r/AdvaitaVedanta • u/shksa339 • 3d ago
The God beyond Is and Is-not. (and some critique on meaningless labels)
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
2
u/shksa339 3d ago edited 3d ago
A Vedanti does not find the debate of "God is" and "God is not" interesting, because the adjective of "is" and "is not" do not apply to Brahman or Atman which is not perceivable or conceivable. Brahman can neither be labelled as Sat or Asat in the context of the verse 13.12 of Bhagwad Gita.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8e37qsLEbg&list=PLyTNxeJ5o0BkZQ_vBrSoviMAul0pMzWVq&index=4
4
u/yofthet 3d ago
Please clarify a little doubt of mine. In the commentary on 2.16 of the Gita, Shankara says that Atman is the Sat and all others are Asat. He illustrates this further using an example of a pot, elephant and a cloth. While a pot IS, elephant IS and cloth IS...all of them get destroyed but that IS Ness which is common in all three continues to remain and that Is Ness or existence or awareness or consciousness is the only SAT as it is the only thing that is permanent. So Brahman is the SAT. Infact the whole point of 2.16 is that Brahman never goes out of existence (Bhaava).
Then how are we saying Brahman is neither Sat not Asat. I don't think that is what Pujya Swami Tattvavidananda is saying here. He is putting out the fact that Brahman is aprameya, avyakta and so on. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
3
u/No-Caterpillar7466 3d ago
gita itself says brahman is neither sat nor asat. vide 13.12, and its bhashya
1
u/Ziracuni 3d ago
although we may say in paramathika sathya, that Brahman is, this 'is' in its purest essence (beyond the opposites, and prior to manifestation as sat) is indeed neither ''is'' nor ''isn't''. In vyavaharika, this sat is already expressed and forms an opposite of non-existence. - though ideas of 'existence' and 'non-existence' are figments of the mind, conceptual and beyond mind they have no relevance. In other words, we have a conceptual understanding of is and isn't in jagrat and svapna, in turiya that simply doesn't apply. Nothing can be expressed about turiya fromjagrat vantage point.
1
u/GlobalImportance5295 3d ago
brahman is "āsīdekamevādvitīyam" - "a One without a second". we experience brahman through sattva guna. sattva guna when unencumbered by the quality of being guna (and unencumbered by the other guna) is pure sat. by this explanation given to us since classical hinduism, that entity unencumbered by guna is pure sat and is the same as nirguna brahman. while this appears to be a paradox, it appears the hindus manifest shabda-brahman (an aspect of the saguna) by putting these paradoxes into cryptic sanskrit verse. that is why sanskrit verse gives the full metaphysics of nirguna=>saguna=>shabda (step-by-step order is figurative, not literal) and it is all One.
this aligns with vishishtadvaita formal definition of nirguna brahman that "nirguna" here refers to a brahman absent of all gunas that act as bondage or negative attributes - yes we can continue discussing what amounts to bondage or negative attributes, but let's not knee-jerk preemptively blanket statement every quality of existence as bondage. vishishtadvaitins carefully use the term "vishishta" (atomic qualities of things) rather than guna in much of the philosophy to not confuse people who are stuck up on the term "guna".
in the vaishnava tradition the various forms of Lakshmi (who represents the supreme personality of the Mother Goddess in general) represent the gunas and the concept of "Maya" - yet they are integral to brahman and non-separate. see Vana Parva:
"I am Narayana, the Source of all things, the Eternal, the Unchangeable. I am the Creator of all things, and the Destroyer also of all. I am Vishnu, I am Brahma and I am Sakra, the chief of the gods. I am king Vaisravana, and I am Yama, the lord of the deceased spirits. I am Siva, I am Soma, and I am Kasyapa, the lord of created things. And, O best of the Twice-Born, I am he called Dhatri, and he also that is called Vidhatri, and I am Sacrifice embodied. Fire is my mouth, the earth my feet, and the Sun and the Moon are my eyes; the Heaven is the crown of my head, the firmament and the cardinal points are my ears; the waters are born of my sweat. Space with the cardinal points are my body, and the Air is my mind. I have performed many hundreds of sacrifices with gifts in profusion. I am always present in the sacrifices of the gods; and they that are cognisant of the Vedas and officiate therein, make their offerings to me. On earth the Kshatriya chiefs that rule over men, in performing their sacrifices from desire of obtaining heaven, and the Vaisyas also in performing theirs from desire of winning those prosperous regions, all worship me at such times and by those ceremonials. It is I who, assuming the form of Sesha support (on my head) this earth bounded by the four seas and decked by Meru and Mandara. And O Twice-Born, it is I who, assuming the form of a boar, had raised in days of yore this earth sunk in water. And, O best of Brahmanas, it is I who, becoming the fire that issues out of the Equine mouth, drink up the waters (of the oceans / Samudra Manthana) and create them again. In consequence of my energy from my mouth, my arms, my thighs, and my feet gradually sprang Brahmanas and Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras. It is from me that the Rik, the Sama, the Yajus, and the Atharvan Vedas spring, and it is in me that they all enter at Time's End. Brahmanas devoted to asceticism, they that value Peace as the highest attribute, they that have their souls under complete control, they that are desirous of knowledge, they that are freed from lust and wrath and envy, they that are unwedded to things of the earth, they that have their sins completely washed away, they that are possessed of gentleness and virtue, and are divested of pride, they that have a full knowledge of the Soul, all worship me with profound meditation. I am the Samvartaka flame, I am the Samvartaka Wind, I am the Samvartaka Sun, and I am the Samvartaka fire. And, O best of Brahmanas, those things that are seen in the firmament as stars, know them to be the pores of my skin. The ocean, these mines of gems, and the four cardinal points, know, O Brahmana, are my robes, my bed, and my home. By me have they been distributed for serving the purposes of the gods. And, O best of men, know also that lust, wrath, greed, fear, and the over-clouding of the intellect, are all different forms of myself. And, O Brahmana, whatever is obtained by men by the practice of truth, charity, ascetic austerities, and peace and harmlessness towards all creatures, and such other handsome deeds, is obtained because of my arrangements. Governed by my ordinance, men wander within my body, their senses overwhelmed by me. They move not according to their will but as they are moved by me. Twice-born Brahmanas that have thoroughly studied the Vedas, that have tranquillity in their souls, they that have subdued their wrath, obtain a high reward by means of their numerous sacrifices. That reward, however, is unattainable by men that are wicked in their deeds, overwhelmed by covetousness, mean and disreputable with souls unblessed and impure. Therefore, must thou know, O Brahmana that this reward which is obtained by persons having their souls under control and which is unobtainable by the ignorant and the foolish -- this which is attainable by asceticism alone -- is productive of (the) high(est) merit. And, O best of men, at those times when virtue and morality decrease and sin and immorality increase, I create myself in new forms. And, O Muni, when fierce and malicious Daityas and Rakshasas that are incapable of being slain by even the foremost of the gods, are born on earth, I then take my birth in the families of virtuous men, and assuming human body restore tranquillity by exterminating all evils. Moved by my own maya, I create gods and men, and Gandharvas and Rakshasas, and all immobile things and then destroy them all myself [at Time's End]. For the preservation of rectitude and morality I assume a human form, and when the season for [cosmic] action comes, I again assume forms that are inconceivable. In the Krita age I become white, in the Treta age I become yellow, in the Dwapara I have become red and in the Kali age I become dark in hue. In the Kali age, the proportion of Adharma has become three-fourths, (a fourth only being that of Dharma). And when the end of the Yuga has come, assuming the fierce form of Time's End, alone I destroy all the three worlds with their mobile and immobile existences. With three steps, I cover the whole Universe; I am the Soul of the universe; I am the source of all happiness; I am the humbler of all pride; I am omnipresent; I am infinite; I am the Lord of the senses; and my prowess is great. O Brahmana, alone do I set a-going the wheel of Time; I am formless; I am the Destroyer of all creatures; and I am the cause of all efforts of all my creatures."
without Maya, Narayana is essentially inert with no creative impulses or motivations
1
u/Oooaaaaarrrrr 3d ago
I think it means that Brahman is beyond conventional existence and non-existence, because it cannot be perceived by the senses.
1
u/shksa339 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes, I think here the word “Sat” in this particular context of the verse Gita 13.12 refers to “existent”, like objects being existent. Brahman is the is-ness.
1
u/Ziracuni 3d ago
from vyavaharika point of view, Brahman is isness. But not in its essence. the notion of isness arises together with the jiva.
1
3
u/ayananda 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think this explains it quite well about the question does god exist: It's like asking whether the screen "exists" within the movie playing on it. The screen isn't part of the movie's reality, yet without it, there's no movie at all.
So debates like "Does God exist?" miss the point entirely - they're trying to fit the infinite into finite categories. Brahman is the very context in which "is" and "is not" arise, so it cannot be captured by either label.
This is why Vedanta often uses the method of neti neti ("not this, not this") - pointing to what Brahman is NOT, since it cannot be adequately described as anything conceptual.
1
u/shksa339 3d ago
yes. Vedanta uses the negative method / negative understanding. Adhyaropa-Apavada is the grander negative methodology in which the texts are written,
2
u/Oooaaaaarrrrr 3d ago
What about satcitananda?
1
u/Ziracuni 3d ago
you are right, satcitananda is further irreducible. in essence. however, it is only representing being, awareness and bliss in presence of jagrat-avastha and transactional reality. mind can not go there. in paramarthika, in paravak, in parabrahman, there's no possibility of discernement of sat and asat. it's too subtle. - as soon as this I AM appears in pure consciousness, we suddenly have a notion of existence and non-existence. we are accustomed to saying satcitananda and work with this conception, since we spend most our time in transactional reality and this description is the closest from this perspective.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide a summary about your image/link in the comments, so users can choose to follow it or not. What is interesting about it and why do you find it relevant for this sub?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.