Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: SadaschAham Arjuna !

  1. #1
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    SadaschAham Arjuna !

    Namaste,

    Whenever God/Brahman is described, we find use of directly opposite entities that describe Him/It. In BG Lord Krishna says, "SadschAham Arjuna" ===> meaning I am Sat and also Asat. How can one entity be described by two exactly opposite entities ? How can He be both Sat and Asat simultaneously ?

    What is Sat ? There are different meanings of Sat in different contexts but here Sat means "Existence" or "whatever exists". Accordingly, Asat is "whatever doesn't exist". So, what does that statement mean ? ===> I am both Existence and Non-existence !

    This poses a logical paradox ! Anything which is existing can't be non-existent and whatever is non-existent can't be existing ! God Exists. He cannot be non-existent. Therefore, if He is also what is non-existing ... then does it mean that even non-existent things exist ?? Why such impossible combinations are needed to describe God ?

    The problem comes because of our frame of reference from which we perceive "Existence" and "Non-existence". We first assume by default that "We Exist" and from that reference we perceive anything's existence or otherwise. Any perception is limited to our minds. Whatever is cognised by our sense organs or mind ( total 6 ) we perceive that is existing. Whatever cannot be cognised by our sense organs or even our mind is accordingly termed as "Non-existent". However, though our perception is dependent on Existence of an entity, Existence of an entity is not dependent on our perception or non-perception of that thing. ... and here lies the problem. God exists as perceptible entities and also what cannot be perceived by our mind. Why ? Because It is God alone that exists. Lord Krishna says in BG, "VAsudeva Sarvam Iti" and "SadschAham Arjuna !"

    Now comes a natural doubt here. If something is Sat and also Asat ... is it Sat or Asat ? If something exists both as Sat and also Asat then for the sake of continuity the essence of what is both Sat and Asat must be something different from both Sat and Asat. This is because if anything can exist in two opposite things ... in reality it must be neither. Why ? Because when it is Sat then also its essence is same as when it was Asat and similarly, when it is Asat, its essence must be the same when it was Sat ===> In reality, the thing remains the same except its perceptible attributes. Therefore, It must be neither Sat nor Asat in essence.

    This is why while describing Nirguna Brahman, God says in BG, Chapter 15, "Na Sat, Na Asat uchchyate" ===> This is called neither Sat nor Asat.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 07 November 2015 at 09:17 PM. Reason: typos
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: SadaschAham Arjuna !

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté


    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    Namaste,
    Whenever God/Brahman is described, we find use of directly opposite entities that describe Him/It. In BG Lord Krishna says, "SadschAham Arjuna" ===> meaning I am Sat and also Asat. How can one entity be described by two exactly opposite entities ? How can He be both Sat and Asat simultaneously ?

    What is Sat ? There are different meanings of Sat in different contexts but here Sat means "Existence" or "whatever exists". Accordingly, Asat is "whatever doesn't exist". So, what does that statement mean ? ===> I am both Existence and Non-existence !
    Just looking at this part only and not inferring any other ideas I see this as meaning I am existence ( sat) and everything that is yet to exist (asat). I align this to some of the 1st words kṛṣṇa-jī offers in the bhāgavad gītā (2.12): There never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers amount men. Nor will there ever time a time when all of us will cease to be.
    We know
    kṛṣṇa is not talking of our transitory self as a individual that comes and goes. He suggests one's immutable Being.

    So, this sat of existence is what has manifested as this known universe ( all the tattva-s within and outside of us - all of creation as far as one can think and comprehend);
    and if we look to the unmanifest , that is the level of creation that is yet to be. We could from a scientific point of view call it the unified field. It is the home of just pure potential,
    the home of all the laws, but none have come into being, none have manifest. This ( to me) is the asat part as I see it.

    ...other opinions may vary.

    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #3
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    Re: SadaschAham Arjuna !

    Namaste Yajvan ji,

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post

    Just looking at this part only and not inferring any other ideas I see this as meaning I am existence ( sat) and everything that is yet to exist (asat). I align this to some of the 1st words kṛṣṇa-jī offers in the bhāgavad gītā (2.12): There never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers amount men. Nor will there ever time a time when all of us will cease to be.

