Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat
BrainMeta.com Forum > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Theology
dattaswami
In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat

Ubhayatra Sadasat Samanvayah.

(In Veda and Gita the words Sat and Asat are used in contradicting sense, but they can be correlated to mean the same by logical discussion.)

In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat (Sadeva Somya.., Asadvaa…). But in Gita God represented by Para Brahman is said to be neither Sat nor Asat (Nasat Naasaduchyate). This appears to be a contradiction between Veda and Gita. Sat means existence. Asat means non-existence. Let us take Veda. When God is Sat, it means God is not Asat. Similarly, when God is Asat, it means God is not sat. Hence, the resulting concept in each statement of Veda combined gives the concept of Gita. Thus, Veda and Gita are correlated because Gita is said to be the essence of all Vedas.

God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items
Jneyapurvaastitvaabhaavashcha Vidyate cha Shruteh.

(The existence of Para Brahman is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda).

All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known. Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat).
dattaswami
God is known to God
Aatmajneyam Mahimevaasti.

(God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle).

Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

Jneyatvaashritamajneyam.

(The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature).

To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

God is known as unknown

Amatam Matamiti Shruyate Giyate cha.

(God is known as unknown. This is said in Veda and in Gita also)

Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.
dattaswami
The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements
Aamnaaya Vistarat cha.

(The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements).

Veda clearly elaborates the unimaginable nature of God through the following statements: Words cannot give knowledge of God (Yatovaachah, Na tatra vaak…). Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha). Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..). Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….). All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means.

Brahman is created by God



Brahma Yogat Vedaadishu Gitam Shrutam cha.

(The word Brahman is used in imaginable items like Veda through its root meaning i.e., greatest. Such usage is found in Gita and its usage in other items is seen in Veda also.).

In Gita it is said that Brahman is created by God (Brahmaakshara Samudbhavam). Here Brahman cannot mean God. It means the Veda, which is greatest among all the scriptures due to absence of additions and deletions, since Veda is protected by oral recitations from generations together. The word Brahman is used in Veda to mean other greatest items like food (Annam Brahmeti…). Therefore, the word Brahman is not restricted to the unimaginable God and hence God is confused to be any greatest worldly item in its corresponding category. For this reason only, the author would like to restrict the word Para Brahman to the unimaginable God only and avoid the confusion.

Inability of sages to understand the context in using the word Brahman

Aarshaprakaranasaamarthyaabhavat Kalahah.

(The present confusion and split are due to the absence of ability of the sages to take the meaning of the word Brahman according to the context).

The ancient sages were having the divine ability to take the correct meaning of the word Brahman as per the context. Therefore, there was no confusion in the case of sages and hence the word Brahman was used to mean both the God and other greatest worldly items. According to the context, either God or the worldly item was perfectly selected by the sages in the Veda. Hence, there was no necessity of using a separate word like Para Brahman for God. But, today, the human beings are not having such divine ability due to fall in their standards. Hence, there is a real need for restricting God by an isolated word i.e., Para Brahman.
dattaswami
Veda says that God is known and seen

Vedaahamaikshadityavirodha Oupadhikam hi .

(Veda says that God is known and seen. This does not contradict the above said unimaginable nature of God. These statements only refer to the medium in to which God entered.)

Veda says that God is not seen by eyes. But the same Veda says else where that a fortunate devotee sees God (Kaschit Dhirah..). Similarly, Veda says that God alone knows God. But the same Veda says that a devotee knows God (Vedaahametam….). This seems to be a contradiction in Veda. But there is no contradiction, because God enters a medium for the sake of devotees. Then the medium is charged by God and the verbs like known, seen etc., apply to the charged medium and not to the original God.

A simile to the mediated God

Vidyullateva .

(An electric wire is seen but not the electricity. This is a simile to the mediated God. )

When the electricity charges the metallic wire, the wire is treated as the electricity. The electric wire is seen but you can say that the electricity is seen. The electricity is seen through the wire indirectly though not directly. The electricity pervades all over the wire and when the wire is touched anywhere, the electricity is experienced through the touch of the wire. Therefore, the verbs like seen, touched etc., apply to the wire and not to the electricity. But, indirectly the electricity is experienced through the shock. Similarly God is experienced through the medium, since the medium can be treated as God like the live wire.

God enters a living body

Suparnadvayashruteh Jivopaadhi Tat .

(Veda says that two birds are on a single tree. This means that God enters a living body and is in association with the soul.)
Veda says that God and soul exist together in a living body (Dvaasuparnaa…). Therefore, the medium of God is always a living body and not any inert item in the world. The bird represents a living item. God is beyond living and inert items. God can exhibit any property of any item because the items and properties of the world are generated from God only. Hence, God exhibits the properties of life also, though He is beyond life. Hence, God and soul are treated as two living items or two living birds.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am