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

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 01:28:57 CDT 2013

> Sada: The fact that you have experienced implies it has existence – hence
> it is not asat.  We say the object is – just as the scripture provides an
> example – ring has existence due to gold – and ring is
> vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH – in the same way – pure existence which was
> there before
> creation and which became many as existence as this and this and this.
> Hence
> anything experienced has existence as its adhiShTaanam which, from
> scripture, comes
> from pure Brahman which is of the nature of sat-chit-anantam.

RV:  Does the object ring - not its substratum - have non-existence or
temporary existence? It has absolute non-existence (atyantAbhAvA) because
what was not there and will not be there cannot be not there as it will
imply change to changeless Brahman to create the object ring. However, we
need to explain experience of the non-existent ring. Now, we not only
experience existence of ring. We experience names and forms of ring, neck
lace, bangles etc. If the knowledge of ring etc. is not pre-existent in
Brahman, this variety cannot be experienced. This knowledge cannot be a
quality of Brahman as that would make Brahman ignorant. This knowledge
cannot also be said to be a superimposition on Brahman as that would leave
the original question unanswered, "How do we we superimpose names and forms
of ring, bangle etc. on gold and ultimately Brahman?" Madhusudana takes
this point up and answers by saying that knowledge is neither an attribute
nor a superimposition but is essential nature of Brahman.  Brahman does
not have specific knowledge of each object. It has undifferentiated
knowledge. For example, mind is thoughtless by nature but can create
thoughts of ring, bangle etc.

> Sada:
> Due to karma. Total Karma all beings forms the driving force maaya for
> creation.
> Rajaram:
>  You have to say due to mAyA leading to an
> infinite regress. Or you
> have to say that mAyA is anirvachaniya, which is acceptable but you call
> mAyA anrtam (asat) sometimes in the context of ajAti vAdA - hence my
> question "How do I experience a non-existence world?" remains.
> Sada:  The statements are confusing to me. Sat asat
> vilakshanam – hence anirvacaniiyam – infinite regress does not follow
> since it
> is a scriptural stamen not logically deduced statement. Of course the
> cycle of
> creation is eternal and infinite regress is embedded in the eternal cycle
> of
> creation-sustenance-annihilation.

RV: We cannot make illogical statements in the name of scripture. Then the
scriptures will have the defect of being the cause of logical fallacies.
Though scriptural statements are not logically deduced, they cannot
be logically inconsistent. anAdi karma cannot be the answer to "Why do we
experience ring etc.?" because karma is possible only when when there is
jagat and jiva, which is possible only when there is maya. There is no
problem when you say maya is anirvachaniya but when you say it is anrtam,
it is because it leaves the question "How do I experience a non-existence
world?" unanswered.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list