    We know kṛṣṇa is not talking of our transitory self as a individual that comes and goes. He suggests one's immutable Being.

    So, this sat of existence is what has manifested as this known universe ( all the tattva-s within and outside of us - all of creation as far as one can think and comprehend); and if we look to the unmanifest , that is the level of creation that is yet to be. We could from a scientific point of view call it the unified field. It is the home of just pure potential, the home of all the laws, but none have come into being, none have manifest. This ( to me) is the asat part as I see it.
    Truly speaking, you and I are saying the same thing. I will explain it below :

    a) First of all, I would prefer to use the words as they are stated in Sanskrit while it is being translated in English. Sat = Existence / Being. Therefore, literally, ASat = A (Not) + Sat (Being/Existent) == Non-being or non-existent. Now, when we describe Asat as "which is yet to come into being" ... it is not direct translation of the word but an indirect way of expressing it.

    b) Why are you using this term, "That which is yet to come" and not "Non-being" for the word "Asat" ? I can make an intelligent guess here, if you allow me : To avoid saying God as "non-being" or "non-existent" as God always exists. Am I right ?

    However, this expression gives only an apparent relief and there is no relief in real sense. How ? If we take a all-encompassing view ... there can be no such thing ever which can be non-existent at present and has the potential to come into being at any point of time in future. Chhandogya Upanishad accepts this :

    Quote Originally Posted by Chhandogya Upanishad
    VI-ii-1: 'In the beginning, dear boy, this was Being alone, one only, without a second. Some say that, in the beginning, this was Non-being alone, one only, without a second. From that Non-being arose Being.'

    VI-ii-2: Aruni said, 'But now, indeed, dear boy, could it be so? How could Being arise from Non-being? In truth, dear boy, in the beginning (before creation), there was Being alone, one only, without a second.
    ====> Therefore, even before "Creation" was there i.e. even before things came into being, It was Being alone to start with.

    NAsdiya Sukta of Rig Veda says :

    नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् ।
    किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥ १॥

    Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
    There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
    What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
    Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

    न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः ।
    आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किञ्चनास ॥२॥

    Then there was neither death nor immortality
    nor was there then the torch of night and day.
    The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
    There was that One then, and there was no other.

    ===> So, even before anything came into being, "There was One who breathed windlessly and Self-sustaining and there was no other".

    ***************************

    What I wanted to say that even if there is potentiality of anything to come into being at any point of time ... that thing must exist in some other form which we are perceiving as non-being. From Chhandogya Upainshad and also by science and also by logic we know that the above proposition is only true. No thing can ever come into being from non-being. So, when we say that "there is something which has not yet come into being" ... is only half the truth. The Truth is that It already exists in some other "form". If anything doesn't exist now, it cannot exist in future.

    You have rightly quoted BG where Lord Krishna says : "It is not that at any point of time, I was not there, or you were not there or these Kings were not there and even in future we will ever cease to exist".

    In BG, 2.16, Lord Krishna says :
    "Na asato vidyate bhaavo, na abhaavo vidyate satah"

    ===> That which is "Asat" has no existence ( It is not available anywhere). That which is "Sat" is in existence everywhere (not unavailable anywhere).
    *********************************
    So, that is why I have described "Asat" as " that which cannot be cognised by sense organs or by mind". You have described it as "Which is yet to come into being" or "Which at present is not in existence" or "That which is non-existent at present". However, this non-existence of anything which is to come into being in future is only a temporary phenomenon and is only mental non-perception of that thing (which already exists in some non-perceptible form) which is yet to come into being.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ahiMsa and Arjuna
    By Twilightdance in forum On Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07 March 2013, 12:15 PM
  2. Arjuna's dilemma
    By satay in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18 January 2012, 09:47 PM
  3. Arjuna's Dilemma
    By vcindiana in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01 December 2008, 10:18 PM
  4. Hey Arjuna!!
    By Singhi Kaya in forum Canteen
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10 April 2006, 01:33 PM
  5. another Q for arjuna/sharabhanga
    By Singhi Kaya in forum Tantras
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08 April 2006, 05:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •