Advaita Manjari -4

[Guest guest]

In the previous post I have established that for any knowledge to take

place ‘knower’ has to be present and prerequisite even for pamaaNa to

operate. Therefore he has to be existent entity and conscious entity.

That world exist even otherwise is only an assuption subject to

confirmation by a consciousness entity. Hence it is called

indeterminate. In addition, it is not that object or matter makes

conscious entity to arise – that is chaarvaka matam or accidental

theory. Concept of time, space and therefore the world, presupposes the

existence of conscious entity or observer. Any arguments against this is

only like a fellow shouting at the top of his voice “I am dumb, I cannot

speak” – the very statement proves the contrary. To disprove my

statement a unconscious entity (not by a conscious entity though a

unconscious entity) to declare its existence and in that very

declaration the statement becomes like our so-called dumb friend.

Krishna K has not proved anything - he assumed that the world is there

and that is the QED. To prove the world exists, I have to be there to do

even QED. The rest is only an assumtion. This becomes more clear when

we analyze the concept of space and time.

 

I have started categorically that these Manjari-s are intended not to

prove advaita siddhanta but only clarify the advaita concepts. So all

the mails criticizing my posts are mostly centered on establishing why

Advaita is wrong how dviata is better. That kind of discussions are

beyond the scope of my notes as I have no interest in vaada with any

body, besides I find this vaadavali is mostly jalpavaali. Most of the

objections of our dvaitin friends are not new and they have been

exhaustively answered in many Advaitic books. I find there is clear

lack of interest to learn what exactly advaita says and does it match

with what they have studied.

 

If one feels that I am not discussing Adviata Vedanta, that is a

separate issue, and for that reason only I am posting these series to

Advaitin lists as well, so that the experts there can correct me if I am

wrong. If I do hear anything that contradicts my statements please rest

assured that I will not hesitate to point them to the readers of

vAdAvali. Now next Manjari.

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

moksha: moksha means freedom and is considered as highest human pursuit

in life. ‘Freedom from what?’ is question that props up next. Since

nothing is specified with the word, it implies that it is an absolute

freedom from all limitations. It becomes essentially freedom from

dependence on anything other than oneself, since any dependence on other

than oneself is itself a cause for enslavement. ‘aatmanyeva aatmanaa

tuShTaH’- A j~naani is the one who revels himself in his own self, says

Geeta, and such a j~naani, says Krishna, is the greatest among the

bhakta-s. Any dependence on other oneself, makes one to long for that

object which is beyond his control since it is other than oneself to

long far. In that very longing, there is an inherent assertion that one

is an inadequate person or unfulfilled and unhappy without that object.

He will get the sense of fulfillment, that is, a sense of adequacy when

he gains that object that he is longing for. It is in those moments of

fulfillment that we say ‘we are happy’. But experience has shown us

that this sense of adequacy or happiness gained is only temporary until

another desire props up in the mind for another and/or better object.

Fulfillment of any desire is not an end in itself, since it leaves

behind further dependence on the objects other than oneself. Thus one

get enslaved to ones ‘likes and dislikes’ or ‘raaga –dveshha-s. What one

is seeking for is an eternal, unlimited or infinite or unconditional

happiness i.e. freedom from all limitations. That can never be gained

as long as the sense of inadequacy remains. Therefore moksha cannot

anything of the type that one can gain. It is interesting to note that

a finite cannot gain infinite or finite cannot become infinite. moksha

on the other hand is a freedom from any dependency on anything other

than oneself. This can happen only if that ‘oneself’ is itself

unlimited and eternal. moksha is therefore cannot come under the

category of ‘apraaptasya praaptam’ i.e. gaining what one does not have,

for in all such gains there is always a loss and one will be still left

with a sense of inadequacy. Therefore it should be of the type of

‘praaptasya praaptam’, gaining what one already has. No one tries to

gain what one already has, unless one does not know that he has it

already. That is, one is ignorant of what one really is. Ignorance,

therefore, becomes the fundamental human problem, if the seeking for

moksha is the essential human pursuit in life. moksha is, therefore, not

gaining some thing or not going somewhere or not being something other

than what one already is. This is because in any one of these, there is

always a loss in the gain, or dependence on something other than

oneself, leaving one bound or leaving one with a sense of inadequacy or

lack of freedom. Unfortunately one cannot accept the fact that no

finite gain will make him an adequate person that he wants to be.

Longing for adequacy seems to be inherent desire that can never stop,

even if one wants. Hence all pursuits in life, pravRitti or nivRitti,

that is gaining something that one likes and getting rid of something

one dislikes, is ultimately only towards this one end; to reach a state

of mind where one feels that he has gained all that need to be gained,

and that he is now a full and complete or an adequate person. That

state can never be reached by any pursuit since by definition all

pursuits are limited and limited pursuits can give only limited results.

Series of limited pursuits still give series of limited results and

cannot sum up to infinite result. Man therefore remains as an

inadequate person in spite of one life or many lives efforts. When one

examines this inconsistency in terms of pursuits versus goal, he becomes

mumukshu, seeker of moksha, or seeker of absolute freedom. Hence the

scripture says .. pariiksha lokan karma chitaan brahmano ...

>From the very definition of absolute freedom, we rule out all concepts

of moksha that are contradictory to the definition. These contradictory

concepts include, notion of eternal dependence (sesha-seshii bhaava), or

one is in eternal service of the Lord etc., which are essentially

concepts arising from Bhakti philosophy. Eternal and infinite happiness

with limitations is self-contradictory and is like absolute freedom

while being an enternal slave. We also dismiss the notions that moksha

is somewhere (viakunTa or kailaasa, etc), unless that somewhere includes

everywhere or infinite. Since moksha is somewhere else and not here

and not now but after death etc, such concepts by mere exclusion of here

and now, become self- limited. And that contradicts moksha which is

freedom from all limitations. To be more specific moksha excludes any

spatial or temporal concepts (in that sense even here and now if those

involve constraints of space and time should also be excluded), since

absolute freedom is absolute in all respects.

 

Vedanta in fact points out to the seeker of moksha that ‘tat tvam asi’

or ‘you are that’, meaning you are an adequate person that you are

longing for. Therefore it is praaptasya praaptam and not apraaptasya

praaptam. Therefore ‘aham brahmaasmi’ should be the correct

understanding of oneself. That understanding leaves one as sthithaH

praj~naa - ‘prajaahati yaadaa kaamaan sarvaan paartha mano gataan,

‘aatmanyeva aatmanaa tushTaH’ sublimating all the desires in the mind

with the knowledge of oneself that one is already full and complete.

He, therefore, revels himself in himself. That is, he does not depend

on anything other than himself since he has understood that ‘the self

that he is, is an adequate self beyond any spacial or temporal

limitations – ‘aham brahma asmi – I am the totality’.

 

Once we understand the nature of moksha that it is freedom from all

limitations, that is it is limitless absolute, any definition of that

infinite falls short of infinite, and any description (description of

any thing can only be in terms of qualifications or attributes – these

aspects are discussed more elaborately later) is not really a definition

of infinite but only a description to dismiss any or all finite as not

the total. In principle, the language fails in pointing that which

cannot be pointed. Hence Vedaanta uses a methodology what Advaita calls

as ‘adhyaaruupa apavaada’ to take the students in steps to go beyond the

limitations of words. It is like using a pole to go beyond the pole.

Using the finite word to go beyond the words by implication. Hence one

can see why Veda-s classify them as lower knowledge only since higher

knowledge we are referring is beyond any finite words to speak. A

correct interpretation of the Vedic statements, therefore, becomes an

essential ingredient. Hence the emphasis for proper teacher who is

trained by his teacher, how to teach. Hence a guruparampara and

sampradaaya are also emphasized in the tradition.

 

Thus, infinitely infinite (if such a word can be coined) should be the

one which is free from all limitations since any limitation make it not

infinite. One cannot gain therefore moksha, nor can it be given, since

infinite can neither be gained nor given. Thus when scripture says “it

is the Lord that gives one moksha’ or ‘one has to gain the knowledge’ -

it should be correctly understood that it is not of the type of

‘apraptasya praaptam’, since those gains and knowledge will still leave

one inadequate or limited. It should be of the type of ‘praaptasya

praaptam’ that is gaining what one already ‘has’. Therefore it cannot

be knowledge of any thing other than oneself, since anything other than

oneself involves a gain and necessarily becomes finite and therefore not

moksha. –Hence Vedanta says “ayam aatma brahma”, this self is brahman.

It is a realization of what one is or self-realization that ‘aham

brahmaasmi” I am the brahman. Hence it is not gaining or becoming but

by re-cognizing what one already is by re- analyzing who that aham or

‘I’ is. Therefore aatma vichaara, enquiring about oneself, is not

different from brahma vichaara, inquiring into Brahman. The knowledge

should culminate as ‘aham brahmaasmi’ and the ‘brahma vit brahma eva

bhavati’ – I am that Brahman and knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.

Since I have pre-conceived notions about myself due to lack of correct

or incomplete knowledge of oneself, scripture becomes a pramaaNa to

teach me what I am really. The vision of scripture about myself is

different from the notion of myself about myself. Since these notions

are deep rooted that have been carried through endless past lives, the

mind requires an adequate preparation or adhikaaritvam to ‘own’ this

knowledge. Hence yoga becomes a means for purification of the mind so

that adequately prepared mind can grasp the essential truth expounded by

the shaastra-s. Yoga only prepares the mind or integrates the mind but

is not a means for knowledge. Since the knowledge involves knowledge of

oneself which is self-existing and eternal and unlimited, any means has

to be direct and immediate (aparoksha), just as seeing the fruit in ones

own hand. This aspect will be discussed later.

 

Brahman: Brahman comes from the root ‘bRih’ meaning growing or

expanding, or that which is big. We know that big is an adjective that

qualifies a noun. Interestingly the adjuctive big also gets qualified by

the noun that it qualifies. When we say, that is a big mountain and

this is a big mosquito, bigness of the mountain is obviously different

from the bigness of the mosquito. If we need to refer to that which is

bigger than ‘any thing’ that we know, if it is bigger than the biggest

that can ever be possible, or essentially it is unqualifiedly big, we

need a new word. To accomplish that, the adjective big itself is made

into a noun – and that is what Brahman implies. Upanishad talks about as

infinite is Brahman -‘anantam brahma’ or ekam eva advitiiyam, one

without a second, etc. Essentially it is unlimited in all dimensions,

without any distinctions that qualifies it like saajaati, vijaati

swagata bheda-s. Therefore Brahman means infiniteness or absolutely

infinite. In mathematics we are familiar with many types of infinities.

For example we say two parallel lines meet at infinity or irrational

numbers like pi can have infinite series. But all these infinities are

limited. Parallel lines are separated by a finite distance and pi is

less than 4. When we say Brahman, the word therefore implies that it is

absolutely infinite or unqualifiedly big or undefinably big. These terms

are not qualifications or descriptions or definitions to indicate what

Brahman is, but they are used only to negate all that can be qualified

as not Brahman. Otherwise one cannot think or talk of absolute infinity

using words which are limited. In that sense scriptures also uses the

words that imply this unqualified absolute infiniteness and the implied

words are not descriptors or definers or attributes of Brahman but only

excluders that separate any conceptualization entities as Brahman. The

word Parabrahman is also used to emphasize that it is supreme or

absolute not that there is another aparabrahman to separate it from.

Scriptures defines Brahman as sat chit ananda swaruupam or satyam,

j~naanam and anatam brahma. Before we analyze these words, it is

important to understand the meaning of swaruupa and tatasta lakshaNas.

 

Some theories have accounted Brahman as all pervading or infinite

reality but have internal entities that are different from Brahman.

They give following examples for illustration: 1) It is like space that

is all pervading and yet mountains and rivers which are different and

distinct from space yet are in space. 2) It is like red hot iron ball.

