[Advaita-l] 'asat' also means 'mithyA'

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

If this world does not exist, then the why do we experience it? As long as
we live, we will experience the world. If this world does exist, then
according to Lord Krishna, it cannot cease to be. However, we know that it
goes through creation and destruction. Hence, what Lord Krishna says
contradicts our direct perception.  You can say that my direct perception
is due to my ajnana. If my ajnana exists, it cannot cease to be. If it does
not exist, then we are back to the original question. Why do I have direct
perception of jagat? :)


On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Subbuji - PraNAms
> Subbji- PraNAms
> Subbuji worte:
> ---------------------------
> It is exactly in this sense the
> word 'asat' is used by Veda VyAsa (Lord Krishna) in the Bhagavadgita verse
> 2.16 : na asato vidyate bhAvaH..[there is no real existence for the asat].
> Here the word 'asat' cannot be the vandhyAputra category. Why? this is
> because the verse says: this knowledge/conclusion/conviction, pertaining to
> the nature of asat and sat, is had by the Knowers of Brahman/Atman,
> tattvadarshibhiH. Surely the absolute absence/non-existence of the
> vandhyAputra type is known to everyone and to bring it as the subject
> matter of the Jnani's realization/jnAna will be trivial.
> ---------------------------------
> While more direct mithyaatva aspect is evident in the
> naasadiiya suukta, and while agreeing with you that asat word used in B.G.
> II-16 is in the sense of mithyaatva bhaava as per Bhagavatpaada Shankara
> bhaashhya,
> I would like to submit the following for consideration. Ignoring what
> yatvavadins
> know and understand, since they should also know all the three – sat, asat
> and
> mithyaa aspect for them to be tatvavaadinaH, I would like submit the
> following
> for consideration. If we look at the first line of the sloka, it clearly
> says
> that which exists cannot cease to exist - na abhaavaH vidyate sataH;  and
> that which is  asat or non-existent cannot come into
> existence or experienced – na asataH vidyate bhaavaH.  Mithyaa comes under
> experienced entity or entity
> that can be experienced only, but not absolutely real since it undergoes
> vikaara. This is the interpretation of the other aachaaryaas too who, of
> course, do not accept the mithyaatva aspect of the experienced entity.
> While
> Krishna started teaching with the statement that there was never a time I
> was
> not there and you and all these kings in front and there will never be a
> time
> when we will be absent, it implies that Krishna is still in the realm of
> vyaavahaarika only since from paaramaarthika there cannot be any
> distinctions
> of I, you and others and in that sloka he justifies the relative
> eternality of
> the jiivas and therefore Arjuna there is no reason for you to cry also si
> – na anusochanti
> panditaaH since that which is sat can never cease to exist – implying the
> sat
> part in the sloka 16 refers in the context to the eternal existence of
> jiivas
> within vyaavahaarika satyam. Jiivas being chidaabhaasas and therefore
> being too
> subtle cannot be cut, burned etc. just as space – All that is mithyaa only.
> Asat by elimination then refers to non-existent/non-experiencable entity.
> From
> that angle, I look at the verse II-16 as Krishna elucidating the ABSOLUTE
> LAW
> OF CONSERVATION – that which exists cannot cease to exist and that which is
> non-existence cannot come to existence and only one form transforms to the
> other– which he applies to not only to the matter that body is made of –
> but to
> the subtlest entity – the suukshma shaariiras and thus chidaabhaasas. Hence
> Arjuna, you cannot really destroy neither body nor the soul – nainam hanti
>  na hanyate. That which is product of food goes
> back to become food and the jiiva transmigrates until he realizes. Hence
> that
> which exists cannot cease to exist – and therefore is no reason for you to
> cry –
> since Arjuna is worried about destruction of his teachers and grandsire.
> I recognize that it is not how Shankara interpreted the
> sloka and Pujya S.N. Sastriji had pointed out to me this sometime back,
> after
> reading my write-up. However I do submit that the absolute law of
> conservation
> that Krishna emphasizes in Sloka II-16 appeals to my scientific mind.
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>     It is exactly in this sense the
> >word 'asat' is used by Veda VyAsa (Lord Krishna) in the Bhagavadgita verse
> >2.16 : na asato vidyate bhAvaH..[there is no real existence for the asat].
> >Here the word 'asat' cannot be the vandhyAputra category.  Why? this is
> >because the verse says: this knowledge/conclusion/conviction, pertaining
> to
> >the nature of asat and sat, is had by the Knowers of Brahman/Atman,
> >tattvadarshibhiH.  Surely the absolute absence/non-existence of the
> >vandhyAputra type is known to everyone and to bring it as the subject
> >matter of the Jnani's realization/jnAna will be trivial.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>