Avinash Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 The word 'sat' refers to something that exists eternally and since it has not come into being, it has independent existence in the sense that it does not have a cause. Asat is something that does not have this property. So, asat is something that does not exist eternally, it has come into being and hence there must some cause for its existence. But is there a word in Sanskrit that we can use to mean the word 'existent' in the sense we mean 'existent' in general? Yes, and that word is pronounced as 'vartamaan'. The word 'vartamaan' means present in the sense that something is present or something exists. However 'sat' has been used in this verse. If we have called something as asat, then is it not a redundancy to say that it will not exist for ever? Yes, it is. So, in my post "hence will not endure for ever", read 'hence' to mean 'in other words'. (I think I should have used these combination of words instead of 'hence'). Material body is asat. In other words 'it will not endure for ever'. Sat also means something that exists independently of our senses of perception. We cannot perceive soul just by using our five senses (sight, touch, smell, hearing, touch). We say that material body exists because we perceive it. The verse says that anything that we know to be existing because we perveive it using our senses' does not endure for ever. Anything that we perceive using our senses is material. So, as per the verse, something material does not endure for ever. And something that exists even though we do not perceive it using our senses is often called as 'spiritual'. Soul is spiritual in this sense. As per the verse, something spiritual never ceases to exist. Both meanings are applicable in this verse. If we read this verse in its context i.e. in combination to some previous verses, we find that material here has been more specifically used to mean 'material body' and spiritual here has been more specifically used to mean 'soul'. But, why do many commentators on our scriptures call asat as unreal? Do we not perceive it to be really existing even though it is temporary? I said that the difference between illusion and reality is the difference between the duration of time for which any of these is perceived. It can be argued (as you responded) that the length of time for which something is perceived has nothing to do with it being real or illusion. To respond to this, let me again go back to the example of illusion that I gave: I feel there is somebody else in the room. But, then I find that it was my illusion. But how do I conclude that it was really an illusion and what I am seeing now is reality? If the argument is that what I am seeing now is being perceived by me and hence it is reality. Then, I can argue that I really perceived somebody else to be in the room albeit for a short duration. Somebody claims he saw a ghost. Others say, "show me". He is not able to show. Then many tell him that it must be his illusion. Sometimes (though not always) that person also accepts that it must be his illusion. But, he really perceived something that he termed as ghost and he does not perceive that now. Why should he trust what his perception is now and not what it was some time earlier? You have written that one may live the whole lifetime based on an illusion. But who decides that it is an illusion? Does that person himself accepts that it is an illusion? No, he does not. He perceives it to be real. Others call it as illusion. But why should what others say be true? Should we call something as real just because majority perceive it? The explanation is that there are various things (objects and events) that many people perceive. We have called those as real. Based on the assumption that these are real, we have developed certain logic. The logic includes both the logic, which is commonly used, as well as Scientific theories. If we perceive something for some duration, do not perceive it after that, and it does not fit with the logic that we have developed, then we call it as illusion. But, so long I perceive it, I will not call it as illusion. If others are not perceiving it, then they may call it as illusion. So, the time for which it is observed is really important. So, what we call as real is what we perceive to be real. What we call as illusion is what we may be perceiving earlier to be real but do not perceive the same now. We perceived it only for some time. Again, time for which it is perceived is imporant. If we talk of all time, then our life-time is very small. This is why, many commentators call something that exists only for one life-time as unreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted May 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 Thank you, my brother Avinash The word 'sat' refers to something that exists eternally and since it has not come into being, it has independent existence in the sense that it does not have a cause. Asat is something that does not have this property. So, asat is something that does not exist eternally, it has come into being and hence there must some cause for its existence. In that case, it seems that the translation of 'asat' as 'non-existent' is not accurate. Would you not agree? As you taught me earlier the prefix of 'a' to a word makes an opposite of that word. Applying the principle here, if 'sat' means one that exists eternally, then 'asat' would obviously mean that which does not exist eternally. Would you not agree then that that is how it should be rendered in the translation? Sat also means something that exists independently of our senses of perception. We cannot perceive soul just by using our five senses (sight, touch, smell, hearing, touch). We say that material body exists because we perceive it. The verse says that anything that we know to be existing because we perveive it using our senses' does not endure for ever. Anything that we perceive using our senses is material. So, as per the verse, something material does not endure for ever. And something that exists even though we do not perceive it using our senses is often called as 'spiritual'. Soul is spiritual in this sense. As per the verse, something spiritual never ceases to exist. This again points to the inadequacy of the translation, then. You have written that one may live the whole lifetime based on an illusion. But who decides that it is an illusion? Does that person himself accepts that it is an illusion? No, he does not. He perceives it to be real. Others call it as illusion. But why should what others say be true? Should we call something as real just because majority perceive it? No. The person himself would decide and adjust accordingly. If that is not the case, it would indeed be real for the person, even if that means that the world considers the person to be sick. The explanation is that there are various things (objects and events) that many people perceive. We have called those as real. Based on the assumption that these are real, we have developed certain logic. The logic includes both the logic, which is commonly used, as well as Scientific theories. If we perceive something for some duration, do not perceive it after that, and it does not fit with the logic that we have developed, then we call it as illusion. But, so long I perceive it, I will not call it as illusion. If others are not perceiving it, then they may call it as illusion. So, the time for which it is observed is really important. So, what we call as real is what we perceive to be real. What we call as illusion is what we may be perceiving earlier to be real but do not perceive the same now. I still do not think that the time for which something is perceived is of any significance here. Please do bear in mind that we are not talking about the perception of one person here. I might consider another person's spiritual experiences as his 'illusions', as I have no way of knowing if they are real or even true. What we are talking about here is that we see, touch, taste, hear or smell something. The experience of each and every individual is the same and can be repeated for another person, without any value judgments. As an example, take this discussion. Every person who clicks on the relevant links can see and read it. Now, while the forum was being shifted to a new server and this discussion was not viewable for sometime, do you really think that the respected visitors and readers of this forum started believing that because it was perceivable for a very short time only, this discussion was just an illusion? Again, time for which it is perceived is imporant. I still do not understand how? I have met my grandfather for a very small fraction of my life. I have never seen him since his death, early in my life. I know I will never meet him in this life again. However long I may live. Yet the experience of meeting him is not an illusion, either to me or to anyone else. Can you please give me a real practical (not philosophical) example from your life, where you considered something an illusion merely because of the length of the time for which you perceived it? If we talk of all time, then our life-time is very small. This is why, many commentators call something that exists only for one life-time as unreal. Ok. If that is what you say. However, 'real' and 'unreal' are words of the English language with established connotations and their connotation is not relative to the time of sense perceptions of the person perceiving them to be real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsdprasad Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Please excuse my interruption.. Can you please give me a real practical (not philosophical) example from your life, where you considered something an illusion merely because of the length of the time for which you perceived it? One prominent example which spiritualists give is that of a dream. Imran, please excuse me since this example doesn't necessarily relate to the length of time but definitely relates to our perception. During the time we dream, we experience so many things which appear so real. This experience includes all kinds of sense perception which we have in a wakeful state i.e sense of touch, sense of taste etc.. As long as we are in the dream, we never think that all these perceptions are illusions because there is no way to believe that the dreamful state itself is an illusion- since the perceptions in dream are very realistic.. (It is a different case altogether when you have lucid dreams.. which I will explain subequently). So, the dreamful state can be called 'asat' because it is temporary and the wakeful state can be called as 'sat' (just for the sake of this analogy) because it is not as temporary as that of a dream. But the analogy also goes beyond just the length of time. While sleeping we think that the dreaming state is not illusion but a reality- unless you come out of your dream and later you realize that it was indeed an illusion. Now coming to the verse, the material body is temporary but our perceptions with it appear to be real & permanent. It is 'asat' (even though it appears to have permanent existence) but there is some other body which we don't perceive easily and that is 'sat' & the verse says there is no cessation of this 'other body' which normally appears to be non-existent. Coming back to our analogy, when we are dreaming, it is not easy to perceive our real body that is sleeping. I mean, if your friend pinches you when you are in deep sleep, you won't normally experience it. You don't perceive the pinch easily because you are in a deep sleep. And when we have 'lucid dreams', we are aware of the fact that the dream is an illusion and that there is a reality outside this dream and we also have some perception of that reality. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted May 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 My brother vsd prasad, thank you for your contribution. However, I would like to clarify that I really do not have a problem with the fact that the body that I have is temporary. If that is what 'Asat' means. The problem is with its translation as 'non-existent'. The body is not non-existent, even if it is temporal. My only problem is that reality and illusion are not distinguished by their temporal or eternal nature. The points of distinction are other than this factor. A dream is an illusion not because it ends and life is not relatively 'real' because it continues after the dream. What I had asked for was to give an example from life where we had held something to be real and later, merely because it ended, we called it an illusion. A dream is not such an example. Even if we held the dream to be real while we were in the process of dreaming, yet it was not its temporal nature that made it an illusion. On the contrary, the mere realizatioin that it was a dream made it an illusion. I would like you to think of an example in real life where you considered something to be real and later, merely because of its temporal nature, we categorized it as an illusion. Thank you very much. God bless you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsdprasad Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 I would like you to think of an example in real life where you considered something to be real and later, merely because of its temporal nature, we categorized it as an illusion. I walk on the road in the night happily whistling. Suddenly I step on something and to my dismay I sense a snake and I sense it wriggling. I make a big leap and jump and shiver and my body starts perspiring. My heart beat increases. Now this shivering is so real, the perspiration is so real and my heart rate appears so real. Then I shout to the top of my voice and hearing my voice, some man brings a torch light. Then I find that I stepped on a thick rope and considered it to be a big snake. Now I realize that I was temporally under illusion but this realization happened only after some nice man brought a torch light. As long as I was under illusion, there is no way I could believe that the whole thing was an illusion. Until then everything was 'existent' to my subjective perception. Later, after I came out of illusion, I find that it was indeed 'non-existent' and it is definitely not enduring. Now, there are similar illustrations in some books like 'yoga vasistha' but I wouldn't try to digress from the discussion for now. Also, we see many optical illusions that circulate in the internet. We see something which appears quite real but later we see that it was a temporal illusion. Thank You and happy reading!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Hi Imran, Yes, it is true that asat should mean something, which is not permanently existent. But some commentators on Gita use the word 'existent' to mean permanently existent and similarly 'non-existent' to mean 'non permanently existent'. The reason is that many consider permanent existence as real existence. In the previous post, I was trying to explain why some commentators call permanent existence as real existence. But I understand that any communication is not proper if two people use the same word to mean different things. Therefore, let us use English words to mean what we mean by them now and still have the same meaning, which the Sanskrit verse in Gita tries to convey. In that case:- sat = soul asat = material (material body in this verse) The verse says, "The seers of truth have studied the nature of both material body and soul. They say that material body is not permanent i.e. it does not endure for ever. And soul is permanently existent i.e. it endures for ever." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 In that case, it seems that the translation of 'asat' as 'non-existent' is not accurate. Would you not agree? As you taught me earlier the prefix of 'a' to a word makes an opposite of that word. Applying the principle here, if 'sat' means one that exists eternally, then 'asat' would obviously mean that which does not exist eternally. Would you not agree then that that is how it should be rendered in the translation? Yes, 'asat' means something that does not exist eternally. It is just that some commentators use the word 'existent' to mean eternally existent and 'non existent' to mean 'not eternally existent'. Regarding my statement that asat also means material and sat spiritual (soul here), you wrote:- This again points to the inadequacy of the translation, then. Just below the translation, the translator has put a purport from which we come to know that he is using the word 'asat' to mean material body and 'sat' to mean soul. It would have been easier if these words (i.e. material body and soul) would have been put in the translation as well. Regarding my question if real and unreal for one person should be what they are for others, you wrote:- No. The person himself would decide and adjust accordingly. If that is not the case, it would indeed be real for the person, even if that means that the world considers the person to be sick. If we go by this, then real and unreal are relative and not absolute. What is real for one may be real or unreal for another and what is unreal for one again may be real or unreal for another. If a person perceives something, during the perception, he finds it to be real. Later, if he comes out of the illusion, he understands that what he was perceiving was not real. But if he never comes out of the illusion, then it remains real for him. In fact, it was illusion according to others but it was never an illusion for that person. If we are perceiving something, we cannot be hundred percent sure if we will continue to hold it as real or some day we will find it to be an illusion. However, if something is eternally existent, then it will never be considered as an illusion and will be considered absolutely real for ever. This is why many commentators call eternally existent as real (i.e. absolutely) existent. As an example, take this discussion. Every person who clicks on the relevant links can see and read it. Now, while the forum was being shifted to a new server and this discussion was not viewable for sometime, do you really think that the respected visitors and readers of this forum started believing that because it was perceivable for a very short time only, this discussion was just an illusion? ... I have met my grandfather for a very small fraction of my life. I have never seen him since his death, early in my life. I know I will never meet him in this life again. However long I may live. Yet the experience of meeting him is not an illusion, either to me or to anyone else. Can you please give me a real practical (not philosophical) example from your life, where you considered something an illusion merely because of the length of the time for which you perceived it? No. But if something is temporary, then it is possible (just possible) that some day it will be considered an illusion. If it ceases to exist, then we cannot give impeccable proof that it really existed earlier. But if it is eternal, then it will be considered as real for ever. Ok. If that is what you say. However, 'real' and 'unreal' are words of the English language with established connotations and their connotation is not relative to the time of sense perceptions of the person perceiving them to be real. Yes, that is why in my previous post, I gave the translation by using English words the way they are used to mean in general. I might have used different words but the meaning is the same what the translator (of the translation in the web page on Gita you are reading) meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted May 15, 2006 Report Share Posted May 15, 2006 Even if we held the dream to be real while we were in the process of dreaming, yet it was not its temporal nature that made it an illusion. On the contrary, the mere realizatioin that it was a dream made it an illusion. Yes, but if the dream continued for ever, it would never be considered as illusion; it would continued to be taken as real. There are some perceptions that are temporary. Some of these are later called as illusions and some are called as real even after the perception ends. But if something is eternal, it is real for ever. Many scholars on the scriptures of Hinduism believe that if we realise the truth of soul, we will feel as if we have come out of a dream. We will find that the perceptions we had during the time we identified ourselves with the body were just illusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.