Naasato vidyate bhaavo

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>> Ram Chandran <chandran

.....

>> I present two verses from

>> Chapter 2: Yoga of Knowledge (Verses 16 & 17)

>> naa sato vidyate bhaavo naa bhavo vidyate satah (Verse 16)

>> ubhayor api drsto ëntas tv anayos tattvadars'ibhih

>> Of the non-existent there is no coming to be; of the existent there is

>> no ceasing to be. The conclusion about these two has been perceived by

>> the seers of Truth.

>>

>> avinaasi tu tad viddhu yena sarvam idam tatam (Verse 17)

>> vinaasam avyayasya ësya na kas'cit kartum arhati

>> Know thou that by which all this is pervaded is indestructible. Of this

>> immutable being, no one can bring about the destruction.

 

Murthy worte:

>

>I think this is an important verse for contrasting sat and asat. Looked in

>the context of the earlier two verses 2.14 and 2.15, the contrasat is

>between the transient, and changing character of material conditions and

>the eternal real unchanging Atman.

 

 

 

Murthy is right. These are very important verses that brought constant

arguments for and against advaita, by different acharyas and Shankara's

arguments of anirvachaniiyam. (anirvachaneeyam means indescribable - in

contrast to Allen's (see my discussions with Allen) suggested usage of that

word for the pure knowledge, Shankara uses it to refer to ignorance as

well!)

 

The first line of sloka 16 is straight forward - law of conservation, well

known in science - That which exists can never cease to exist and that is a

non-existent can never come to existence. Hence, nothing can be created

from nothing. As evident from Krishna's discourse to Arjuna, the law not

only applies to the grosser matter but to subtler matter as well- obviously

Krishna was referring to individual soul in the context of killing of the

kings - naayam bhuutvaa na bhavitaava na bhuuyaH| - there was never a time

it was not there.

 

Essentially it was there in the past, is there in the present and will be

there in the future - since that which exists, can never cease to exist, as

per the first line.

 

But, by the second line Krishna emphasizes little more than the obvious: To

know that which exists, sat (existence); and that which does not exist,

asat( non-existence), to know both requires wisdom. How much wisdom we need

to understand simple conservation of matter! - We do not need Vedanta as

sastra to tell us that - any elementary physics book can do that job,

perhaps more effectively. Then Krishna means more than what meets the eye.

In very next, sloka Krishna is bringing out that aspect. Before we can

gradate to the next sloka, let us go back and apply the first part of the

sloka, to the world we see.

 

The world, called Jagat, Jaayate gachchate iti jagat, that which comes and

goes, is a continuously changing entity. When some thing changes, then the

question raises, whether it comes under sat or asat. Here is where the

differences between various achaaryaas arose, and reading each one's

interpretation leaves no doubt about why Krishna made the statement in the

second line, that it requires wisdom to know the difference between the two.

 

When something continuously changes, then it implies that there must be

some essence, or substance that undergoes transformation - like water

transforming ice to water to steam - there is, for example, the H2O

molecules that remain the same in these transformations - that which is

indestructible in all these changes or transformations. That should be

existent entity or sat, since non-existent entity cannot undergo any

transformation. Now if the world is continuously changing then what is that

entity among all these transformations that remain the same as sat without

undergoing the changes - that is where the wisdom comes and Krishna's next

sloka emphasizes.

 

Let us take an example. Here is a chair. Now is the chair sat or asat.

Now I see it and could sit on it and is useful. It has all its attributes

- Say white color, beautiful shaped and contemporary design etc., etc. Now

is it sat or asat? Now the definition in the first part of sloka, that

which exist can never cease to exist, is the sat. I can not exactly say

the chair is sat, since it was not a chair before, it was a tree or some

such thing in the past, but now it is a chair. If I can set to fire to it

then what remains is a pile of ashes and smoke and no more a chair. So

chair was not there before, is there now, but after burning is no more

there. Yes, there was something that existed as tree before, now a chair

and now as a pile of ashes. Ignoring for the time being, the question of

what was that substance that remained without undergoing any

transformation, in all these transformations ( the quantum physicists are

banging hard to get to the bottom of this to see what was that essence that

remains the same in all these changes!) does chair comes under sat or asat.

Since it cease to exist (at least as a chair) it is not a sat (we are

talking about the chair part not the intrinsic indescribable substratum).

But it cannot be asat either. The first part of the sloka says that which

will never come into existence is asat. That the chair is there to sit and

is useful, it self implies that it cannot be a non-existent entity, since I

cannot sit on a non-existent chair. So neither definition is fulfilled and

Shankara calls this as Maya - ya ma saa Maya - that which is there but upon

inquiry, it is not there is call Maaya. (Or illusions are also like that).

Here chair is there, but upon valid scientific inquiry, involving burning

of the chair, chair is no more. Existence of chair is actually a wonder

and that is the beautiful part of the creation; but if you go on inquiring,

it is not there. If I go into the scientific investigation of the truth

about the chair, I will encounter an never ending baffling (at each stage a

wonder struck) pursuit - from chair to wood - from wood to the carbon

molecular chains - from there to atoms to electrons - protons to neutronss

to more and more fundamental particles and - the last word is not out yet

and according to vedanta it will never be out as some quantum physicist are

recognizing that now. The observations of these fundamental particles are

being influenced by the observer observing the system. Shankara realized

the utility of the pursuit to discover the essence that remains changeless

in all changes and said that it is indefinable or indescribable -

anirvachaneeyam, not only the end product even the governing laws and the

source of these laws ( here I am taking about the atomic and nuclear

forces). Since science has not provided the answer, we turn to Vedanta if

that tells us some thing about it. First thing, it is becoming

increasingly obvious even in physics that the system for the analysis

cannot be isolated from the observer observing the system. Since observer

implies a conscious entity (unconscious entity cannot observe), it becomes

an interactive interplay of consciousness and the observed system. What

is that essence that remains if one removes the names and forms - I

presented before the discussion based on Bhagavaan Ramana's sloka on

Upadesha saara _( See my discussions with Greg about how the world is

reduced back to consciousness.). Krishna is emphasizing that aspect in the

sloka 17, know that which all this is pervaded is indestructible, and by

definition stated in the sloka 16, that is the sat aspect of the world too.

Hence from the point of that essence, creation is not transformation in the

sense something undergoes into something - as all changes are changes in

the names and forms - the essence remain the same - just as gold undergoing

changes, now it is bangle, now a ring and now an ear-ring - the names and

forms, bangle, ring and ear-ring are neither fulfill the definition of sat

nor asat - but just apparent modification of the essence that is sat. To

know what is sat and asat in these ever changing samsara requires wisdom.

Hence Krishna's second part of the sloka 16.

 

Murthy wrote:

>A swamiji (adherent of dvaita philosophy) visiting our place last year

>interpreted Isha upanishhad verse in the same way. There is no destruction

>of matter (it transforms from one form to the other) and hence is real.

>The sat, of course, is real and hence the duality !

 

What is the sat part or the real is the question and is it independent of

the oberver or does it dependent on the observer is also the question.

 

A chair and a carpet, their exitence do not depend on each other. Their

existence is independent - there is a duelity. Sadananda is different from

Murthy who is differnt from Allen and Greg. - there is a chair and there

is a carpet. But if I ask, the chair and the wood that which it is made up

of - are they, the wood and chair, are they one - or two. It is wood as a

chair. Chair has no independence existence without being wood or supported

by wood. It rose from wood, exists in wood and goes back to wood - or

whatever that substratum is.

 

ytova imaani buttani jaayante, yena jaataani jeevanti, yat pryam

tyabhisham vishanti - that which the whole world arose, by which it is

sustained or supported and into which it goes back is its substratum that

does not undergo any changes in all the changes and that is the sat part.

