.

But advaita holds that there is third category called neither asat nor sat and which is mithya jnana (which hides the unbroken consciousness and shows only the discrete objects).

Om Namah Shivaya

[Richard Price]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Within the upaniṣads ( praśna & chāndogya to name 2 of them¹) the notion of sat and asat is brought to one's attention and learning. I am wondering if any of our esteemed HDF members who have studied this knowledge has a point of view and perhaps an enlightened opinion on this matter.

Here is the point for conversation.

Sat सत् or satī́ is rooted in 'as' - it means to be, to exist, existence, essence.
Asat is therefore = a+sat; a= not + sat = existence and we get not existence, not being.The question at hand to ponder , is it even possible for not-being to even occur?

praṇām

references
praśna upaniṣad 2.5 & chāndogya upaniṣad 6.2.1
I am new othe forum and am reading sacred text .

Basically I read Sat-Chi-Nanda is the primordial state of God ie existence knowledge Bliss ie that person or creature dwelling in union with God is in this state

The other that of the world is ASAT and dhukka ie the non existent or temporal i.e. all thatis in the world i empty and dukka meaning desire for this produces suffering that is the Sat- Asat dilemma so to speak , do you agree?

Samsara is the identification with thought - producing desire which keeps us locked into the cycle of birth and death through identification with that which isn't real in an absolute sense "the body".