[Advaita-l] Advaita Manjari -4

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

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.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/