Taittireeya Upanishad defines that as Brahman. There can not be Brahman and

world as two, since the world cannot be independent of Brahman like chair

being independent of carpet. It is just as the wood supports the chair,

which is just the name and form. Hence Krishna sloka 17 follows. Krishna

is absolutely right that it does require wisdom to know what is sat and

what is asat.

 

My salutations to that Shakara Bhagawat Paada to bring that beauty packed

in the scriptures.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

>

> The first line of sloka 16 is straight forward - law of conservation, well

> known in science - That which exists can never cease to exist and that is a

> non-existent can never come to existence. Hence, nothing can be created

> from nothing. As evident from Krishna's discourse to Arjuna, the law not

> only applies to the grosser matter but to subtler matter as well- obviously

> Krishna was referring to individual soul in the context of killing of the

> kings - naayam bhuutvaa na bhavitaava na bhuuyaH| - there was never a time

> it was not there.

>

> Essentially it was there in the past, is there in the present and will be

> there in the future - since that which exists, can never cease to exist, as

> per the first line.

>

> But, by the second line Krishna emphasizes little more than the obvious: To

> know that which exists, sat (existence); and that which does not exist,

> asat( non-existence), to know both requires wisdom. How much wisdom we need

> to understand simple conservation of matter! - We do not need Vedanta as

> sastra to tell us that - any elementary physics book can do that job,

> perhaps more effectively. Then Krishna means more than what meets the eye.

> In very next, sloka Krishna is bringing out that aspect. Before we can

> gradate to the next sloka, let us go back and apply the first part of the

> sloka, to the world we see.

>

> [...]

 

 

Namaste. Belated response on this topic. I think I understood the points

that were made. However, I still have this lingering doubt about the

usefulness of the principle of conservation in this context.

 

I have my doubts on the role of conservation principle in this context

(of distinguishing between sat and asat). Principle of conservation of

matter is a wonderful and natural principle; however that applies only to

asat. Sat does not transform, does not get destroyed (avinAsha), does not

decay (avyayah) and hence the conservation principle is an irrelevant

principle as far as sat is concerned.

 

Asat is the superposition on the sat; asat transforms from one form to the

other and the principle of conservation holds here. But again, that is an

irrelevant principle and plays no role in our sat-asat distinction of BG

2.16. I sometimes feel that introducing of the conservation principle in

this context by the dualists has put our understanding of BG 2.16

backwards. I would be grateful for the comments.

 

> The world, called Jagat, Jaayate gachchate iti jagat, that which comes and

> goes, is a continuously changing entity. When some thing changes, then the

> question raises, whether it comes under sat or asat. Here is where the

> differences between various achaaryaas arose, and reading each one's

> interpretation leaves no doubt about why Krishna made the statement in the

> second line, that it requires wisdom to know the difference between the two.

>

> When something continuously changes, then it implies that there must be

> some essence, or substance that undergoes transformation - like water

> transforming ice to water to steam - there is, for example, the H2O

> molecules that remain the same in these transformations - that which is

> indestructible in all these changes or transformations. That should be

> existent entity or sat, since non-existent entity cannot undergo any

> transformation. Now if the world is continuously changing then what is that

> entity among all these transformations that remain the same as sat without

> undergoing the changes - that is where the wisdom comes and Krishna's next

> sloka emphasizes.

>

 

My feeling is: the matter that undergoes transformation (and may be

conserved in one form or other) is itself asat.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Sri Gummaluru Murthy wrote:

 

>

>I have my doubts on the role of conservation principle in this context

>(of distinguishing between sat and asat). Principle of conservation of

>matter is a wonderful and natural principle; however that applies only to

>asat.

 

> Sat does not transform, does not get destroyed (avinAsha), does not

>decay (avyayah) and hence the conservation principle is an irrelevant

>principle as far as sat is concerned.

>

>Asat is the superposition on the sat; asat transforms from one form to the

>other and the principle of conservation holds here. But again, that is an

>irrelevant principle and plays no role in our sat-asat distinction of BG

>2.16. I sometimes feel that introducing of the conservation principle in

>this context by the dualists has put our understanding of BG 2.16

>backwards. I would be grateful for the comments.

>From what I understand:

 

In Vedanta - classifications is done in two ways, and is used in various

contexts in the Prastaana traya- 1) sat, asat and tuchha - or 2) sat, mitya

(false) and asat, depending upon how one defines the asat. The second

classification is followed by most of the advaitic masters. Maaya is

defined by Shankara in Vivekachuudamani and which was expounded further by

Padmapaada and his disciple and finally by Madhusudhana Saraswati.

 

Asat as defined by Shankara, Padmapaada and Madhusuudhana - involves

non-existence without any locus what so ever - the standard examples are

vandyaa putraH, son of a barren women - akaasha pusham, sky flower etc.

There is no locus, for asat. There is nothing to start with, even to apply

the conservation principle.

 

It is True that sat is ever existent and that which exists can never cease

to exist is the very conservation principle. It is not that conservation

principle is irrelavent to sat, but the principle esentially distinguishes

the sat from the rest of the two. Trikaala abhaadhitam satyam - that which

remains the same in the three periods of time is the sat - it is the

restatement of Krishna with time as a reference. True from the point of

sat, the definition is irrevalent but that definition is given to a seeker

to inquire or to investigate that sat that fulfuls the definition by

discarding all that, that does not fulfil the definition as neti- neti etc.

If I know what is that sat which does not trasform among all the

transformations that I see, then problem is solved. Hence relavence is only

in terms of arriving at the solution of what is that sat. Hence Krishna's

next sloka.

 

Advaita Vedanta takes up the issue with that which does not fulful the

defintion of sat and asat, and calls it as false or maaya. Madhusudhana in

his Advaita Siddi gives an extensive analysis of what is false. Shankara

defines in VivekachuuDaamani, the maaya - the sloka starts as (I do not

remember the exact words but it goes like this:)

sannapyasanna ubhayaatmikaano

bhinnaapyabhinna ubhayaatmikaano|

saanghaapyananga ubhayaatmikaano

mahad bhuuta anirvachaniiya ruupa||

 

it is neither sat nor asat nor sat and asat, it is neither different from

Brahman, nor not different from Brahaman, nor different and non-different

from Brahman; it has neither parts, nor it is deviod of parts, nor has

parts and no parts simultaneously, it is indeed a wonder and indescribable.

 

you can apply to a bangle. Is bangle real? - no, it is gold,- is bangle

not non-existent?, of course it is existent to the extent I can ware it and

is different from ring etc. Similarly you can apply all others lines and

come up with what is neither sat nor asat. Mitya is that which is negated

by inquiry, and for negation to be valid, it has to have a locus, since it

is ultimately negated it is not sat. Since it has a locus, it is not asat.

Hence Krishna's declation that it requires wisdom to know what is sat and

what is asat.

 

>My feeling is: the matter that undergoes transformation (and may be

>conserved in one form or other) is itself asat.

 

Please read Madhusudhana Saraswati's analysis of what is false and how is

it different from sat and asat in his Advaita Siddhi. The text is very

terse but the logic is impecable.

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I think either Shri Sadananda has misunderstood me or I might not have

made what I want to say clear. Also, there seem to be a difference in what

we call asat. Let me clarify.

 

My understanding of sat is that which does not change with time. As Shri

Sadananda pointed out, Krishna's definition of sat is also the same, that

which does not change in tri-kAlAs. No difficulty there.

 

Also, sat does not undergo transformation and it remains the same all the

time. For thinking or discussing such an entity, what is the use of

conservation principle ? Conservation principle deals with things that

transform and says that irrespective of the transformation, the material

remains conserved. But, in the case of sat, there is no transformation,

hence, I said in my previous post that conservation principle is

irrelevant in the discussion of sat. Brahman does not change, the jagat

is a superposition on the Brahman; the Brahman does not transform into

jagat. Is my statement above a proper understanding ?

 

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

> In Vedanta - classifications is done in two ways, and is used in various

> contexts in the Prastaana traya- 1) sat, asat and tuchha - or 2) sat, mitya

> (false) and asat, depending upon how one defines the asat. The second

> classification is followed by most of the advaitic masters. Maaya is

> defined by Shankara in Vivekachuudamani and which was expounded further by

> Padmapaada and his disciple and finally by Madhusudhana Saraswati.

>

> Asat as defined by Shankara, Padmapaada and Madhusuudhana - involves

> non-existence without any locus what so ever - the standard examples are

> vandyaa putraH, son of a barren women - akaasha pusham, sky flower etc.

> There is no locus, for asat. There is nothing to start with, even to apply

> the conservation principle.

>

 

Shri Sadananda and I seem to have a different understanding of what is

asat. Shri Sadananda says that what does not exist is asat(e.g. barren

woman's child, horns of a hare etc). My understanding of asat is

(including the above definition of asat, but also) that which appears to

exist, but looked closely, it is only an adhyAropa and is not really

there. Examples are snake (in a rope), the pairs of opposites, the silver

in a shell, sheetoshhNAdi dvandvAs etc. They also fall under asat.

 

If BG 2.16 is taken in conjunction with 2.14 and 2.15 and 2.17 (as I

understand), Krishna is talking about the hot and cold etc (the pairs of

opposites) as asat and asks Arjuna not to be affected by that. Shri

Shankara's bhAshhya on BG2.16 (again, as I understand that section) also

calls sheetoshhNAdi sukhaduhkhAs as asat. I would be most grateful if

I am corrected if my concept is wrong.

 

Specifically, my question is: Is my understanding of BG 2.16 correct when

I interpret it as saying that seetoshhNAdi sukhaduhkhAs (or the sukham and

duhkham associated with seetoshhNAdi pairs of opposites) are asat ?

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gentlemen,

 

I don't mean to intrude in your discussions, but perhaps an example that

Ramana gave may be of help. A questioner asked Ramana about this issue

giving the example of the snake and the rope - how the snake disappears

once the rope is perceived. Ramana clarified that a better example would

be the appearance of a mirage. Even after Self Realization, the mirage

will continue to appear. It does not go away. In the same manner, the

outer universe continues to appear to a jnani even after Self

Realization. Perhaps, the way the jnani deals with the universe is

entirely different from somebody else. Just like people who stop

pursuing the water once they realize it as a mirage. Yet, physically the

mirage continues to appear to them in the same way as it appears to

everyone else.

 

---Viswanath

> Re: Naasato vidyate bhaavo

>

>Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava

>

>Hari Om

>

>In my humble opinion, we have to also consider the word "tatva

>darSibhiH" in this particular sloka that you have quoted in the subject

>line.

>

>seeta (cold), ushNa (heat), sukha (pleassure), dukha (greif) all these

>are duals. In my opinion, they have got "vyAvahArika satta" (relative

>reality).

>

>"brahma satyaM jagan midhya jeeObrahmaiva nAparaH" is the saying by

Adi

>Sankara in his VedAMta DiMDima - "brahma alone is real everything else

>is a myth, jeeva is nothing but brahma"...

>

>In my opinion, it is easy to understand this concept, for any sincere

>seeker. But, in reality, it is quite difficult. That is why, as long

as

>we are not fit enough to say that "jagat midhya" (i.e. negating the

>reality) --- we have to accept the reality of the things:- in a way

>"brahma satyaM jagat sarvaM, jeevanaM satya sOdhanaM" --- "brahma is

>real, he is alpervaDing, life is nothing but the quest for truth".

>

>As long as I feel the pain of my body, I can't say that it is not real

>It is real as long as *I* recognise it. Once *I* stop recognising it,

>it is not there. Hence the sloka goes "uhayOrapi dRUsTOMtaHhaving

>understood both, at the end" one will be fit enough to declare them as

>"asat".

>

>In a nutshell, for ordinary mortals like me, seetOshNas are "SAT".

For

>mahatmas, I can say for sure, it is "ASAT".

>

>

>Hari OM praNAMs,

>Madhava

>

>>

>> Gummuluru Murthy [sMTP:gmurthy]

>> Tuesday, September 15, 1998 8:01 PM

>> advaitin

>> Cc: sada; mecu

>> Re: Naasato vidyate bhaavo

>>

>> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>>

>>

>> Specifically, my question is: Is my understanding of BG 2.16 correct

>> when

>> I interpret it as saying that seetoshhNAdi sukhaduhkhAs (or the

sukham

>> and

>> duhkham associated with seetoshhNAdi pairs of opposites) are asat ?

>>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

 

In my humble opinion, we have to also consider the word "tatva

darSibhiH" in this particular sloka that you have quoted in the subject

line.

 

seeta (cold), ushNa (heat), sukha (pleassure), dukha (greif) all these

are duals. In my opinion, they have got "vyAvahArika satta" (relative

reality).

 

"brahma satyaM jagan midhya jeeObrahmaiva nAparaH" is the saying by Adi

Sankara in his VedAMta DiMDima - "brahma alone is real everything else

is a myth, jeeva is nothing but brahma"...

 

In my opinion, it is easy to understand this concept, for any sincere

seeker. But, in reality, it is quite difficult. That is why, as long as

we are not fit enough to say that "jagat midhya" (i.e. negating the

reality) --- we have to accept the reality of the things:- in a way

"brahma satyaM jagat sarvaM, jeevanaM satya sOdhanaM" --- "brahma is

real, he is alpervaDing, life is nothing but the quest for truth".

 

As long as I feel the pain of my body, I can't say that it is not real

It is real as long as *I* recognise it. Once *I* stop recognising it,

it is not there. Hence the sloka goes "uhayOrapi dRUsTOMtaHhaving

understood both, at the end" one will be fit enough to declare them as

"asat".

 

In a nutshell, for ordinary mortals like me, seetOshNas are "SAT". For

mahatmas, I can say for sure, it is "ASAT".

 

 

Hari OM praNAMs,

Madhava

>

> Gummuluru Murthy [sMTP:gmurthy]

> Tuesday, September 15, 1998 8:01 PM

> advaitin

> Cc: sada; mecu

> Re: Naasato vidyate bhaavo

>

> Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

> Specifically, my question is: Is my understanding of BG 2.16 correct

> when

> I interpret it as saying that seetoshhNAdi sukhaduhkhAs (or the sukham

> and

> duhkham associated with seetoshhNAdi pairs of opposites) are asat ?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>hence, I said in my previous post that conservation principle is

>irrelevant in the discussion of sat. Brahman does not change, the jagat

>is a superposition on the Brahman; the Brahman does not transform into

>jagat. Is my statement above a proper understanding ?

>

 

I donot see any differences in our understanding. Substratum is sat, which

is Brahman. If the world is superimposed on the substratum and the world

is continuously undergoing transformation, I will have to use the

definition to see what is that, that remains changeless in the changing

things. Since in any transformation there must be something that remains

constant in the transformations, that does not change, and that which

fulfills the definition of sat; then that is that Brahman. If I can know

that changeless substratum (the sat) part in the changing things, then I

have become wise, and the problem is solved. For my understanding, Krishna

is providing the definition precisely to arrive at the sat part in the

Jagat. Hence he reinforces with his next sloka. Otherwise, it becomes a

trivial statement, if I cannot apply to use to distinguish sat in the

changing things. This is true to the world or the worlds of experiences

involving waking, dream and deep sleep states. Only things that does not

change is I, in the changing worlds, and that fulfills the definition of

sat.