The heat that is all pervading the iron ball is different from the iron

ball. Similarly the Brahman can be all pervading infinity and still be

different from jiiva and jagat. Jiiva and jagat are in Brahman just as

mountain is in space. Similar view is also taken by Bhagavaan Ramanuja

where he considers in addition to the above that jiiva and jagat form

attributes of Brahman, and hence inseparable from Brahman. We reject all

these concepts for several reasons. First, attributes are not

substantives. ‘That is so’ is an assumption than a fact. If these are

attributes of Brahman, then Brahman itself becomes substantive for jiiva

and jagat. That reduces to advaitic concept. If the attributes such as

jiiva-s and jagat have their own substantives, and the substantive of

Brahman is different from those of jiiva and jagat, then one substantive

limits the other and Brahman ceases to be Brahman. If Brahman is the

material cause for both jagat and jiiva-s, then it is acceptable that

Brahman can be substantive for both. Then that excludes the inertness

of jagat and separateness of jiiva and concepts converge back to

advaitic nature of reality. In addition, a) space is not the material

cause for the mountains and rivers and heat is not the material cause

for iron ball. They do not arise from the space, sustained by the space

and go back in to space. b) Mountain and rivers etc are distinct from

space unlike the waves in the water, which arise from water, sustained

by water and go back into water. Space only accommodates mountain and

rivers. Brahman does not accommodate jiiva and jagat in him since

scripture clearly points out that ‘sarvam khalvidam brahma, neha

naanaasti kinchana’ – idam, that is, this entire universe is nothing but

Brahman and there is nothing else. That ‘pot-space is not different from

a total space’ is a valid statement but ‘pot is not different from

space’ is not a valid statement. Nor ‘pot’ can be an attribute of

Brahman. If Brahman is different from jiiva and jagat like space is

different from mountains then Brahman ceases to be an absolute

limitlessness since it gets limited by the very fact that moutains are

different from Brahman. There is a mutual exclusion, and accommodation

does not exclude one from the other. Therefore we conclude that in the

absolute infiniteness or limitless existence ‘swagata bheda-s’ or

internal differences cannot exist.

 

VishishhTadvaita overcomes this objection by saying that Brahman is all

inclusive and that jiiva and jagat are like attributes of Brahman. This

attribute-substantive relationship may cause several other problems,

which we may take up later. It is suffice here to say that attributes

are definable and distinguishable entities that identifies an object.

Attributed Brahman reduces to an object, because of the attributes.

Hence Brahman becomes finite and limited, and therefore Brahman ceases

to be Brahman. For the same reason, then satyam, j~naanam, anatam are

not attributes of Brahman either since attributes objectifies the

Brahman.

 

Scripture provides three beautiful examples to explain the cause-effect

relationship in the creation. If Brahman is the cause as the taTasta

lakshaNa indicates (yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante .....), the relation

between the universe and the material cause Brahman is similar to – (Ch.

U.) yathaa soumya... a) ekena lohamaNinaa ... b) ekena mRitpindena ....

and c) ekena nakha nikRintanena ... Just as a)Gold is the material

cause for the ornaments – gold remains as gold yet gold pervades all the

ornaments. Ornaments appear to be different from one another, each

ornament has its own attributes that distinguishes one ornament from the

other (such as size shape, utility or kriya etc ), but none of those

attributes belong to gold. Ornaments arise from gold, sustained by gold

and go back into gold. Gold that is pervading ornaments is not like

space pervading the mountain where mountain is different and distinct

from space although space accommodates the mountain. Material cause

implies that ornament is nothing but gold and gold alone – ring, bangle

etc are only naama and ruupa (name and form) but gold has not undergone

any transformation in ‘becoming’ the ornaments. In reality, gold has

not really become anything since it remains as gold. There are no two

things here – gold plus ornament – gold is the ornament yet gold differs

from ornament since all the attributes belong to the ornament and not to

gold. That is exactly the relation between the cause and the effect in

terms of Brahman and the jagat. There are no distinctions of ring,

bangle, necklace in gold. Gold remains gold without undergoing any

mutation, yet ring is different from bangle and necklace. When

scripture says, gold is ‘antaryaami’ in dweller of ring and bangle and

at the same time it says that gold is pervading all the ornaments such

as the ring and the bangle, it only means that ring and bangle are

nothing but gold and gold alone. There is no separate substantives for

ring and bangle or bracelet other than gold, yet ring is different from

bangle different from necklace. These distinctions are only superficials

associated with ruupa and naama, form and name and their associated

utilities.

 

The relation between ornaments and gold is not like the relation between

attributes and the substantive as Ramanuja extends for jiiva, jagat for

Brahman. Ornament is only a taTasta lakshNa for gold. It is not an

attribute inseparable from gold. Bangle can be destroyed to make into

ring or necklace without destroying the substantives gold. On the other

hand, according to vishishhtadvaita, the jiiva-s and jagat are eternal

and hence cannot be destroyed, while retaining Brahman. To reinforce

this concept, scripture provides two more similar examples – just as the

mud pots from mud or just as a nail cutter from black iron. We cannot

but solute those sages who are so precise in their definitions. They are

able to communicate that which is beyond any communication using

examples that we are all familiar. Interestingly all these examples

emphasize the material cause to emphasize that Brahman is the material

cause in addition to the intelligent cause, as it is easier to point out

the former than the later. Krishna reinforces this concept in B.G IX-

4and 5. mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthina, masthaani

sarvabhuutani na chaaham teshu avasthitaH|| na cha mastaani bhuutaani

pasyame yogamaishvaram| bhuutabhRinna ca bhuutastho mamaatmaa

bhuutabhaavanaH|| I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested

form. All beings are in me, but I am not in them. Yet I am not involved

in their mutations. I am in them but they are not in me. Look at my

glory. – It is like gold saying that I am in all of the ornaments but

they are not in me in the sense that their mutations, modifications,

their attributes, birth and death, and utilities do not belong to me.

Look at my glory. They do not affect me.

 

Tatasta LakshNa: Tatasta lakshaNa is an incidental qualification. The

classical example for tatasta lakshaNa is ‘That house where a crow is

sitting right now is Devadatta’s house’. Devadatta’s house may not have

anything to do with crow but it is convenient tool to identify

Devadatta’s house which cannot be otherwise identified. After saying

that one has to inquire into the nature of Brahman, sage Badarayana uses

the tastalakshaNa for brahman in his Brahmasuutra-s– janmaadyasya yataH

– Brahman is that which is the material cause for Brahman taking the

Taittiriiya U. sloka “yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante, yena jaataani

jiivanti yatpraym tyabhisam viSanti” – that from which the whole world

arose, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back – is brahman

– This is a tatashalaksaNa for Brahman, as creation is not necessary

qualification for Brahman, since even before creation Brahman was there.

Essentially we define a tatasta lakshaNa is that which is neither

necessary nor sufficient qualification to define an entity as an entity.

Why Badaraayana chose this lakshaNa to define Brahman (remember

Brahman, in principle, can not be defined and these are only operational

definition) only to accomplish two important aspects 1) to establish

that Brahman is also material cause for the jagat or the universe (in

addition to, of course, the intelligent cause) and 2) to reject the

theories such as sankhya that assumes the achetana or inert or jada

prakRiti as the cause for creation.

 

Swaruupa LakshaNa: Swaruupa lakshaNa as the name indicates is that which

defines the swaruupa or its intrinsic nature. These are essentially

inseparable qualifications of an object that distinguishes an object

from rest of the objects in the universe. These are specific necessary

qualifications that define an object as what it is. Ring has its

swaruupa lakshana that distinguishes it from a bangle – Gold, obviously

cannot be swaruupa lakshaNa of either ring or bangle even though they

both are made of gold. From the example of ring and bangle, we arrive at

a definition for swaruupa lakshna. It is that distinguishing ‘feature’

or features or attributes (substantive like gold is therefore excluded)

of an object that separates or distinguishes that object from the rest

of the objects in the universe. Form, shape, utility and therefore a

name, for a ring are distinctly different from those for a bangle. The

material cause can become swaruupa lakshaNa if it helps in separating

object A from object B, that is if they are made of two different or

distinct materials. If there are two pots, one made of gold and the

other made of clay, the material cause becomes of the distinguishing

feature that separates object – one is gold pot (object A) and the clay

pot (object B). But if the material cause is the same for both, then

that cannot be a feature to distinguish one object from other. Therefore

material cause ceases to become a swaruupa lakshaNa for the two objects

in question.

 

Is there a swaruupa lakshNa for Brahman? In principle, there cannot be

any, since swaruupa lakshNa is that which distinguishes that object

from the rest of the objects whose swaruupa lakshaNa-s are exclusive

distinguishing feature of those objects. Brahman cannot have a swaruupa

lakshaNa since being absolutely infinite it cannot exclude ‘anything’.

In other words there is nothing other than Brahman for swaruupa lakshaNa

to operate ( i.e to make it distinguishable from the surroundings). It

follows therefore that only a ‘thing’ can have a swaruupa lakshna that

distinguishes it from other ‘thing-s’. If Brahman includes all things,

since it cannot exclude any ‘thing’, then all swaruupa lakshaNa-s should

be inclusive in Brahman. Then all inclusive definition is essentially a

trivial or useless definition. Or it is also not incorrect to say that

all swaruupa lakshaNa-s of all objects should be excluded in the

swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman. Let us take a simple example to

illustrate the point. If there is a white cow, a black cow and a brown

cow, swaruupa lakshaNa of a cow should exclude all these specific

colors- white, black or brown colors per sec but only pick up that which

remains as common factor for all the cows that distinguishes a cow from,

say, a horse. This does not mean that cow cannot be white or black or

brown but it only means that it need not be of any particular color. It

can be any combinations of all the colors. Hence it only means that any

particular color is excluded as a specific qualification of a cow.

Applying this logic, if Brahman includes ‘everything’ then it should

exclude all the contradictory swaruupa lakshaNas of each and every

object in the universe and only take that which is common for all

objects that are discovered and yet to be discovered. Is there a

swaruupa lakshaNa that is common for all objects that can be used as

swaruupa lakshNa for Brahman – just as we were searching a common

feature for white cow, black cow and brown cow, as swaruupa lakshNa for

any cow. Obviously, we get into an inherent contradiction here. We have

defined swaruupa lakshaNa of any object as that which distinguishes from

other objects. Therefore there cannot be any swaruupa lakshna that can

be common for two objects yet distinguishes one from the other. One can

still pick up a common feature of two objects, object A and object B,

leaving aside their distinguishing features that are mutually exclusive

(swaruupa lakshaNa-s). Since both objects exist (that is why we are

comparing the two), we can say ‘existence’ itself is a common feature

for both. It is not swaruupa lakshaNa of either object A or object B

but it is common feature of both object A and object B. Now if we

include ‘every-thing’ or all objects in the entire universe or universe

itself (that includes space, time etc.) – At least one common feature is

they all exist or the universe exists. ‘Existence’ is definitely the

only common feature, recognizing that it is not swaruupa lakshna of any

particular object or all objects per sec. Since Brahman includes

‘everything’ and can not exclude ‘anything’, it follows that ‘existence’

itself can be considered as swaruupa lakshaNa, or at least as all

inclusive common factor, recognizing that it is not specific enough to

distinguish ‘any one thing, from any other thing’, besides the fact that

there is no other thing than Brahman to distinguish it from. It is

incorrect to argue, therefore, that ‘sat’ is a distinguishing feature of

Brahman or quality of Brahman, since it is not a feature that separates

it from any other object in the universe. One cannot also say that it

separates from non-existence and since for it to separate from

non-existence, that non-existence should first exist, and if it exists

then it is no more non-existence. Thus, we may use the term ‘swaruupa

lakshaNa’ of Brahman only to separate from the tatashta lakshaNa of

Brahman. However, if we examine correctly, Brahman cannot have swaruupa

lakshaNa either, in fact cannot have any lakshaNa if it is all

inclusive, as the very word Brahman signifies. Then what is ‘sat’ in

the sat chit ananda, if it is not a quality of Brahman? And what is the

purpose of defining Brahman in that way when Brahman cannot be defined

at all. These are valid questions that need to be explored further.

 

We deduced above that only common factor for all objects that exist in

the entire universe that are discovered or yet to be discovered is only

the fact that they all exist. Existence or ‘sat’ is therefore the only

an essential ingredient that is all-inclusive in all objects (that is,

no object is excluded from the existence ‘feature’). Now, if an object

A undergoes some transformation to object B, one thing that definitely

does not change in this transformation and remains common for both is

that ‘existence’ feature. Existent object A has become existent object

B. Existence has not undergone any change while object A transforms to

object B. Later in future it may become existent object C or existent

object D etc. Therefore object A or object B, C or D are all temporal

(time bound) but existence feature is not temporal. An important

feature of jagat or universe is the continuous change or continuos flux

and we define jagat as ‘jaayate – gachcchate iti jagat’, that which

comes and goes. Essentially it means that objects continuously change,

space-wise, time-wise as well as other swaruupa lakshaNa-s wise. Since

every object has an existence as a basic factor, in all these changes

only entity that does not undergo any change is the ‘existence’ itself

in all objects– that is their ‘sat’ aspect. We now arrive at a

definition for ‘sat’ or ‘satyam’ – it is that changeless entity in all

changes – since change defines a time – sat is that which is beyond the

time concept and for convenience we can provide an operational

definition for sat or satyam as ‘trikaala abaadhitam satyam’, that which

remains the same in all three periods of time; past, present and future.

Krishna says the same thing in Geeta ‘naabhaavo vidyate satH’, the

existence can never cease to exist. Since Brahman cannot also undergo

any change or mutation (immutable)–and existence is only factor that is

common factor in all mutants and mutations that itself does not go any

mutation, and is all inclusive factor in all objects whether they change

or not, ‘sat’ or existence itself is THE appropriate word that Vedanta

uses to define that which is not definable.

 

Using this framework we will next define what is real, unreal and

mithya.

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.