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

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

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.