 

>Shri Sadananda and I seem to have a different understanding of what is

>asat. Shri Sadananda says that what does not exist is asat(e.g. barren

>woman's child, horns of a hare etc).

 

Sorry - that is not my understanding. It is the definition given by

Shankara, followed by Padmapaada, (I forgot Padmapaada's disciple name --

some with yati name in the end) and finally by Madhusudhana Saraswati.

Asat is that which does not have any locus. False is different from asat

and different from Sat. I had provided the sloka from VivekachuuDaamaNi,

how Shankara defines false. I will try to present tomorrow some of the

arguments of Madhusudhana Saraswati from Advaita Siddi since I donot have

that book here. Sat is trikaala abhaaditam and asat is trikaala

baadhitam. Each are mutually exclusive. False or maaya fits neither sat

nor asat nor both but a category of its own - Please read Shankara's sloka

again. It starts - it is neither sat nor asat nor both - appears to be sat

but since it is negated by inquiry it is not sat. Since it exists in the

present and experiencable, like bangle, it is not asat. VandyaaputraH is

never experienced. It has no locus. Since you agree that there is a

distinction between the two examples, bangle vs. vandyaaputra, that

difference is used to distinguish the two; mithya and asat.

 

>

>Specifically, my question is: Is my understanding of BG 2.16 correct when

>I interpret it as saying that seetoshhNAdi sukhaduhkhAs (or the sukham and

>duhkham associated with seetoshhNAdi pairs of opposites) are asat ?

 

The way I would interpret is the pairs of opposites are not asat since they

are experienced. Non-existent cannot be experienced. Let me give some

crude example: If somebody has a back pain, I cannot go and tell him - no

you donot have back pain since back pain does not exist according to

vedanta - he will throw me out along with the Vedanta books - till I end up

with that back pain. The way I will try to console him, so that he can

atleast listen to the rest of my vedanta talk, is that "yes your back has a

pain, but you do not have pain since you are different from the back. You

can sympathizes your back and take care of it, just as you sympathizes a

dog that has a back pain. For one thing, if the pain really belongs to

you, then it will never leave you, if it is your intrinsic nature (if it is

intrinsic nature you would not complain about the back pain either - like

no one complains that they are happy since happiness is their intrinsic

nature). Since pain is not there when you sleep, that proves that pain

belong to the body and only indirectly to you when you identify that you

are the body" . Since it is not there in three periods of time, it is not

sat. Since it is there in the waking state, it is not asat. The pain has a

locus - his back. But that which remains the same in three periods of time

has no back pain. - To arrive at this an inquiry is needed to see the

truth about the back pain. Hence Krishna declaration that it requires

wisdom to know the difference. - Although lot of people tried to give pain

in the neck, Krishna never had a back pain!

 

One can also put asat and mitya into one basket, following your

understanding. But Madvaas will not leave you till you accept that the

world is real too.

 

I hope it is clear now. More Advaita Siddhi tomorrow.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

this is my first post. please excuse this post if it seems too irrelevant

because i'm joining this list & conversation late and am very novice at making

comments like these. please excuse the deficiency in my language.

 

first, here's a brief observation about change. why is it necessary that if the

universe changes, there must be something that doesn't change? why is it that

something must not change? it seems possible, at least, that there is nothing

that doesn't change. the premise that there is something unchanging simply

because there is something else changing seems unprofitable to me.

 

second, if the principle of a changeless thing is accepted, my meek opinion is

that this changeless brahman is not the brahman which is compared to sat,

ishvara, bhagavan, whatever, and it's not the brahman which is named << brahman

>> and is parsed so meticulously by us. the brahman that we laboriously

identify by this or that name and according to certain scientific principles is

linguistically subject to innumerable changes and comes to signify something

different each time it is named or discussed. it's evolution as concept and as

signifier for the changeless at once betrays an inadequacy in our formation of

the very ideas of changeless and brahman. this is not to say that there's

nothing unchanging, but our expression of the unchanging is inherently subject

to evolution by its linguistic nature and is therefore inadequate. to me, this

is why avyaktam applies not only to material appearance but to mental conception

or linguistic naming. neither is unmanifest, and both are limiting.

 

thank you for patience with this deficient language.

 

maxwell.

[Guest guest]

mpw6678 wrote:

>

> mpw6678

>

> namaste.

>

> this is my first post. please excuse this post if it seems too irrelevant

because i'm joining this list & conversation late and am very novice at making

comments like these. please excuse the deficiency in my language.

>

> first, here's a brief observation about change. why is it necessary that if

the universe changes, there must be something that doesn't change? why is it

that something must not change? it seems possible, at least, that there is

nothing that doesn't change. the premise that there is something unchanging

simply because there is something else changing seems unprofitable to me.

>

>

>

> thank you for patience with this deficient language.

>

> maxwell.

 

Greetings Maxwell:

 

I enjoyed your ice-breaker (first) posting and you demonstrated your

scholarship with humility. Your points are quite valid and adjectives

can't describe "Brahman." Brahman is an experience, Brahman can only

experience the Brahman, Brahman experiences only the Brahman and

experience other than Brahman is only illusion!

 

Note: Are you using HTML instead of ascii text? Please make sure that

you send text files through Email.

 

--

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA 22015

[Guest guest]

sadananda <sada wrote:

>Welcome to the discussions. Do not worry about the language. The

>discussions are mostly about the concepts to make sure we understand.

>Whenever I read back my post, I wonder how could I commit so many

language

>blunders, in terms of spellings and grammar. Of course that did not

stop

>me from posting what I understand. Whatever I have learned is mostly by

>discussions since that motivates one to think. Putting something in

writing

>forces one to think deeper and that is what is encouraged as mananam in

the

>Advaitic tradition. On behalf of the listserve, I extend invitations

to

>all silent readers. Feel free to participate or jump into the

discussions.

>Discussions belong to everyone. Otherwise few of us end up

monopolizing

>the listserve, it will end up as dialogues.

 

Hari Om:

 

I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by my friend Shri Sadananda

regarding the importance of greater participation. I am a maintainer of

Advaitin List and everyone who joined this list also own this List. This

is a cooperative venture with full freedom to express your viewpoints.

I believe that a significant majority read the postings with an OPEN

MIND and do not give too much importance to language and cultural

backgroun.

 

It is well-known fact in economics theory that competion is more

preferable and benefical than monopoly! More participation will

energizes the contemplating minds yielding fruitful discussions. Greater

participation will also demonstrate mystic connection between the souls!

 

Let me restate the statement of Shri Sadanand:

 

"Feel free to participate or jump into the discussions. Discussions

belong to everyone. Otherwise few of us end up monopolizing the

listserve, it will end up as dialogues."

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

>"y viswanath" <yviswanath

>

>Gentlemen,

>

>I don't mean to intrude in your discussions, but perhaps an example that

>Ramana gave may be of help. A questioner asked Ramana about this issue

>giving the example of the snake and the rope - how the snake disappears

>once the rope is perceived. Ramana clarified that a better example would

>be the appearance of a mirage. Even after Self Realization, the mirage

>will continue to appear. It does not go away. In the same manner, the

>outer universe continues to appear to a jnani even after Self

>Realization. Perhaps, the way the jnani deals with the universe is

>entirely different from somebody else. Just like people who stop

>pursuing the water once they realize it as a mirage. Yet, physically the

>mirage continues to appear to them in the same way as it appears to

>everyone else.

>

>---Viswanath

 

You are right. There are two types of falsity discussed -

dRi^shTi-sR^ishTi and

sR^ishTi-dR^ishTi; - boils down to "I see it, therefore it is' and It is,

therefore I see it' - The snake-rope example fall in the first category and

the mirrage-water falls on the second catergory - Relatively, there is

subjectivity in the first one and there is objectivity in the second one.

