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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar ji,

The confusion is because of two things (1) the definition of asat (2) the
method of pratyaksha as held in traditional Vedanta.

(1) In tradition, sat is defined something which exists in (past & present
& future). Asat should then logically be ~ (past & present & future). But
it is not defined so. It is defined as ~past & ~present & ~ future. That is
why we need to have sat-asat-vilakshana which covers other than these two
scenario. It is an issue of definition. This is what is referred as mithya.
It is all definition issue. Nothing fundamentally problematic here.

(2) there is a huge methodology involved as to how we get to know a table,
chair, rope etc through pratyaksha. Tradition has a huge theory behind it.
It states that the antah-karana goes through chakshu-Indriya to the place
where vishaya is and takes vishaya-AkAra. Then there is aikya of
vishaya-avachchinna-chaitanya and
antah-karaNa-vritti-avachchinna-chaitanya. Thus, we get to have the
pratyaksha jnAna. Then it enquires as to how we see illusions. It is a
perfect theory and very interesting. It will solve your issue if you go
through VedAnta ParibhAsha. There is nothing prima facie incorrect. We need
to just go through the theory of perception.

Sudhanshu.

On Thu 22 Aug, 2019, 18:55 kuntimaddi sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Bhaskarji – PraNAms
>
> As you are familiar there are two types of errors – a) pratibhaasika and
> b) vyaavahaarika. Rope/Snake example falls under the former and ring/gold
> or miraj water falls on the later.
>
> For the one who thinks what he sees is real recognizes later that what he
> thought as real is not really there or appears to be there. Hence real as
> long as one takes the perception as real and becomes unreal once he has
> substantive knowledge. Is Ring real? – It is real enough from the point of
> perceptibility, transactability, and utility (see Goudapada) but not really
> real since it undergoes transformation while Gold is more real than the
> ring since it is the substantive of the ring and bangle, etc. The cost of
> the ring depends predominately on the amount of gold in that ring. Hence
> ontological difference exists between the ring and gold. anirvachaneeyam
> aspect comes since there it is sat enough for transactional purposes but
> not really sat since it can be negated. From the point of Science also
> every material is nothing but the fundamental particles
> (electrons-protons-neutrons) but at transactional level gold is different
> from Iron and delicious food is different from garbage; although
> fundamentally they are all same. Anirvachaneeyam comes only since the
> reality or ontological status depends on the references state.
>
> From the absolute reference point the whole creation becomes mithyaa since
> being infinite there cannot be any creation in of from Brahman. At a
> transactional level, it appears to be real but from the absolute level, it
> cannot be. Hence it is called anirvachaneeyam.
>
> Bhaskarji as long as we understand the essence of these, then there is no
> problem – the goal is to discard that which is not really real and discover
> that which is absolutely real. The whole Vedanta is only trying to redirect
> our minds to discover that which is absolutely real by neti, neti
> statements.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
>
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 08:26:19 AM EDT, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> 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.
>
> >  It would always be puzzling for me to equate mithya with sat asat
> vilakshaNaM and anirvachaneeyam!!  Let us take the famous example
> rope-snake.  Here when the rope jnana is dawned we will come to know we
> were seeing the snake due to mis-conception.  (mithyA jnana) Hence snake
> was / is / will never be there in rope.  Is it not??  So, in short snake
> jnana is mithyA jnana after the dawn of correct jnana we understand that
> our previous knowledge about rope is wrong knowledge.  At which point of
> time do we say, snake on the rope is anirvachaneeya to conclude our mithyA
> jnana is sat asat vilakshaNaM ??  When rope knowledge is there snake will
> not be there likewise when we are perceiving the snake in place of rope,
> that knowledge (though mithya later on) is real as we are frightened, run
> away from that place etc.  So, IMHO, that which is already decided as
> mithyA cannot be anirvachaneeya.  Something will subject to anirvachaneeya
> when we see the kArya and kAraNa simultaneously.  Like water and foam,
> gold-ornament etc.  Here by seeing the foam we cannot categorically say
> either it is water or something else.  bhAshyakAra gives this example to
> define anirvachaneeya.  But this type of anirvachaneeyatvaM cannot be
> attributed to rope=snake mithyA jnana since there is ONLY illusion of snake
> or correct knowledge of rope.
>
> In short mithya jnana is due to abhAva of the correct knowledge, when the
> correct knowledge occurred, mithya jnana will be wiped out completely.
> mithyA jnana pertains to mithya jneya vastu.  anirvachaneeyatvaM pertains
> to the thing that exists which can be simultaneously perceived by
> pratyaksha or through shAstra viveka.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>