Guest guest Report post Posted September 29, 1998 Greetings Sadanand and Charles: First I want to thank Sadanand and Charles on their excellent clarifications regarding SAT and ASAT. Sadanand's analysis is quite precise and important. Understanding this distinction is essential for Advaitins because, they can then appreciate the mathematical precision of Sankara's logic behind the Advaita Philosophy. I have attempted to trace mathematically the logic behind Sadanand's excellent explanation using the SET theory. Figures 1 and 2 presented below depict mathematically, the experience of Jivathma and Paramathma respectfully. Figure 1: Experience of Jivathma (Duality due to the presence of Maya). Mathematically Speaking <A> and <B> are not disjoint (<B> is not the complement of <A>). <A> may appear as SAT and <A> will eventually become SAT when the Jiva comes out of the spell of Maya. <B> may appear as ASAT but <B> is only unreal and <B> will eventually become ASAT after coming out of the spell of Maya. Totality -SAT - Truth - Brahman =============================== XXXXXXX X X X <A>---X--> Saguna Brahman X X (SAT is Inherent) X X (Maya is present) X X X X X <B>-X-----> prakRiti (Unreal) XXXXXXX (SAT is Inherent) (Maya is present) Figure 2: Experience of Paramarthma (Non-duality) In the absence of Maya, <A> and <B> are disjoint and <B> is the complement of <A>. Mathematically speaking, <B> becomes the NULL space. The Truth and the Knower of the Truth get superimposed! Totality -SAT - Truth - Brahman =============================== XXXXXXX X X X <A>----X--> Niguna Brahman (SAT) X X X X X X X X X <B>-X---> ASAT (Absence of Maya) XXXXXXX (Null Space) Now is the opportune time to read the comments of Shri Sadanand: ------------------------------- "Your analysis is self consistent. This is what the pancheekaraNa process is all about in terms of mixing - the elements of prakRiti. Since your analysis has bearing in terms of the issues raised by Sri Gummuluru Murthy - in terms of what is asat - I am jumping in. If B (naama and ruupa) is asat in the sense of non-existent (tuchha)- then we may run into problems. To have naama and ruupa - it should be existent entity since non-existent entity cannot have name and form too. B i s only unreal in the sense that it is not sat - but it is not asat either. And further the very existence of B, since it has naama and ruupa, it automatically implies that A part is already inherent ( I do not what to use the word ' included')in B." --------------------------- Sadanand rightly points out that in Figure 1, calling <B> as ASAT is inappropriate and <B> is only unreal! Strictly speaking, Sadanand's <A> needs additional clarifications because <A> in figure 1 is different from his notion of <A>! Most of the time, we try to explain ideas using frameworks that we are familiar. The meanings and the interpretations differ for someone using a different framework. When we become more flexible and if we take more time to understand the viewpoints carefully, we can learn and benefit more. Note: There may be potential flaws in either in my understanding of Advaita Philosophy or in my mathematical description of SAT and ASAT. I am confident that Sadanand, Charles and other knowledgeable members of the list will correct my illusions! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 29, 1998 >Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > >dRg-dR"sya-viveka 20 gives: > > asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAma cetyaM"sapa~ncakam | > AdyatrayanaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam || > > Every entity has five characteristics: existence, cognizability, > attractiveness, form and name. Of these the first three belong > to Brahman and the other two belong to the world. > >So here we have two groups: (A) asti-bhAti-priyaM (= saccidAnanda >= satyaM j~nAnamanantaM = brahma), and (B) nAma-rUpa. > >Now A is sat, and B is asat; however, whwn these two are mixed >together (B superimposed on A) so that A+B becomes an inseparable >unit, we have mithyA (false, or falsifiable), which is vyAvahArika >satyam. Charles - Greetings! After a long time - Thanks for your participation in the lively discussions. Your analysis is self consistent. This is what the pancheekaraNa process is all about in terms of mixing - the elements of prakRiti. Since your analysis has bearing in terms of the issues raised by Sri Gummuluru Murthy - in terms of what is asat - I am jumping in. If B (naama and ruupa) is asat in the sense of non-existent (tuchha)- then we may run into problems. To have naama and ruupa - it should be existent entity since non-existent entity cannot have name and form too. B i s only unreal in the sense that it is not sat - but it is not asat