Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: sat & asat

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: sat & asat

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  2. #12

    Re: sat & asat

    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: sat & asat

    Quote Originally Posted by Jivattatva View Post
    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
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: sat & asat

    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 upaniad stimulates such notions with 6 questions that are pondered. That is, comparing and contrasting being to non-being exercised in this upaniad.
    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
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 August 2014 at 01:06 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15

    Re: sat & asat

    Namaste

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

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View 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.

    Last edited by smaranam; 25 February 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason: To add warning - see above
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  6. #16

    Re: sat & asat

    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.



    ===========

    Quote Originally Posted by soham3 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by smaranam; 25 February 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason: To highlight and contrast the TWO different meanings and context of asat.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: sat & asat

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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 upaniad stimulates such notions with 6 questions that are pondered. That is, comparing and contrasting being to non-being exercised in this upaniad.
    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 mithyājāna ?

    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
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  8. #18

    Re: sat & asat

    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.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  9. #19
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: sat & asat

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté atanu



    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    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
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 August 2014 at 01:07 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  10. #20

    Re: sat & asat

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by smaranam; 25 February 2010 at 02:33 PM.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

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
  •