sat & asat

[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 (darśibhiḥ&#185 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 multiplicity

I 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