Subjective illusions are related to defective perception, or cognition or

recognition process at an individual level - and the objective illusions

are related to factors beyond individual equipments such as sun raise and

set, mirrage waters, bending of the pensil in water etc. But in both cases,

taking the illusion as real is due to dellusion and that is due to

ignorence. The ignorence belong to the one who has the dellusion. With

knowledge, all delusions will go but only subjective illusions will

disappear at the individual equipment level. But at paramaatika level all

come under iswarya - or glory of the Lord, he becomes Bhagavaan!

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Maxwell wrote:

>this is my first post. please excuse this post if it seems too irrelevant

>because i'm joining this list & conversation late and am very novice at

>making comments like these. please excuse the deficiency in my language.

 

Welcome to the discussions. Do not worry about the language. The

discussions are mostly about the concepts to make sure we understand.

Whenever I read back my post, I wonder how could I commit so many language

blunders, in terms of spellings and grammar. Of course that did not stop

me from posting what I understand. Whatever I have learned is mostly by

discussions since that motivates one to think. Putting something in writing

forces one to think deeper and that is what is encouraged as mananam in the

Advaitic tradition. On behalf of the listserve, I extend invitations to

all silent readers. Feel free to participate or jump into the discussions.

Discussions belong to everyone. Otherwise few of us end up monopolizing

the listserve, it will end up as dialogues.

 

--------

>first, here's a brief observation about change. why is it necessary that

>if the >universe changes, there must be something that doesn't change?

>why is it that something must not change? it seems possible, at least,

>that there is nothing that doesn't change. the premise that there is

>something unchanging simply because there is something else changing seems

>unprofitable to me.

-------

 

One way to look at is, in any transformation, science tells us that there

is conservation of matter-energy. That is the changeless in the changing

transformations. Otherwise there is a violation of getting something out

of nothing or disappearing something into nothing. We cannot violate the

mass- energy balance across the transformation. - That is precisely the

first line of the sloka we are referring to address as a more general rule

extended to not only gross matter, but even subtle matter including soul.

 

More subtle way to look at is if change is occurring, to record the change

there have to be an observer (which has to be included in the whole

system), who must not change - if he also changes then there is no way of

knowing that change has occurred. Ultimately since all the observations

are occurring in the mind, the observer-observed system, even in all the

observed changes the observer has to remain the same and that is

consciousness or Brahman that you refer to - PraJNaanam Brahma - is the

shRiti - consciousness is Brahman.

 

I donot know if there are any physicsts here - who can discuss about the

paradox of Schrodinger's cat and also on Wagner's paradox - pertaining to

how the observer enters into picture and the result depends on the

observer.

 

------------------>

>second, if the principle of a changeless thing is accepted, my meek

>opinion is that this changeless Brahman is not the Brahman which is

>compared to sat, ishvara, Bhagavan, whatever, and it's not the Brahman

>which is named << Brahman >> and is parsed so meticulously by us. the

>Brahman that we laboriously identify by this or that name and according to

>certain scientific principles is linguistically subject to innumerable

>changes and comes to signify something different each time it is named or

>discussed. it's evolution as concept and as signifier for the changeless

>at once betrays an inadequacy in our formation of the very ideas of

>changeless and Brahman. this is not to say that there's nothing

>unchanging, but our expression of the unchanging is inherently subject to

>evolution by its linguistic nature and is therefore inadequate. to me,

>this is why avyaktam applies not only to material appearance but to mental

>conception or linguistic naming. neither is unmanifest, and both are

>limiting.

-------------------

 

You are absolutely right. Silence is the answer, but then very we few of us

can communicate through silence. People used to sit near Bhagavan Ramana

Maharshi and questions were getting resolved by themselves. For, the

receiver mind also has to be tuned to receive the silent message. The

purpose of these discussions is only to silence the intellect, until that

is done it is very difficult for many to us to remain in silence. My

salutations to you.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>thank you for patience with this deficient language.

>

>maxwell.

>

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Namaste. I am grateful to Shri Sadananda, Shri Maadhava and others for

answering my questions on BG 2.16. We can see the usefulness of a list

such as this in these contexts. I am still digesting the articles and

will respond after I understand them fully, particularly Advaita siddih.

But in the meanwhile, I like to make the following points.

 

Is the definition (trikAla bAdhitam for asat) not too restricted ?

I thought and I still think that, if it is not existent in *any* of the

three kAlAs, it is asat. (Adau ante ca yAn nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA).

Further, in the vartamAna kAla (present), there are three states, wake-up,

dream and deep-sleep and if it is not present in any of the three states,

it is asat.

 

The difference between asat and mithya (falsity) is very blurred and,

in my view, non-existent. They are identical as far as a *practicing

advaitin* is concerned. For intellectual understanding and refuting

dvaita arguments, yes, it may be necessary to see a difference between

asat and falsity. But for a practicing advaitin, is there a difference

between the two ?

 

If we say asat and falsity (mithya) are not the same, we imply that we

are giving too much importance to the wake-up state compared to the dream

and deep-sleep states. Let me give an example. Let us say we dream of a

hare with horns or a barren woman's child. The dream is real during the

dream state. We experienced it in the dream. Hence barren woman's child

is no longer asat. But we know the dream is unreal and there is no barren

woman's child. By saying that we are experiencing something in the wake-up

state(like pain as in Shri Sadananda's and Shri Maadhava's examples), but

by not saying anything what we experienced in the dream state, we are

giving too much importance to the wake-up state. Further, is the pain

mentioned in Shri Sadananda's and Maadhava's posts any different from

the pain or terror we feel when chased by a tiger in a dream ? That pain

in the dream is as terrible while in the dream as this pain during the

wake-up state. Hence my statement above that: if we say asat and falsity

are different, it implies somehow that wake-up state is special compared

to dream state. However Shri Shankara says in AparokshAnubhuti and other

places very clearly and we know also that there is no difference between

dream and wake-up states. What we see and experience in wake-up state are

proved to be asat in the illumined state.

 

Hence my point still stands, viz: (i) if it is not present in any of

the three kAlAs, it is asat; (ii) while technically the wake-up state

may have a slightly different emphasis (beacuse this discussion is

taking place in the wake-up state, for example), all the three states

are essentially the same, asat, (iii) while for intellectual discussion

in a wake-up state, the mithya and asat may be different, advaitic

experiencewise, they are essentially the same, unreal. We do not see

the child of a barren woman or the horns of a hare in tri-kAlAs of the

wake-up state, but the same can be seen readily in a dream state.

I am grateful to Shri sadananda for clarifying some of these points for

me, but as can be seen, there is a lot more I need to learn and

contemplate on. I would be most grateful for comments.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>Is the definition (trikAla bAdhitam for asat) not too restricted ?

 

As I see it:

In fact, it is more than just non-existent but has no locus for existence.

Existence of a locus implies some sort of existence(sat) but that is also

absent for asat as per Advaitic definition and Krishna's statement in the

sloka that is being discussed.

>I thought and I still think that, if it is not existent in *any* of the

>three kAlAs, it is asat. (Adau ante ca yAn nAsti, vartamAnepi tat tathA).

>Further, in the vartamAna kAla (present), there are three states, wake-up,

>dream and deep-sleep and if it is not present in any of the three states,

>it is asat. -

 

That is what is defined as no locus at any time.

 

>The difference between asat and mithya (falsity) is very blurred and,

>in my view, non-existent. They are identical as far as a *practicing

>advaitin* is concerned. For intellectual understanding and refuting

>dvaita arguments, yes, it may be necessary to see a difference between

>asat and falsity. But for a practicing advaitin, is there a difference

>between the two ?