either. And further the very existence of B, since it has naama and ruupa, it automatically implies that A part is already inherent ( I do not what to use the word ' included') in B. I interpret the sloka just as it says - Every entity - the entity here is what is dR^isya - has the five characteristics of which what we see superficially are the name and form which are the superimpositions and hence negatable and the Brahman aspect, the first three- These, name and form, are negatable also because there is a locus for them which is the aspect of Brahma the first three. Hence B itself is mithya since it is negatable and has A intrinsically in it. Madhusuudana discussed this elaborately in the section related to Second Definition of Falsity in his Advaita Siddhi - in terms of the process of negation, the locus of negation and validity of the negation process to answer the objections raised against advaita. What is negated is the appearances - that is the B part. Since it appears it is not asat - since it can be negated it is not sat - Shankara defines this maaya in VivekachuDAmani as: sannapyasanna ubayAtmikAno sat na api asat na api ubhayAtmikA na it is neither sat nor asat nor both bhinnApyabhinna ubayAtimkAno bhinna api abhinna ubhayAtmikA na neither it is different(from Brahman) not it is the same (as Brahman) nor one can say it is ( Brahman and non-Brahma) both sAngaapyananga ubhayAtmikAno sa anga api ananga ubhayAtmikA na neither it has parts nor it has no parts nor it has both mahadbhUta anivervachaniiya rUpa It is a wonder! unexplainable! ( this maaya) > At the vyAvahArika level this relatively real A+B is >me, you, saMsAra, etc, and asat (B alone, without A) is the hare >without horns, imagination, "sound without substance" (YS 1:9). As noted in the discussions with Murthy, some times asat is used denote mitya rather than tuchha. But the context should make it clear. >The j~nAni 'sees' the A in A+B, and also sees the B for what it is, >a transient superimposition. This is the situation described in >gItA 2:16, and the pairs of opposites in 2:14 are A+B. The way I will put it is JNAni sees like the aJNAni the B part but also sees the A part that is inherent in the B part. Since he also sees the A, while enjoying the beauty of the naama and ruupa, he does not get carried away by these apparent. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 30, 1998 >sadananda <sada Ram - I never understood the new math - and I am not going to try now! I will take your word that Fig. 1 describes the point of discussion. Thanks for your comments. I agree that Figure I needs further revision. Let me redraw my Venn diagram by including the presence of Mithya. It appears that we need the "Mithya" in the diagram to understand the difference between SAT, ASAT and Unreal! However, the presence of Mithya is the only reason for all our confusions and debates! Revised Figure I: BBBBBBBBBBB B B AAAAAAAAAAAA B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B Mithya A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A BBBBBBBBBB A A A A AAAAAAAAAAA <A> is bounded by A's <b> is bounded by B's <A> is Saguna Brahman (Ishwara) <B> is Prakriti <AB> the intersection of <A> & <B> is Mithya Jivathma has the blurred Vision due to the influence of Mithya Ishwara <A> and Prakriti <B> are parts of the Truth and not the whole Truth! Jnani has the corrective lenses and can distinguish between SAT and ASAT. Without the corrective lenses (presence of Mithya), Jiva can't see the TRUTH! The utmost goal of Jivathma is get out of Mithya. Mithya is the reason for the creations of notions, framework and logic! Mithya is also the reason the for the confusions! Mathematics, Statistics and Vedanta will be simpler and less confusing if <AB> disappers! Ram Chandran Burke, VA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 30, 1998 Sadanandji: I am glad that you are persistent. Your point is right and that is the reason that presented the figure 1 without showing the intersection. This separation is to illustrate the conceptual framework and there is no way to filter the Mithya and represent it separately. I may have to admit my ignorance and accept the fact, it is not possible for me to describe graphically or otherwise the distinction between ASAT and Unreal! There are too many ifs and buts with every figure and every statement! Ram Chandran Burke, VA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 30, 1998 >"Ram Chandran" <chandranram > > >Sadanand rightly points out that in Figure 1, calling <B> as ASAT is >inappropriate and <B> is only unreal! Ram - I never understood the new math - and I am not going to try now! I will take your word that Fig. 1 describes the point of discussion. As I understand - in the advaitic terminology, unreal and asat are synonymous. The mithya part <B> is neither real nor unreal and since it includes A part intrinsically. In the above sentence, if you are using the word 'unreal' in its true import then having naama & ruupa (<B> in Charles) it is not unreal - It is neither real nor unreal and is mithya. If you are using the word 'unreal' in the sense of mithya then it is O.K. But I am afraid, a novice will get confused totally unless we use the words precisely the way they have been defined. That is the reason I am trying to reinforce the precise use of the words, since I found in reading most of the objections to Advaita doctrine by the proponents of dvaita and vishishhTaadvaita are the result of non-adherence of the true import of the words. > Strictly speaking, Sadanand's <A> >needs additional clarifications because <A> in figure 1 is different >from his notion of <A>! Ram, the notion of <A> is <B>. The truth of <B> is <A>, when the notions which are essentially taking <B> as real, as SAT, are analyzed, they gets negated since notions can be negated, and not the truth; and the identity of <B> as <A> results. In that case, the naama and ruupa becomes the glory of <A> or its aiswarya. The jagat while still remain as jagat, but is realized that it is nothing but Brahman (Iswara) with all his Glory, since there is dR^ik and dR^sya. 'Seer and seen' still there but the notions of the reality of seen (naama and ruupa) are dropped and Seen is realized as Brahman itself, now with a name and form. When I realized I am that Brahman, I can also declare that " They are in me but I am not in them" - negating the naama and ruupa but identifying with the <A> part. What you have considered in your 'SET theory' model is what in the Vedanta shastra discussed as "Jahadajahat Lakshana" which was discussed beautifully in "Vedanta Saara" by Sri Sadananda Yogindra, who was the 16th Shankaraacharya PiiThaadhipati. (I am not sure from which maTh) >Most of the time, we try to explain ideas using >frameworks that we are familiar. The meanings and the interpretatme more >flexible and if we take more time to understand the viewpoints ions >differ for someone using a different framework. When we beco >carefully, we can learn and benefit more. True - Sometimes confusion arises if we do not recognize that ordinary words are sometimes used as technical words with precise definitions associated with them (like real and unreal and maaya) and to understand the correct import of the teachings or and to communicate precisely we have to use the terms in the way they are defined. Otherwise we run into the risk of causing more confusion. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 30, 1998 >"Ram Chandran" <chandranram is the only reason for all our confusions and debates! > >Revised Figure I: > > > > BBBBBBBBBBB > B B > AAAAAAAAAAAA B > A B A B > A B A B > A B A B >A B Mithya A B >A B A B >A B A B > A B A B > A B A B > A BBBBBBBBBB > A A > A A > AAAAAAAAAAA > > ><A> is bounded by A's ><b> is bounded by B's > ><A> is Saguna Brahman (Ishwara) ><B> is Prakriti > ><AB> the intersection of <A> & <B> is Mithya ------------------ Sorry to be persistent. The figure shows that there is a region of A that excludes B and there is a region of B that excludes A. The theory of Adhyaasa is not really exclusion in the actual sense. It is superimposition exactly - like a snake on a rope - there is no region where there is a rope without a snake and region where there is snake without a rope. Snake is the rope(its substratum) and the rope is the snake(that is projection). Yet rope is not snake and snake is not rope. In a more objective example -that bangle is gold - no exclusions and there is no gold beyond the bangle if one is looking at the bangle per sec. The difference between the bangle and gold is that one has independent existence (the gold part) and the other is the dependent existence(bangle part). What is negated is the notion that bangle is self-existent or real. It is only a name and a form for that piece of gold. Gold can say that I am in the bangle - in the sense the entire bangle with no exception is gold and gold alone. Yet the bangle is not in me in the sense the limitations associated to the name and form - like I.D and O.D, its uniformity etc. such attributes do not belong to Gold per sec. I cannot say bangle name and form is <B> and gold <A> and their combination <A> + <B> is golden bangle- such possibility is there if <B> can exist independently of <A> (I mean in the golden bangle case). What we are excluding here is only our notions - that name and form are real that is that they have independent existence. that is why it is called maaya - ya ma sa maaya - it appears to be there but upon analysis the appearance is not real but only a superimposition on the substratum which is real. It does not negate the name and form either and only negates the reality that we assume for the name and form. I am beginning to doubt if you can pictorially represent adhyaasa aspect of the jagat. Iswara also falls with in Maaya - since, that there is Iswara is also notion in the mind of the Jiiva, since he thinks himself to be a limited entity. There is only one Brahman; and saguna Brahman comes into picture only in the mind of the jiiva who thinks there is a creation out there and hence a creator also there. Hence maaya includes both jeeva and Iswara -for one it is avidya for the other it is his Leela. But together is Brahman too as their substratum. Hence Brahman is the locus for both maya as well as jeeva and iswara. There was a big discussion on the locus of avidya - who has the avidya? etc., - Brahman cannot have avidya since then he fails to be Brahman if he has it, and Jiiva is the product of avidya, it was there before him (avidya is anaadi) - Hence Shankara statement it is anirvachaniiyam - inexplainable. I doubt if Set theory can explain this -inexplicable, in pictorial form! I realize that you are trying to pictrize this confusion - But if that can be picturized it will be no more Maaya! Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 1, 1998 On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, sadananda <sada wrote: > After a long time - Thanks for your participation in the lively discussions. After tomorrow I shall be away until the end of the month, so any further responses will again be 'after a long time'. But respond anyway: I shall pick up the thread on my return. > Your analysis is self consistent. This is what the pancheekaraNa process > is all about in terms of mixing - the elements of prakRiti. Oh no, I intend it much more radically than that: A is brahman, A+B is prakRiti, and B without A is totally unreal. Even human _nature_ for example, necessitates an underlying human _being_. As implied in your post 'Can Science Explain Consciousness?' those scientists seem to assume that mind evolves from matter, and consciousness evolves from mind - they even limit mind to the physical brain. First B, then A as an attribute of B! As you point out A is implicit in B and 'is the residue after neti neti'. (I may quibble about calling brahman 'residue'!) But this illustrates my point that B-alone is totally and absolutely unreal: by denying the underlying existence as primary (both in themselves and in the objects examined), these scientists are chasing a ghost, and they will dream up a totally imaginary theory to 'explain' their ghosts. > Since your > analysis has bearing in terms of the issues raised by Sri Gummuluru > Murthy - in terms of what is asat - I am jumping in. Good. The subject is big enough for everyone (not everybody). In fact it is me that is jumping into your discussion: I was getting confused - too many gagabubu-s! > If B (naama and ruupa) is asat in the sense of non-existent (tuchha)- then > we may run into problems. OK, let's run! Where possible, the responses repeat your statements verbatim, substituting some words with A and B as appropriate. > To have naama and ruupa - it should be existent entity since non-existent > entity cannot have name and form too. That is what I am calling A+B. B (nAma-rUpa) must necessarily have A (existent entity); B-only is necessaily non-existent. > B is only unreal in the sense that > it is not sat - but it is not asat either. A+B is only unreal in the sense that it is not A-only - but it is not B-only either. > And further the very existence > of B, since it has naama and ruupa, it automatically implies that A part > is already inherent ( I do not what to use the word ' included') in B. Existence of B? But existence (sat/asti) is A! So this is still A+B. It is not so easy to unravel A+B - that is why I take such a radical approach. > I interpret the sloka just as it says - Every entity - the entity here is > what is dR^isya - has the five characteristics of which what we see > superficially are the name and form which are the superimpositions and > hence negatable and the Brahman aspect, the first three- These, name and > form, are negatable also because there is a locus for them which is the > aspect of Brahma the first three. Hence B itself is mithya since it is > negatable and has A intrinsically in it. Again, it is A+B that is mithyA since B is negatable. Since B is negatable, B-alone is asat - that does not negate the mithyA status of A+B. > Madhusuudana discussed this elaborately in the section related to Second > Definition of Falsity in his Advaita Siddhi I don't have that book, but I also don't see that we