[Advaita-l] asat & asatya / sat & satya

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Subbuji - PraNams
As you know, astya is a negation of the satyatvam - one can say it is mityaa. Mityaa however is defined as sat asat vilakshanam - as it is neither sat nor asat also. 
>From that very definition asat, is not just negation of sat but that which has no locus for existence as in vandyaa putraH. Thus we have sat, asat and mithyaa where the later involves negation of the sat and asat. As you are familiar, Madhusudana discusses five definitions of mithyaa in his Advaita Siddhi. 
Just my 2cHari Om!Sadananda

 

    On Wednesday, August 21, 2019, 09:23:48 PM EDT, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om V Subramanian ji,
>
> 1. Is asatya also sat? Table is asatya. Is it sat?
>

Asatya as mithya vastu is also ultimately Sat, Brahman, since it is
superimposed on that adhishThanam. So too the table. It is a case of
'baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam' as taught in the BGB brahmaarpanam
verse.



> 2. Are sat and satya synonyms?
>

In the Taittiriya Bhashya I have cited, yes. But in specific contexts, they
may not be used as synonyms. We can say 'sad vidyaa leads to liberation.'
We can also say 'the knowledge of what is Satyam, that is Brahman, leads to
liberation.'

warm regards
subbu


>
> Sudhanshu.
>
> On Wed 21 Aug, 2019, 21:14 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hari Om Bhaskar ji,
>>>
>>> As per Swamiji, the definition of satya and asatya ( = anrita) is as per
>>> Taittiriya -- सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति,
>>> तत्सत्यम्
>>> । यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते. In short,
>>> satya
>>> is unchangeable while  asatya is changeable.
>>>
>>
>> In this Taittiriya bhashya itself, in that very place Shankara has said: एवं
>> सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।  Sat alone is Satyam. The avadharana, emphasis,
>> he is referring to is 'sadeva somya idam agra aasiit' of the Chandogya.
>> That Sat is Brahman. This section there is called sadvidya. He has
>> identified sat as satyam itself, and immediately says: अतः ‘सत्यं
>> ब्रह्म’ इति ब्रह्म विकारान्निवर्तयति ।  So, for Shankara 'satyam', 'sat'
>> are both Brahman.
>>
>> warm regards
>> subbu
>>
>>>
>>> Both satya and asatya is sat. Swamiji has not quoted bhAshya for the
>>> definition of Sat but it can be taken from Gita 2.16.
>>>
>>> Asat, as per Swamiji, is here's horn, non-existence. Again he has not
>>> quoted any bhashya vakya for asat.
>>>
>>> Sudhanshu.
>>>
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org