Being and non-being are attributes of things, as is proved by reasoning and other text of the Vedas. — 154.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 144 из 723Следующая ⇒

17. If it be said that the effect does not exist in the cause after dissolution, because there is a text designating it as non-being, we reply it is not so, since the word Asat or non-being refers to another attribute of the effect and does not mean absolute nonexistence, as would appear from the complementary passage of that text — 153.

COMMENTARY

An objector says: Let it be so, but we find the following passages also in the Shruti:

Asat was this verily in the beginning (Taitt. Up., II., 6. 1.)

Here we see that the effect is called Asat or non-being, and consequently the effect does not exist in the cause at the time of Pralaya, and vanishes absolutely. To this objection we reply that this is not so, for the word Asat used in that passage does not refer to absolute non-existence, as you take it to mean, but it refers to another attribute of the effect, namely: non-manifestation. The word Sat and Asat should be understood as referring to two attributes of one and the same object, namely, to its gross or manifested condition and subtle or unmanifested condition. An object existing as cause is in subtle condition, and existing as effect it is in gross condition, therefore the word Sat means the gross condition of an object, and Asat means the subtle condition. Thus the word Asat here refers to the subtle condition of the object and is the designation due to another attribute of the object as different from the gross condition. But how do you explain the word Asat which literally means non-being as meaning here the subtle condition? We do so in order to make the sense of the passage consistent with what follows in the same text. For further on we find the following: (We give the whole passage here in order to understand the reasoning).

Asat indeed was this in the beginning, from it verily proceeded the Sat. That made itself its Self, therefore it is said to be self-made.

The words «Asat made itself its Self» clear up any doubt as to the real meaning of the word Asat For if the word Asat meant absolute non-being, then there would be a contradiction in terms; for a non-being can never make itself the Self of anything. Similarly, the word «Asit» or «was» becomes absurd when applied to Asat, in. the sense of also Yate non-being, for absolute non-being can never be said to exist and was means existed. An absolute non-being can have no relation with time, past or present, nor can it have any agency as we find in the sentence: «It made itself its Self», Therefore, the word Asat here should be explained as a subtle state of an object.

SUTRA II. 1. 18.

युक्तेः शब्दान्तराच्च॥२.१.१८॥

yukteḥ śabdāntarācca ..2.1.18..

.. Yukteh, from reasoning. .. Shabdantarat, from another text of the Vedas. … Cha, and.

COMMENTARY

The cause of our thinking and saying «the jar exists» is the fact that the lump of clay assumes a particular form of a neck, hollow belly, etc., while the material remains the clay only. On the other hand, we think and say, «the jar does not exist» when the clay takes a condition opposite to that of the jar, namely, when it is broken into two pieces, etc. Therefore, existence and non-existence, when applied to objects, show their different conditions only, and non-existence in this connection does not mean absolute non-existence. The Smriti also declares the same fact, as we find in the Vishnu Purana:

The clay assumes the form of a jar, the jar becomes a potsherd, which in its turn, when broken into pieces, may be reduced into powder as dust, but the clay remains the same in all these conditions. The further analysis of the dust would reduce into atom of the physical plane, but the matter never vanishes.

Therefore, the reason is this that we do not perceive any absolute non-existence of the jar and when we say that the jar does not exist; we only mean that the jar has been resolved into its two halves or into a still more fine condition; there is no absolute annihilation of the jar; this is the reasoning or Yukti.

The word Asat being thus explained, the word Sat is its opposite, and thus non-being and being really mean the subtle and gross state of matter.

As regards the other text, we find it in the well known passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad:

The being alone existed in the beginning, one alone without a second.

Thus both through reason and authority at the Vedic text, we come to the conclusion that the word Asat used in the Taittiriya passage does- not mean absolute non-existence, like the non-existence of the horn of a hare, but it means the subtle condition into which ail objects are resolved at the time of Pralaya. When this world merges into the supreme Brahman, in a very subtle state, that condition of the Universe is called non-being or Asat, on account of its extreme subtleness. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that even prior to its origination the world existed, and thus the effect is not different from the cause, but is the cause in a different form. The saying: «Non-being can never come into being because of the impossibility, nor being can be, the result of the activity of an agent, because of the futility of such agency, but the whole process of creation is an indescribable mystery» is a wrong statement, and proceeds from not understanding the true significance of the words ‘being’ and nonbeing’ as applied in the Upanishads. For there does not exist something in-explainable different from Sat and Asat: namely, the Maya of the Mayavadins. The latter hold the theory that Maya is neither being nor non-being but something different from both and is utterly inconceivable.

The author now gives some illustrations, in order to confirm the doctrine that effect is something real and is not different from the cause.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?