Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: sat & asat

  1. #1
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    sat & asat

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Within the upaniṣads ( praśna & chāndogya to name 2 of them&#185 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
    Last edited by yajvan; 27 January 2010 at 07:13 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #2
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: sat & asat

    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
    Last edited by devotee; 29 January 2010 at 08:58 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: sat & asat

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté devotee,


    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    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
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: sat & asat

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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
    Last edited by yajvan; 24 February 2010 at 10:46 AM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #5

    Re: sat & asat

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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 Brahmans 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)
    There is a Guru in each of us. It is the Atma principle. It is the Eternal Witness functioning as Conscience in everyone. With this Conscience as guide, let all actions be done. (sss20-15)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: sat & asat

    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
    Last edited by devotee; 30 January 2010 at 01:38 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: sat & asat

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté devotee and Ekanta,

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  8. #8
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    India
    Age
    40
    Posts
    116
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: sat & asat

    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.

  9. #9

    Re: sat & asat

    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
    jeyaṃ yat tat pravakṣyāmi yaj jātvāmṛtam 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 selfs 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.
    There is a Guru in each of us. It is the Atma principle. It is the Eternal Witness functioning as Conscience in everyone. With this Conscience as guide, let all actions be done. (sss20-15)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    India
    Age
    40
    Posts
    116
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: sat & asat

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •