levels of asat

[Guest guest]

praNAms Advaitins,

 

We all know that there are three levels of sat (existence): paramarthika

(absolute reality), vyavakarika (empirical reality) and pratibhashika

(delusional reality).

 

Recently, I heard from someone that there are three levels of asat,

similar to the levels of sat. I want to confirm it from the learned

members of the group.

 

I could not get further details from the person, as we both were

participating in a Shiva Abhisheka on Shiva Ratri day and the

chanting of Shri Rudram had just started. Later I did not get

a chance to get further details from that person.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

 

namaskAraH SrI Ramakrishna-ji,

 

You have asked:- Recently, I heard from someone that there are three

levels of asat.

[unquote]

 

If only asat has any existence!(?)

 

|||||||||||

 

However, this reminds me of Saivasiddhanta tattvas wherein mAyA is

said to have three realms:

shuddha mAyA.

ashuddha mAyA.

shuddha-ashuddha mAyA.

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

Yours ever in the Lord,

Sampath ~

 

===============================

> praNAms Advaitins,

>

> We all know that there are three levels of sat (existence):

paramarthika

> (absolute reality), vyavakarika (empirical reality) and pratibhashika

> (delusional reality).

>

> Recently, I heard from someone that there are three levels of asat,

> similar to the levels of sat. I want to confirm it from the learned

> members of the group.

>

> I could not get further details from the person, as we both were

> participating in a Shiva Abhisheka on Shiva Ratri day and the

> chanting of Shri Rudram had just started. Later I did not get

> a chance to get further details from that person.

>

> Hari Om!

> Ramakrishna

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Sampath-ji,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

> You have asked:- Recently, I heard from someone that there are three

> levels of asat.

> [unquote]

>

> If only asat has any existence!(?)

 

This is really true! In fact, the term that was used by that person in

that discussion was vyavaharika-asat, pratibhashika-asat etc.

 

I immediately sensed a contradiction, as the term pratibhashika-asat

seemed like an oxymoron to me! I however could not continue that

discussion because of earlier mentioned reasons.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Pranams,

In Advaita Vedanta Asat as you have mentioned is of three tyoes. Asat

is usually translated as 'unreal'. The unreality has different

gradations of utility in three different domains of experience viz,

Paramartika vyavaharika and Pratibhasika. Maya assumes Asat'va in

degrees of its existence known by three different terms. They are:

 

1) Maya is Asat in Paramartika level

2) Maya is atatrupa-Asat in Vyavaharika level

3) Maya is Tucca asat in Pratibasika level.

 

Maya is mere Asat and it exists and operates not in the Paramartika

level as Brahman alone being Sat exists, 'tat vyatiriktam sarvam

asatvam'. Maya is jada in this level and hence Asat'va here is also

known as 'jAdya Asat' which is inert and completely dormant. 'Thus

asat is 'atyantAbavam'.

 

Maya in its Cit sambanda animates itself and operates with its two

functional powers, Viksepa and Avarana. This is however indeterminable

power and hence Maya is known to be anirvacaniya. The Anirvacaniyatva

of Asat is termed as 'atad-rupa asat' at the Vyavaharika stand point.

This form of asat is said to have 'jnana-samarthya' cognitive yogyata.

 

Finally, Maya in the pratibhasika level is termed as tucca Asat, which

is completely non-existent and does not have an iota of any practical

utility. This Asat'va is known as Tucca asat. Like those of 'Vandya

Putra' etc. This state is 'jnana-asamarthya'.

 

These three categories of Asat is attested by Swami Vidyaranya in his

Vivarana Prameya Samgraha. Madhusudana Saraswati elaborates on these

points in his Advaita Siddhi. Vimuktatman in his Ista Siddhi

introduces these points while discussing the 'khyathi vadas'. Vedanta

siddhanta muktavali mentions the above lines,

 

Satvatrayam vadan vAdi prastavo-trAdunAmaya |

Satyam dvaitamasatyam vA nA~satye vividam kutaH ||

 

Pls note: Advaita Vedanta condemns the Saiva Siddanta view in

classifying Maya as Suddha asuddha etc.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

 

harE kRishNa !

 

> Pls note: Advaita Vedanta condemns the Saiva Siddanta view in

> classifying Maya as Suddha asuddha etc.

[uNQUOTE]

 

Needless to say, Saiva Siddanta doesn't classify the advaitic mAyA for

advaitavEdAnta to either condemn or approve it!

 

A Buddhist says that an advaitin is not enlightened and an advaitin

says that a Buddhist is not enlightened the reason is that both have

different *versions* of enlightenment.

 

Please note:-- The point being so clear, I don't think I will be

interested to argue further on the compatibility or validity of Saiva

Siddanta vis-a-vis advaita.

 

!! jato math tato path !!

 

Yours ever in the Lord,

Sampath ~

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

It would be interesting if you can provide a comparative summary of

the two on the lines of the one we had for bhAmati vs. vivaraNa.

 

Also, I am curious about the ' !! jato math tato path !! ' appearing

at the conclusion of your post. Can you please tell us what it means.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

> Please note:-- The point being so clear, I don't think I will be

> interested to argue further on the compatibility or validity of

Saiva

> Siddanta vis-a-vis advaita.

>

> !! jato math tato path !!

[Guest guest]

" Needless to say, Saiva Siddanta doesn't classify the advaitic mAyA for

advaitavEdAnta to either condemn or approve it! "

____________________

 

Hari OM ~

I was only pointing out the desperate irrelevance in brining the Saiva

Siddhanta view of Maya. Saiva Siddhanta is explicit enough to

ascribe 'Sat' status to Maya, diametrically opposite to the Advaita

stand point. More over, the question raised on floor here was

about 'Asat' and its types which has nothing to do with the 'Sat'Maya

that Saiva Siddhanta talks about. Needless to say, Buddhist and

Advaitin counter each other mutually, which again is irrelevant here.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

praNAmaH SrI Nair-ji,

 

I request you to give me sometime for that. Lately, because of my

second MBBS exams, I am not able to find free time to enjoy the

jnAnamakarandam presented by you all here.

 

" jato mat tato pat " in Bengali means, " As many faiths, so many paths " ,

the message given by SrI rAmakRishNa paramahamsa who was one of such

rare souls who dedicated most of his life for the practice of

different paths and found out practically that they all lead to the

same goal as it was beautifully put in the 7th SlOka of Siva mahimna

stOtra,

 

trayI sAnkhyam yOgaH pashupatimatam vaishhNavamiti

prabhinnE prasthAnE paramidamadaH pathyamiti cha !

ruchInAm vaichitryAdRijukuTila nAnApathajushhAm

nRiNAmEkO gamyastvamasi payasAmarNava iva !!

 

The different practices based on the three Vedas, Samkhya, yoga,

Pashupata-mata, Vaishhnava-mata etc are but different paths to

attain to the greatest truth. As the different streams having their

sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O

Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies,

various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee!

 

=======================

> Namaste.

>

> It would be interesting if you can provide a comparative summary of

> the two on the lines of the one we had for bhAmati vs. vivaraNa.

>

> Also, I am curious about the ' !! jato math tato path !! ' appearing

> at the conclusion of your post. Can you please tell us what it means.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

> advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

> <paramahamsavivekananda@> wrote:

> > Please note:-- The point being so clear, I don't think I will be

> > interested to argue further on the compatibility or validity of

> Saiva

> > Siddanta vis-a-vis advaita.

> >

> > !! jato math tato path !!

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Ramakrishna:

 

As seekers, our goal is find what is 'Sat' and we do want to detach

from 'Asat' in order to reach the ultimate goal. Sanskrit is

mathematically a precise language in discriminating two opposites such

as 'Sat' and 'Asat'; 'dharma' and 'adharma' and 'suddha' and 'asuddha'

etc., etc. That which is not 'Sat' is 'Asat' and similarly that which

is not 'dharma' is 'adharma.' If we think carefully, we will come to

the conclusion that any compartmentalization (level) is just for

clarification and simplification for our understanding. Consequently,

we can choose how many levels that we want to handle while defining any

notion of our understanding. For example, we define 'Gunas (human

qualities) as three - Satvik, Rajastik and Tamasik and this

classification is to simplify our understanding. But we all know that

human qualities can't be summarized by just 3 and potentially millions

of combinations are possible. The determination of one's guna is quite

quite, our moods change every moment depending on the environment and

our background and this we all know well!

 

Both Sampathji and Sri Devanathanji have come up with some reasonable

answers to your question using different frameworks. Personally, I like

Sri Devanathanji's answer which confirms with advaita and I did not

find Sampathji answer as incorrect.

 

As one of the moderators of this list, I request members not pursue

more on this thread because 'Asat' is less relevant for reaching our

ultimate goal.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

>

> praNAms Advaitins,

>

> We all know that there are three levels of sat (existence):

paramarthika

> (absolute reality), vyavakarika (empirical reality) and pratibhashika

> (delusional reality).

>

> Recently, I heard from someone that there are three levels of asat,

> similar to the levels of sat. I want to confirm it from the learned

> members of the group.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The very name 'advaita' implies that when sat or reality is truly

found, all differences are there dissolved in an ultimate identity of

that which knows and all that is ever is known.

 

Thus, in reality itself, there can be no differentiated levels.

Wherever we speak of different levels, they cannot be levels of

reality itself. They can only levels of appearance, through which one

same reality is differently shown.

 

At any such level of appearance, an undifferentiated reality is shown

seemingly compromised by partial perception, thought and feeling

through our limited personalities. Each level of appearance is thus

tainted by confusing compromise, and this makes it a level of asat or

unreality.

 

In this sense, true sat or reality can have no levels in itself. All

levels are ultimately levels of asat or unreality.

 

But the differentation of levels does have an advaitic goal. It is to

reflect into deeper and deeper levels, towards a final ground where

all differences and levels are found utterly dissolved in the

identity of knower and known.

 

That ground of course is paradoxical to all the levels through which

it is approached. The very notion of a ground implies a

differentiation from more superficial levels. And that

differentiation must dissolve in reaching where the notion is

targeted.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

--- Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

 

 

>

> That ground of course is paradoxical to all the levels through which

> it is approached. The very notion of a ground implies a

> differentiation from more superficial levels. And that

> differentiation must dissolve in reaching where the notion is

> targeted.

 

Shree Ananda PraNAms

 

Excellent post - The paradox actually resolves in understanding that all levels

are

just vibhUti of the Lord or oneself or as GoudapAda puts it - natural

manifested-unmanifestation or swAbhAvikam. In the ultimate it is inclusion than

exclusion as advaita should imply.

 

In the paradoxical discussion of mind and Brahman - mind is like a ring on gold

or

ring as gold or gold as ring but the paradox lies in trying to express the

unexpresable. Hence maaya is anirvachanIyam. Words return back along with the

mind!

- but where to - into Brahman. That is the end of paradox.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Well said.

 

I would say, " in the ultimate, it is inclusion *without

differentiation* than exclusion " .

 

A banana is vibhUti. An apple too is vibhUti. But, there is only

vibhUti. That is inclusion without differentiation where vibhUti is

not in any way different from the Brahman of Advaita. In conclusion,

therefore, mAyA-ji is none other than Brahman-ji and no wonder She is

worshipped the world over under one name or another.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

.....

In the ultimate it is inclusion than

> exclusion as advaita should imply.

>

> In the paradoxical discussion of mind and Brahman - mind is like a

ring on gold or

> ring as gold or gold as ring but the paradox lies in trying to

express the

> unexpresable. Hence maaya is anirvachanIyam. Words return back

along with the mind!

> - but where to - into Brahman. That is the end of paradox.

[Guest guest]

A banana is vibhUti. An apple too is vibhUti. But, there is only

vibhUti. That is inclusion without differentiation where vibhUti is

not in any way different from the Brahman of Advaita.

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

I may appear picky here...nevertheless I've to say this...By saying

multifarious nature of this creation is the *vibhUti* of brahman, & this

vibhuti is stree in nature, we are, without our knowledge (or may be with

our devotional knowledge:-)) personifying both the nirvishEsha, nirvikAri

(advaita) brahman & mAya. Anyway, attribution of the gender to this mAya

can be found only in some mythological texts / some stOtra-s & no doubt it

is good for upAsana & bhakti mArga...But in the strict philosophical sense,

nowhere in the prasthAna trayi bhAshya of shankara we can find this

mystical mAya has a *stree*/feminine gender...On the other hand we can find

plenty of references towards the origination of mAya in shankara

bhAshya..like avidyA kalpita, avidyA kruta, avidyAtmaka,

avidyAparyupasthApita etc. etc.

 

 

gaudapAda describes mAya in his kArika : mAyA iti avidyamAnasya AkhyA

ityabhiprAyaH

 

 

Pardon me, just few straight forward thoughts from a dry philosopher :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji.

 

Appreciate your dryness too. That also is vibhUti!

 

The word mAyA is feminine gender in Sanskrit. What to do?

 

Thanks and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

....By saying

> multifarious nature of this creation is the *vibhUti* of brahman, &

this

> vibhuti is stree in nature, we are, without our knowledge (or may

be with

> our devotional knowledge:-)) personifying both the nirvishEsha,

nirvikAri

> (advaita) brahman & mAya. Anyway, attribution of the gender to

this mAya

> can be found only in some mythological texts / some stOtra-s & no

doubt it

> is good for upAsana & bhakti mArga...But in the strict

philosophical sense,

> nowhere in the prasthAna trayi bhAshya of shankara we can find this

> mystical mAya has a *stree*/feminine gender...On the other hand we

can find

> plenty of references towards the origination of mAya in shankara

> bhAshya..like avidyA kalpita, avidyA kruta, avidyAtmaka,

> avidyAparyupasthApita etc. etc.

>

>

> gaudapAda describes mAya in his kArika : mAyA iti avidyamAnasya

AkhyA

> ityabhiprAyaH

>

>

> Pardon me, just few straight forward thoughts from a dry

philosopher :-))

>

[Guest guest]

The word mAyA is feminine gender in Sanskrit. What to do?

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

And also the word *brahma* is neutral gender in Sanskrit :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> The word mAyA is feminine gender in Sanskrit. What to do?

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> And also the word *brahma* is neutral gender in Sanskrit :-))

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

Pranams.

The word brahman in the neuter means the supreme brahman. The same

word in the masculine gender means the Creator Brahma.

And, strangely, the word 'dArAH', masculine plural, means ' a wife'

in the singular.

In Samskrit, as in German, the gender of the moun does not depend on

the language. Hindi and French have one thing in common, both have

only masculine and feminine, and no neuter.

Please pardon this digression from advaita. Perhaps we can take all

these peculiarities as insdicating that everything is mithya.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Ananda-ji,

 

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

> In this sense, true sat or reality can have no levels in itself. All

> levels are ultimately levels of asat or unreality.

 

Thanks a lot for the enlightening post.

 

Also thanks to all who responded to clear the doubt.

 

praNAms again to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna