a note on asat

[Guest guest]

After what I wrote yesterday to Sri Gummuluru Murthy gaaru's question, I

was thinking on this asat(I mean the meaning of asat), since if one can

contemplate on asat it is no more asat.

 

I want to reemphasize the fact that trikaala badhitam asat is only an

incomplete definition- Hence Madhusuudana reinforces Prakaashatma yati's

definition, which is the extension (or elaboration of Padmapada's

definition) "pratipanna upaadhau trikaalika nishedha pratiyogitvam

mithyatvam", falsity (mithyatva) consists in being pratiyogin (negatum) of

a negation (nishedha) which is trikaalika (all three periods of time) in a

locus (upaadhau) in which it appears (pratipanna).

 

Actually more than trikaala - upaadhou is very important - hence

Madhusuudana - it is implied in Padmapada's definition, but more explicitly

stated by Prakaashatma Yati.

Essentially no locus for its existence. Hence if Murthy gaaru asked 1000

years ago if 'train' is sat or asat - it is asat - Here it is not the

trikaalam aspect here but when the discussion or analysis is being done it

has no locus from the discusser's point. Hence Prakaashaatma yati's

definition is more complete.

 

Now of course 'train' has a locus hence it cannot come under asat any more

(hence tirkaala badhidam is very restrictive definition -). Of course it

is not sat either. To be exact, sat is that whose existence does not

depend on any other existence.

 

A rule of thumb for asat - even the negation process cannot be applied for

asat, since negation involves the presence of locus on which negation can

be done.

 

If I have a choice, I would add a phrase to the definition of mithya,

"that which is, or which can be created" - "yat utpannamcha? " - although

it may be redundant. For negation which is required to determine falsity of

an object, locus has to be there. A creation of train in future or a train

in another world, which can be negated since it has a locus in the future

or in another world to prove that it is not asat but mithya is useless

exercise. Since negation is being done in the present and future has not

come yet. Hence Prakaashaatma Yati added the word - pratipanna - in which

it appears ( which is a present tense)

 

Hence the emphasis is on the upaadhau or locus than on the kaala per sec.

 

 

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 am grateful to Shri Sadananda for clarifying this point for me. The

thing that got me off-track is tri-kAla and somehow I found myself

giving importance in my thinking on this matter to tri-kAla rather than

the adhyAropa, the superposition. Further, I was always (and am still)

under the impression (correctly, I hope) that whatever is not sat is asat.

The asat in my understanding includes both mithya and tuchha(see below).

It is clear to me now.

 

Over the weekend, I found in Shri Shankara's "PrashnottaramAlikA", the

following description or definition.

 

kiM mithyA yadvidyA nAshyam tuchhaM tu shashaveshhANAdi

kA cAnirvacanIyA mAyA kim kalpitam dvaitaM

 

what is called mithyA ? That which will be (is) destroyed by jnAnam

what is tuchhaM ? horns of a hare, etc

what is anirvacanIyA ? mAyA

which is the created (or false) entity ? dvaitam

 

Thanks again for the clarifications.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

 

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal

becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.

------

[Guest guest]

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>

>Namaste.

>

>I am grateful to Shri Sadananda for clarifying this point for me. The

>thing that got me off-track is tri-kAla and somehow I found myself

>giving importance in my thinking on this matter to tri-kAla rather than

>the adhyAropa, the superposition. Further, I was always (and am still)

>under the impression (correctly, I hope) that whatever is not sat is asat.

 

Murthy gaaru, although, asat is used sometimes what is not sat, in the

rigour of the Advaita vedanta that is not appropriate. Please study my

transcription of Advaita Siddhi again - Sri Madhusuudana Saraswati

clarifies it very well, in dismissing the objections. What is not sat need

not be asat and vice versa. Hence mithya is defined as neither sat nor

asat, and hence the law of contradition is not violated.

 

In my first mail I mentioned that in vedanta two ways, the there words

were discussed - one classificaiton: sat, asat and tuchham; and the other:

sat, mitya and asat - Hence in some contexts asat is used in the meaning of

mithya.

There is no confusion of sat and tuchha - only the word asat is used to

signify tuchham and other times the mitya aspect. For advaitin the context

will tell the difference. But the definions for the three terms in

Adviata Vedanta is very clear and consistent - from Shankara down the line.

 

 

>The asat in my understanding includes both mithya and tuchha(see below).

>It is clear to me now.

>

>Over the weekend, I found in Shri Shankara's "PrashnottaramAlikA", the

>following description or definition.

>

>kiM mithyA yadvidyA nAshyam tuchhaM tu shashaveshhANAdi

>kA cAnirvacanIyA mAyA kim kalpitam dvaitaM

>

>what is called mithyA ? That which will be (is) destroyed by jnAnam

>what is tuchhaM ? horns of a hare, etc

>what is anirvacanIyA ? mAyA

>which is the created (or false) entity ? dvaitam

>

>Thanks again for the clarifications.

 

 

I am glad that everything is clarrified.

 

There are lot of discussions on the anirvachaniiya aspect and avidya aspect

of the Advaita Vedanta. I am wondering if the Sri Swami Atmanandaji can

share with us his knowledge of the Brahmasuutraas, in general and

particularly discussions in relation to these.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623