 

Depends on what he wants to practice. For a practicing advaitin - "you are

that" is sufficient. No need to study or discuss anything else. Only when

the intellect asks questions how can I be that, and what about the world

which appears to be different from me - then vedanta has to answer the

questions.

 

>

>If we say asat and falsity (mithya) are not the same, we imply that we

>are giving too much importance to the wake-up state compared to the dream

>and deep-sleep states. Let me give an example. Let us say we dream of a

>hare with horns or a barren woman's child. The dream is real during the

>dream state. We experienced it in the dream. Hence barren woman's child

>is no longer asat.

 

There are two problems here:

 

First how can you experience a non-existent thing?

 

You know a hare and you know a horn, as a creator you can put (assemble)

these two things together in your dream and have a hare-horn. Now hare-horn

is an existent thing in a dream. But you cannot put hare and horn and on

top of it, some gagabubu - can you experience that? First you will ask me

what is gagabubu? - It is some non-existent thing but why worry go ahead

and dream hare-horn with gagabubu - you cannot since gagabubu has no locus.

In the dream world you are the creator and you have the knowledge of the

creation, and knowledge for the creation is gained from the waking state -

In the dream, if you see it it is not asat. If one has some imagination of

some gagabubu, say some strange looking object that he assembled mentally

and calls it as gagabubu, and he can dream that but the knowledge is based

on self-imagined one. Then it is not asat either, since it is experienced.

In fact, all creation is only assemblage of pre-existing things both in

dream state as well as waking state. There is sat aspect that is discovered

after negating the appearance in all creations. In the waking state

hare-horn is asat since it is never experienced in the waking state. One of

course day-dream a hare-horn and experience in ones mind but that is

day-dreamer's creation and the locus for that is provided not outside but

by the day-dreamer's mind. Since the imagined hare-horn is located in the

mind of the imaginer.

 

When you wake up the question of reality arises not only for hare with horn

even for hare without horn that you have dreamt. The whole dream falls

into mithya, since the locus, the waking mind, is there to support the

dream but the dream objects as seen in the dream are negated - since they

are seen and experienced - they are apparent. and they had locus.

> But we know the dream is unreal and there is no barren

>woman's child. By saying that we are experiencing something in the wake-up

>state(like pain as in Shri Sadananda's and Shri Maadhava's examples), but

>by not saying anything what we experienced in the dream state, we are

>giving too much importance to the wake-up state.

 

Not really. Dream state is analyzed in the waking state using the laws -

cause-effect relations pertaining to the waking state by a waker, since all

these discussions are taking place in the waking state. The whole dream,

that includes complex combination of apparently real objects of the waking

world that dreamer is familiar with including hares and horns as well as

the dreamer subjectively created objects by assemblage of his imagined

objects; all are negated as false since there is locus for the dream and

that locus is the waking mind.

> Further, is the pain

>mentioned in Shri Sadananda's and Maadhava's posts any different from

>the pain or terror we feel when chased by a tiger in a dream ? That pain

>in the dream is as terrible while in the dream as this pain during the

>wake-up state. Hence my statement above that: if we say asat and falsity

>are different, it implies somehow that wake-up state is special compared

>to dream state.

 

No, both pains, in the waking state as well as in the dream state are

negated as not real but apparent. There is no inconsistency here. Since the

pains are experienced they is sat part in it, but they donot stand the

negation process they come under mithya. The apparent part is dismissed

and that which cannot be negated, the conscious entity that is aware of

pain in the dream and waking states is left undisturbed as sat. Only

difference between the dream and waking is the individual mind is the

creator for the dream and collective mind (which is called Iswara) is the

creator for the waking world that has in it the minds that can create

individual dreams. To be more specific, Brahman identified with the total

mind becomes Iswara and Brahman identified with local mind becomes a

dreamer. Total knowledge is the basis for Iswara's creation and indivdual

knowledge is the basis for the individual's creation in his dreams. It is

only a scale but everything else is self-consistent.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

However Shri Shankara says in AparokshAnubhuti and other

>places very clearly and we know also that there is no difference between

>dream and wake-up states. What we see and experience in wake-up state are

>proved to be asat in the illumined state.

 

The last statement should read as what we see and experience in the

waking-up and dream states are proved to be false in the illumined state.

(As I mentioned before in some vedantic texts, asat word is used to

designate false and tuchha is used for bilkul non-existence, that is asat

in adviata vedanta tradition.

>Hence my point still stands, viz: (i) if it is not present in any of

>the three kAlAs, it is asat;

 

asat has no upaadi or locus. If that is explicitly or implicilty included

the definition is what Madhusudana discussed.

 

 

(ii) while technically the wake-up state

>may have a slightly different emphasis (beacuse this discussion is

>taking place in the wake-up state, for example), all the three states

>are essentially the same, asat, (iii) while for intellectual discussion

>in a wake-up state, the mithya and asat may be different, advaitic

>experiencewise, they are essentially the same, unreal. We do not see

>the child of a barren woman or the horns of a hare in tri-kAlAs of the

>wake-up state, but the same can be seen readily in a dream state.

 

Since you are seeing they are not asat as they have a locus in the dream.

At the same time you have no locus for gagabubu or its son, bababubu. They

are asat in both waking and dream worlds. In modern days one can have son

of barren women too by having a sorrogate mother!

 

You are providing a locus for the hare-horn in the dream as a creator or

dreamer and hence that is apprarently real and falls in the false category

not asat category, since it is dismissed along with the whole dream, where

the dismisal is done in the waking state. (this is called external

negation, which Madhusudana brings out in the protion of the book that

talks of the validity of negation process).

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hari Om to you all

 

I am going to India for a month. Hence, I could not participate in the

discussions. I would like to thank you all for your educative articles.

They are very enlightening and thought provocative. I eagerly wait to

come back and join your satsang again.

 

My pranams & Sincere Regards to you all,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I trust list members do bear with me as I bring this topic again. There

are some aspects on which I seek further clarifications.

 

I take Shri Sadananda's definition of asat (which he says is the same as

that given by Shri Shankara, Padmapada and Madhusudana Saraswati) as the

valid one for the discussion.

 

tri-kAla bAdhitam asat --- that which does not exist in *all* the three

kAlAs is asat. I have the following questions on this.

 

1. I like to think that if it does not exist in *any* of the three kAlAs

(rather than *all* the three kAlAs), it is asat. I recognize that the

child of a barren woman and the horns of a hare are examples of asat as

per tri-kAla bAdhitam asat definition. But does that not apply *only* to a

wake-up state ?

 

My concern here is the context of this sat-asat discussion in BG2.16.

Krishna is talking about SheetoshhNAdi sukha-duhkhAs, the pairs of

opposites that we come across in life and the sorrow and happiness

associated with them. My understanding of BG2.16 is that sheetoshhNAdi

sukha-duhkhAs are asat and Krishna says that Arjuna be not bothered by

such dvandvAs because they are asat. There is a distinct difference

between this tri-kAla bAdhitam asat definition given above and

sheetoshhNAdi sukha-dukhAs. My specific question on this is: are the

hot and cold (such pairs of opposites) and the sorrow, and happiness

associated with them, are they not asat ? If they are not asat, what

is the implication for sat-asat discussion by Krishna in that context

and giving hot and cold and sorrow, happiness as examples

 

2. Further, there are the three states of dream, wake-up and deep sleep.

Even leaving the deep-sleep state aside, the dream and wake-up state are

essentially identical as for any advaitic understanding. When we say

tri-kAla bAdhitam asat (with the interpretation that if it is not present

in all the three kAlAs, it is asat), it implies that we are referring to

the wake-up state only in all the three kAlAs.

 

3. When we say tri-kAla bAdhitam asat, do the three kAlAs mean the three

kAlAs of the present life of the jeeva ? Can that be interpreted as the

three kAlAs of the jeeva's "journey" to realization and encompass the

shata koti or more lives the jeeva has to endure to "attain" the realized

state. Such an interpretation is consistent with, for example, the chariot

analogy of the Katha upanishhad.