differ here: > - in terms of the process of > negation, the locus of negation and validity of the negation process to > answer the objections raised against advaita. What is negated is the > appearances - that is the B part. Agreed, the B aspect of A+B is negated. What remains is the locus A. > Since it appears it is not asat - since > it can be negated it is not sat - Since A+B appears it is not asat (because of A) - since the B aspect can be negated, A+B is not sat. > Shankara defines this maaya in VivekachuDAmani as: > > sannapyasanna ubayAtmikAno > sat na api asat na api ubhayAtmikA na > it is neither sat nor asat nor both It is A+B. But that does not mean both as an arithmetic sum, for that would imply a separate and independent existence of B. Perhaps the '+' is confusing: make it AB if you prefer. > bhinnApyabhinna ubayAtimkAno > bhinna api abhinna ubhayAtmikA na > neither it is different(from Brahman) not it is the same (as > Brahman) nor one can say it is > ( Brahman and non-Brahma) both Neither is A+B different from A (because A is necessarily present), nor is A+B the same as A (because B appears and disappears), nor can one say that A+B is both A and B (see previous paragraph). > sAngaapyananga ubhayAtmikAno > sa anga api ananga ubhayAtmikA na > neither it has parts nor it has no parts nor it has both A has no parts; A+B is inexplicable; B has as many parts as there are nAmAni and rUpANi. > mahadbhUta anivervachaniiya rUpa > It is a wonder! unexplainable! ( this maaya) Indeed, such is A+B. Note that A and B tends to imply duality, but two is impossible: if there were two, there would need to be a third to separate them, and so on. Despite the _appearance_ as two (A+B), in truth there is only one (A) - this is why 'advaita' is such a beautifully precise term - there is not-two, despite appearances to the contrary. > > At the vyAvahArika level this relatively real A+B is > >me, you, saMsAra, etc, and asat (B alone, without A) is the hare > >without horns, imagination, "sound without substance" (YS 1:9). > > As noted in the discussions with Murthy, some times asat is used denote > mitya rather than tuchha. But the context should make it clear. This is exactly my purpose: to transcend that confusion by splitting asat into A+B and B-only respectively, so that the very words asat, mithyA, tucchA, and confusions assosiated with them, can be avoided. For example, in terms of pa~ncada"sI 6:130 tucchAnirvacanIyA ca vastavI cetyasau tridhA || j~neyA mAyA tribhirbodhaiH "sroutra-yauktika-laukikaiH || mAyA should be known to be of three different natures - insignificant, indeterminable, and real respectively - as cognized from the three different standpoints of "sruti, reason, and worldly experience. In terms of A and B, I would express these three mAyA-s as Ab, AB, and aB respectively. The AB stage can be very confusing as it pushes language to its limits, but it is necessary in order to lay a firm foundation for viveka. If one can separate AB into A-only and B-only, then B-only becomes absolutely untrue, like the hare with horns, for it has no substratum of existence. Thereafter AB will only be seen as Ab. Such is the direction of my reasoning. > >The j~nAni 'sees' the A in A+B, and also sees the B for what it is, > >a transient superimposition. This is the situation described in > >gItA 2:16, and the pairs of opposites in 2:14 are A+B. > > The way I will put it is JNAni sees like the aJNAni the B part but also sees > the A part that is inherent in the B part. Since he also sees the A, > while enjoying the beauty of the naama and ruupa, he does not get carried > away by these apparent. Agreed, but I would suggest that the beauty is in fact an aspect of A and not B: it is priya/Ananda and not an attribute of nAma-rUpa, i.e. in the spirit of yAj~navalkya's speech to maitreyI in Br.4.5.6. I am finding this exchange very useful: do please correct or refine my current understanding. Regards, Charles. P.S. I have just got your article 'what is false? From Advaitasiddhi' from the archive of 16 Sep 98. It is not light reading! I need to work through it slowly to sort out all those negatives and negations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 1, 1998 You have said: I am glad that you are persistent. Your point is right and that is the >reason that presented the figure 1 without showing the intersection. >This separation is to illustrate the conceptual framework and there is >no way to filter the Mithya and represent it separately focus on the non-duality between mind and matter It seems you have uncovered a key point, even in the diagram. Asat or mithya cannot exist without Existence which is the Self. It just appears to exist. Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
