sat & asat

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by atanu

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]

Originally Posted by kallol

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

[Snip]

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...yAti_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