 

If the three kAlAs (in tri-kAla bAdhitam asat) refer to the three kAlAs

of the jeevas "journey" to moksha, how can the jeeva in one life carry

memory of the past or say whether it exists in future for it to be

assigned asat ?

 

Some of these require further contemplation on my part. I would be

grateful for clarifications.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>Namaste.

>

>I trust list members do bear with me as I bring this topic again. There

>are some aspects on which I seek further clarifications.

>

>I take Shri Sadananda's definition of asat (which he says is the same as

>that given by Shri Shankara, Padmapada and Madhusudana Saraswati) as the

>valid one for the discussion.

>

>tri-kAla bAdhitam asat --- that which does not exist in *all* the three

>kAlAs is asat. I have the following questions on this.

>

>1. I like to think that if it does not exist in *any* of the three kAlAs

>(rather than *all* the three kAlAs), it is asat. I recognize that the

>child of a barren woman and the horns of a hare are examples of asat as

>per tri-kAla bAdhitam asat definition. But does that not apply *only* to a

>wake-up state ?

 

As I understand:

Since the discussion is currently taking place in the waking state, yes. If

and when we meet in the dream and if we have discussion (advaitin-L-D(for

dream)!) then yes at that state too. But remember in that state you can as

a creator create that which does not exist in waking since creation is an

assemblage of things, like brings Hares and horns and putting together)

Then it is an existent entity in the dream although it is asat in the

waking state. Hence I gave an example of gagabubu, which you may not be

able to create in your dream since you have no knowledge of it.

 

Ultimately the inquiry has to be done in the indiviudal's mind. With his

reference sat and asat and mithya, distinctions has to be understood by

the analyzer. As long I donot know that it exists it is asat although it

may be existent from the questioner mind. Suppose I know what is gagabubu

and you donot know, as for as you are concerned it is still asat and you

cannot even dream of gagabubu while I am able to play with it even in my

waking mind! That also emphasized by Krishna by implication of second part

of the sloka that each one has to know the truth by oneself.

>My concern here is the context of this sat-asat discussion in BG2.16.

>Krishna is talking about SheetoshhNAdi sukha-duhkhAs, the pairs of

>opposites that we come across in life and the sorrow and happiness

>associated with them. My understanding of BG2.16 is that sheetoshhNAdi

>sukha-duhkhAs are asat and Krishna says that Arjuna be not bothered by

>such dvandvAs because they are asat.

 

Looking back at B.G. slokas - I donot know if Krishna brings sloka 16 in

direct reference to dwandaas or with reference to the general topic that

started with

ashochyaan ......, since the statement is quite general and absolute:

"that which exists can never cease to exist and which is non-existent can

ever come to existence" This is an absolute statement that defines even

creation too as creation is not something out of nothing but just

assemblage of the existing things - like creating a car!

 

As I understand the interpretation of advaitic masters, since non-existent

can never be experienced, they do not come under asat. Since they are

experienced are they seems to come under sat . But -B.G. 16 says that which

exist can never cease to exist. Hence they do not qualify as sat either -

That is what padmapaada says for false - it is neither sat nor asat. (not

sat and asat).

 

Now do you agree there has to be some distinction between that which never

exists and that which exist temporarily - and both of them do not qualify

as sat

- The distinction Advaita masters made is one is asat and the other is mithya.

 

At least it is clear that the dwandaas are not like vandyaa putraH or hares

horns. They are there. If I put both of them as asat, then I will be

definitely mixing those that exist temporarily and those that never

existed.

 

But since they do not exist as one goes from waking to dream to deep sleep

and also they do not exist if the cause for the dwandaas is removed (like

one is miserable when is one is hungry and if he is fed he is no more

unhappy since he is full!) - they are aagamaapayinaH anityaaH, they come

and go and are not eternal, hence they are mithya - being defined as

neither sat nor asat - This is where self-consistent teaching of Bhagavan

Shankara comes in.

>There is a distinct difference

>between this tri-kAla bAdhitam asat definition given above and

>sheetoshhNAdi sukha-dukhAs. My specific question on this is: are the

>hot and cold (such pairs of opposites) and the sorrow, and happiness

>associated with them, are they not asat ?

 

At least we agree up to this point.

> If they are not asat, what

>is the implication for sat-asat discussion by Krishna in that context

>and giving hot and cold and sorrow, happiness as examples.

 

If we understand that there are three - sat, asat and mithya and I have

provided Madhusudana saraswati's discussion pertain to mithya based on

Padmapaada's definition. In B.G. Sloka 16 Krishna brings out the

definition of sat and asat. these I consider general absolute definitions

as He provides. Since the world does not fit into these two, and there are

theories, Shankhaya, Nyaaya, Chaarvaaka etc. that discuss about whether

the jagat comes under sat or asat, the statement of second part of the

sloka of 16 comes is made. Only the knower of the truth know the

difference. Jahadajahallakshana is used in analyzing the world -According

to this, you take some part and reject the other part - reject the changing

name and forms as are not real, but that remains constant in the changes

(the existence part - vastu JNyaanam - vasati iti vastu - that which

exists) as the real part - real part remains real and apparent parts remain

as apparent.

 

What is that existence (sat) part and is it different from I (the

existence-conscious Part), if it is different, are there two type of

existences(?), conscious existence different from unconscious-existence,

if unconscious existence exists separately, how that existence is known,

other than by a conscious-existence etc., etc., that we discussed in one

form or the other; all come into picture - Hence Krishna emphatic

statement - It is known by the knower of the truth.

>2. Further, there are the three states of dream, wake-up and deep sleep.

>Even leaving the deep-sleep state aside, the dream and wake-up state are

>essentially identical as for any advaitic understanding. When we say

>tri-kAla bAdhitam asat (with the interpretation that if it is not present

>in all the three kAlAs, it is asat), it implies that we are referring to

>the wake-up state only in all the three kAlAs.

 

Dream is not absolutely identical to waking. Waking is like a dream. In

dream, the single waking mind of the dreamer is the creating power of the

dream. What exists in dream need not exist in waking and vice versa. But

the knowledge of the creation of the dream comes from the waker's mind.

Hence you cannot create gagabubu which is therefore asat in waking and

dream, but you can create hare's horn which is asat in waking and but not

in dream since you are creating it. One is Lords creation and the other is

your creation. SamishhTi vaasana's provide the karana for the Lord's

creation. Individual suppressions and oppressions of the waker's mind

provide the cause for dream creation. In the dream if there are different

subjects that you dream each has there own mind and they could all see at

the tiger that is chasing them. That tiger is not the creation of the

individual mind's of the dream subjects, but samishhTi minds of all dream

subjects - which is nothing but the waker's mind. Just the similarity and

not identity between the two.

 

By the by, just as roar of a Lion can wake up the dreamer for his dream,

although the Lion itself is not real from the point of the waker, like-wise

the roar of Vedanta can wake up, the waker to turia (to his true) state,

although Vedanta too is considered as apara vidya, like any other subjects.

The similarity is exact.

>3. When we say tri-kAla bAdhitam asat, do the three kAlAs mean the three

>kAlAs of the present life of the jeeva ?

 

The definition (although not given in that form) is absolute until the asat

comes to existence by creation.

 

Let me give a simple example. Suppose you asked me this question 1000 years

ago, if train is sat or asat. At that time I would definitely say it is

asat since it was not there. Now, the answer is different since it came

into existence. What I mean here is, in the sat-asat distinctions, the

creation has to be considered. That is why I discussed about the creation

of hares with horns in ones dream and it is not asat there.

 

Now what is creation?. This is where beauty of Advaita vedanta comes in.

Any creation for that matter, including the creation of the world, is

nothing but assemblage of existing things, because of the same B.G. 2-16

sloka. So train after 1000 years is nothing but assemblage of existing

things - is it not? Knowledge of creation is also existent knowledge (from

chaitanya aspect). Once to the human intellect existent laws of nature are

revealed (they are really revelations by an intuitive mind not discoveries,

as scientists out of their ego claim), he can make use of them to create by

assembling things. If one examines the whole thing - it is the same

existence-consciousness becoming many by the creation process - That is

exactly what Udaalaka teaches Swetaketu - starting from sade'va soumya

idamagra asiit .. etc. that I discussed with Allen Curry sometime ago.

 

Kaalaa and desha are inter-dependent as Relativity theory also implies.

Both are projections on consciousness. All journeys, real or imaginary

takes place on place of consciousness that is only sat and chit. If Jeeva

sees something in one world that was not there in other world, then since

he sees, it is not asat in that world, it is part of the creation in that

other world, created and sustained by the basic sat-chit. Every thing is

self-consistent. If that Jeeva travels to next world with the knowledge of

the previous world, he may know the things existing in other worlds but for

the rest of the subjects they are asat. - His words become the only pramana

are means of knowledge - just like discussion of the existence of heaven

etc. Sastra is the only pramana since it cannot be independently confirmed.

> Can that be interpreted as the

>three kAlAs of the jeeva's "journey" to realization and encompass the

>shata koti or more lives the jeeva has to endure to "attain" the realized

>state. Such an interpretation is consistent with, for example, the chariot

>analogy of the Katha upanishhad.

 

That is why the Lord is AkilAnDakoti BrahmAnDa naayaka -He is the Lord of

all entire universe consisting universes and universes, - Lord of

everything - that which pervades everything - that consciousness which is

existent. That is you.

Tat tvam asi, swetaketo - is the declaration of the Vedanta.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

>If the three kAlAs (in tri-kAla bAdhitam asat) refer to the three kAlAs

>of the jeevas "journey" to moksha, how can the jeeva in one life carry

>memory of the past or say whether it exists in future for it to be

>assigned asat ?

 

Ultimately, if jeeva sees and knows, it becomes an object of his knowledge

and is not asat from his point. For others it is only an indirect knowledge

and based on the degree of faith in his words. If he does not know and does

not experience then, even if it not asat for the rest of the world, for him

it is asat (please note I am discussing only the asat aspect not sat

aspect). Like gagabubu, which I know and you may not know. For me it is not

asat, for you it is. To make it complicated, you can say, there is

something like gagabubu according to sadananda but I donot know, may be it

is something like this or that etc. Or I donot believe there is any thing

like gagabubu, depending on the faith you have on my words. From your

point, what couts is you and what you know(real or your imaginations) and

the discussion is addressed to you as a seeker who is seeking.

 

>Some of these require further contemplation on my part. I would be

>grateful for clarifications.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Greetings Charles:

 

On behalf of the list members, I want to thank you for your excellent

postings on the three key topics currently under discussion: Naasto

vidyate bhaavo, Who am I, and the concept of time. I am looking forward

to your active participation and help. Please write to the list about

your extensive work on "Devanagiri Fonts Creations." This will greatly

help those interested in learning and understanding Sanskrit.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

dRg-dR"sya-viveka 20 gives:

 

asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAma cetyaM"sapa~ncakam |

AdyatrayanaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam ||

 

Every entity has five characteristics: existence, cognizability,

attractiveness, form and name. Of these the first three belong

to Brahman and the other two belong to the world.

 

So here we have two groups: (A) asti-bhAti-priyaM (= saccidAnanda

= satyaM j~nAnamanantaM = brahma), and (B) nAma-rUpa.

 

Now A is sat, and B is asat; however, whwn these two are mixed

together (B superimposed on A) so that A+B becomes an inseparable

unit, we have mithyA (false, or falsifiable), which is vyAvahArika

satyam. At the vyAvahArika level this relatively real A+B is

me, you, saMsAra, etc, and asat (B alone, without A) is the hare

without horns, imagination, "sound without substance" (YS 1:9).

 

The j~nAni 'sees' the A in A+B, and also sees the B for what it is,

a transient superimposition. This is the situation described in

gItA 2:16, and the pairs of opposites in 2:14 are A+B.

 

In the common analogy of the wave and ocean, the water is A and the

wave is B -- only in imagination can you have B without A. To press

the analogy further, when you have A+B together with the notion of

'my separate existence', then you have the wave as a lump of water

floating on top of the ocean -- imagine that! Many do.

 

As regards the trikAla questions, GK 2:6 gives B as:

 

AdAvante ca yannAsti vartamAne'pi tattathA |

 

That which does not exist in the beginning and the end,

is equally so in the present.

 

There is no limit to the amount of time separating beginning and end:

the transient appears in that time. You may have "satakoTi embodiments

if you wish: there is all the time in the world (is time anywhere else?)

Remember that all the zeroes ("sUnya) in "satakoTi (10^9) remain "sunya:

they merely point to the significance of the One present at all times.

 

Regards, Charles.

[Guest guest]

At 05:52 AM 9/29/98 PDT, Ram Chandran wrote:

>"Ram Chandran" <chandranram

>

>Greetings Charles:

>

>On behalf of the list members, I want to thank you for your excellent

>postings on the three key topics currently under discussion: Naasto

>vidyate bhaavo, Who am I, and the concept of time. I am looking forward

>to your active participation and help. Please write to the list about

>your extensive work on "Devanagiri Fonts Creations." This will greatly

>help those interested in learning and understanding Sanskrit.

 

Charles,

 

Don't now if I missed any previous posts from you, but nice to hear form

you on this list!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>"Ram Chandran" <chandranram

>

>Sadanandji:

> it is not possible for me to

>describe graphically or otherwise the distinction between ASAT and

>Unreal ( you mean mithya)! There are too many ifs and buts with every

>figure and every

>statement!

>

>Ram Chandran

>Burke, VA

 

Ram -the problem, I think, lies in the fact that conscious entity is

excluded in this pictorial representation - that is the one who is drawing

the picture! This is the same problem in the objective analysis of the

consciousness -see my article - 'can science explain consciousness?' - The

very objectification removes the subject which is the consciousness from

the very analysis one is trying to do. Hence Bhagavan Ramana's beautiful

statement -

ANALYZE THE ANALYST.

That can be possible only when the analysis stops leaving just the Analyst

with out any analysis. - Ram without the picture!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, "Ram Chandran" <chandranram wrote:

> Please write to the list about

> your extensive work on "Devanagiri Fonts Creations."

 

The font is only useful with the LaTeX document processing program,

so it is of limited general interest. Its original purpose was to

produce reasonable-looking 1-inch high characters for the Introductory,

but as users requested extensions it just grew and grew and grew.

For those interested, a 35-page PostScript documentation file is at

 

ftp://ftp.nac.ac.za/wikner/sktdoc.ps600

 

The last third of the manual lists more than a thousand saMyoga-s,

which is one of those oddities that some may find interesting.

> This will greatly

> help those interested in learning and understanding Sanskrit.

 

A Sanskrit Introductory, covering the basics for the total novice,

is available as a 146-page PostScript file at

 

ftp://ftp.nac.ac.za/wikner/sktintro.ps600-may97

 

or as browser-viewable gifs at

 

ftp://ftp.jaguar.cs.utah.edu/private/sanskrit/learn/tutorial/index.html

 

 

For those interested in the various forms of Vedic accent notation,

these is a 6-page PostScript file available at

 

ftp://ftp.nac.ac.za/wikner/accents.ps600-july97

 

Any additions or corrections to that article would be most welcome.

 

Regards, Charles.