Verse 2.16
Self is of the nature of existence. The non self is an illusion. Atma satyam; (anatma mitya)
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सत: |
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभि: || 16||
nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayorapi dṛiṣhṭo ’nta stvanayos tattva-darśhibhiḥ
na—no; asataḥ—of the transient; vidyate—there is; bhāvaḥ—is (existence); na—no; abhāvaḥ—cessation; vidyate—is; sataḥ—of the eternal; ubhayoḥ—of the two; api—also; dṛiṣhṭaḥ—observed; antaḥ—conclusion; tu—verily; anayoḥ—of these; tattva—of the truth; darśhibhiḥ—by the seers
Of the transient there is no existence, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed as finality by the seers of the truth, after studying the nature of both.
Asat
The word asat can be crudely translated as non existent. But with the vision of vedanta asat can be divided into two categories.
Atyanta asat - that which is non existent at all times. Eg. hare’s horn, void or nothingness.
Mitya - That which is available only for experience but becomes non existent once pursued via enquiry. Eg. The appearance of a snake on a rope in dim light.
Mitya is an entity that lies between sat and asat. Generally we categorise things that are available for experience as sat and those things that are not available for experience as asat. But this is a wrong approach. Baghvan says the classification needs to be done based on intellectual enquiry and not by experiential conclusion.
The definition of sat and asat
Sat - That which is present in all three times (present, past and future) and that which exists independently of anything is called sat.
Asat - That which exists only in the present and that which is dependent on something else for its existence is called asat.
Eg: the appearance of a snake on a rope in dim light. In this example (drishtantham) the rope is sat. It exists in all three times. It exists independently. The appeared snake is asat. It only exists at a certain period of time. Its existence is dependent on the existence of rope. If the rope is long, the snake will appear a lengthy snake. Other examples of sat and asat are the appearance of a mirage, the relationship between a pot and clay etc.
Though there is a slight difference between mitya and asat, mitya is taken only as asat because an appearance is only as good as non-existence .
Atma sat
With the use of avasthatrya vivekam we will be able to establish that the self is sat.
Avastha Traya - the three avastas - the three experiential states - jagrat (waking state), svapna (dream state), sushupti (deep sleep state). In the waking state, all three, the body, mind and the knower of these two, are present. In the dream state, the body ceases to exist, but the mind and the knower are present. In the deep sleep state both body and mind cease to exist but the knower is still present.
In all three experiences or states, the sense I is present. On this I the subtle and gross bodies come and go. I identify myself with the physical body but it ceases to exist in my dream state. Also the physical body I had in my childhood is not the same as the one I have in my youth or in old age. It undergoes many changes from birth until death. Since the physical body is in a particular form and for a particular period it is considered mitya or asat.
Moreover, my physical body functions only because of my existence. It is I who give the physical body its existence. During dream or sleep states it becomes inert due to the non identification. Therefore the physical body is parathanthram, it is dependent on something else for its existence. Hence it is considered mithya.
In the dream state or even in the deep sleep state, atma is not dependent on anything and shines on its own. Hence atma is satyam.
Anatma asat
Anatma appears only momentarily, hence it does not have an existence of its own. It is mitya. It is always changing. The one that is always changing will appear to the common eye as unchanging. For example, a stream is constantly moving but looks static to the naked eye. Since the one that is changing is not present in all three times, it is mitya. One thinks that he sees a snake on a rope in the dim light. In the same way, we assume this world is real while it is only a superimposition on the sat atma.
Adi Shankara makes an inquiry into this verse in eight steps.
Firstly, he makes a declaration (pratinja ) that this universe that gives us the experiences such as heat, cold etc, the physical body that gives us the experience of pleasure and pain and the one which is cause of both the universe and the body (maya) are all mitya.
The reason (hetu) for this declaration is the property of transformation (vikaratvam). All including maya tend to undergo transformation, hence they all are mitya.
The third step is a question from the purva paksha (The followers of advaita vedanta are called siddhantins and the opponents are called the purvapakshins.) He asks if everything is mitya, then what remains is only nothingness (Shunya). Then how is it possible to establish that there is a real substance, sat?
The answer is given here. In every cognition of an object there are two aspects. There is the cognition of the object itself, its name and form. This is called asat buddhi. And then there is the cognition of the very existence of the object itself. This is called the sat buddhi. Book + is-ness = the book is; tree+is-ness = the tree is. So in every cognition the objects and their name and form will constantly change but the only unchangeable entity is the is-ness. This is the substratum of the existence of all objects. This is-ness is called sat or Brahman. The objects will undergo transformation and eventually destruction but the is-ness will never face destruction.
Another question: If a pot is destroyed, then will not the is-ness of the pot also go? No, even if the pot is broken, the is-ness continues in the other objects such as tree, book, branch etc. Hence the is-ness does not undergo destruction. Here only the asat buddhi of the name and form of the pot is destroyed. Not the is-ness.
Question (purva paksha): Even if one pot is destroyed, when we see another pot, the is-ness of the pot continues to be there. Here the cognition of the pot with its name and form also remains. Hence can we conclude that both the name and form of the pot and the is-ness of the pot are sat? No. There is only one satyam. Even if the is-ness and the object cognition are perceived in another pot, the moment we perceive other objects we will be able to appreciate the presence of is-ness in all of them.The objects come and go and hence are transitory (anityam). But that which never changes (nityam) in all cognition is satyam.
Question (purva paksha): I am not able to appreciate the is-ness even after the pot is destroyed. It is cognized while the pot was there but not after its destruction. How can one argue that the is-ness continues to exist even after the destruction of the pot? In order to experience sat we need name and form. The attributeless existence (nirvishesha sat) will not be cognized without name and form. We will never be able to experience, for it is attributeless. We can only experience it in a reflective medium which is name and form. For instance, our eyes cannot see light directly, but can only see its reflection. Even light will express itself only when there is an object. In the dark if we try to point a flashlight we would not see light.We will have to point the flashlight towards an object such as a tree in order to experience the existence of the light through the reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment