Sat Asat

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Sat Asat" by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

The text, "Sat Asat" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, delves into the philosophical concept of "Sat" (Being/Real) and "Asat" (Non-being/Unreal) as discussed in various Indian philosophical traditions, with a particular emphasis on the Jain perspective. It traces the evolution of this concept from ancient Vedic times through different schools of thought, highlighting how this binary pair has contributed to the formation of diverse philosophical principles.

Early Vedic and Upanishadic Period:

• The discussion begins with the Vedic period, mentioning early ideas about "Sat" as commonality. This refers to a shared essence among deities like Indra, Agni, etc., where "Sat" signifies existence in a general sense, not a universal, eternal substance like that of the Mimamsakas.
• The concept of "Sat" in this context implies that all existing individuals possess an inherent being ("Swarupasat"). Differences in names for the same object are seen as "Asat" from the perspective of the general "Sat."
• The text also explores the temporal aspect, referencing the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda, which states that before creation, there was neither "Sat" nor "Asat." This hints at a possible causal relationship between "Sat" and "Asat" concerning creation.
• The Chandogya Upanishad is cited for the idea of "Sat" arising from "Asat," which is interpreted as creation from nothingness. This view is later debated and refuted in the Upanishad itself, proposing that "Sat" existed alone initially and then manifested into multiplicity. The commentary suggests that "Asat" here might mean the unmanifested, and "Sat" the manifested.

The Problem of Cause and Effect (Satkaryavada vs. Asatkaryavada):

• A significant philosophical debate revolves around whether the effect is "Sat" or "Asat" in the cause before its manifestation.
• Samkhyas proposed Satkaryavada (the effect pre-exists in the cause), stating that the effect is "Sat" but in an unmanifested or latent form. This implies an inherent interconnectedness between cause and effect, leading to examples like a seed and a sprout.
• Naiyayikas argued for Asatkaryavada (the effect does not pre-exist in the cause), asserting that the effect is neither "Sat" nor even potentially present in the cause. It comes into existence only when specific conditions are met. This view emphasizes a distinct difference between cause and effect, leading to mechanical analogies like thread and cloth.
• Vedantins interpret Satkaryavada as the cause being "Sat" within the effect, with the cause (Brahman) being immanent in all effects.

Buddhist Philosophy:

• Buddha, based on his doctrine of impermanence (Anatmavada), rejected the notion of eternal substances, considering only "Dharmas" (momentary phenomena) as "Sat."
• Later Buddhist schools debated whether all "Dharmas" (past, present, and future) or only present "Dharmas" are "Sat."
• Vaibhashikas, influenced by Samkhya, considered all "Dharmas" as "Sat," thus being Sarvastivada (all exist).
• Sautrantikas countered this, interpreting Buddha's teachings to accept only present "Dharmas" as "Sat," aligning with the Naiyayika concept of Asatkaryavada.
• Vijnanavadins (Yogachara Buddhists) considered only momentary consciousness ("Vijnana") as "Sat," a stance akin to Shankara Vedantins, with the key difference being that Vijnanavadins accept fragmented consciousness, while Shankara Vedantins believe in an indivisible, eternal Brahman. Vijnanavadins also classified "Sat" into three categories: Paramartha Sat (absolute reality), Samskriti Sat (conventional reality), and Parikalpita Sat (illusory reality). These could also be seen as types of "Asat."
• Shunyavadins (Madhyamikas) consider "Shunya" (emptiness, understood as Prajna or ultimate wisdom) as "Sat." They also have three categories: Parinishpanna (perfected, independent), Paratantra (dependent), and Parikalpita (imagined). The difference from Vijnanavadins lies in identifying ultimate reality as "Shunya" instead of "Vijnana" and emphasizing the realization of Prajna through understanding the limitations of intellect.

Later Developments and Definitions of Sat:

• Early philosophers focused on enumerating their accepted "Sat" elements. Nyaya-Vaiseshikas identified six categories of "Sat" (Dravya, Guna, Karma, Samanya, Vishesha, Samavaya) and one "Asat" (Abhava).
• Samkhyas considered both the eternal Purusha and the changing Prakriti as "Sat."
• Vedantins accepted only Purusha (Brahman) as "Sat."
• Buddhists considered only "Dharmas" as "Sat."
• The definition of "Sat" became a central point of contention. Buddhists defined "Sat" as momentary, stating, "What is real is momentary." In contrast, Shankara defined "Sat" as being unassailable in all three times (past, present, future), equating it with eternal immutability. This led to a divergence where Buddhists viewed only modifications as "Sat," while Shankara considered only the substance (Dravya) in a specific sense as "Sat."

Jain Perspective:

• The Jain tradition defines "Sat" as possessing "Utpad-Vyaya-Dhruva-Yaugapad" (simultaneous origination, decay, and permanence). This means that while modifications (Paryaya) undergo origination and decay, the substance (Dravya) remains permanent.
• Jain "Dhruva" (permanence) refers to inherent permanence within change, not the static, immutable permanence of the Samkhya "Kutastha Nityata." While Samkhya accepts two types of permanence (changing and static), Jainism consistently adheres to a single type: permanence within change. Even the soul (Atma) in Jainism is considered permanently changing, not statically eternal like in Samkhya.

Critiques and Common Ground:

• Nyaya-Vaiseshikas defined "Sat" as possessing "Sattayoga" (being connected to existence, specifically the great universal "Satta").
• These definitions were critiqued by other schools. The Jain definition was challenged for holding contradictory qualities within one entity. The Nyaya-Vaiseshika definition was criticized for excluding other accepted "Sat" substances from being "Sat." The Shankara and Buddhist definitions were opposed on the grounds that neither a completely immutable nor a completely momentary entity is empirically experienced.
• Despite these disagreements, the concept of "Arthakriyakaritva" (capacity to perform a function or action) emerged as a point of near-universal acceptance among philosophers, though its application to their ultimate realities differed:
  • Buddhists argued that only momentary entities are "Arthakriyakarins."
  • Vedantins maintained that only eternal entities are "Arthakriyakarins."
  • Jains asserted that entities that are both permanent and impermanent are "Arthakriyakarins."

Shankara's Three Categories and the Concept of "Sadasadvilakshana":

• Shankara, like Vijnanavadins and Shunyavadins, accepts three categories of "Sat":
  • Paramarthika Sat: The eternal, immutable Brahman (consciousness) is the highest reality because it is permanent.
  • Vyavaharika Sat: Worldly entities (like pots and cloths) are conventionally real as they exist for the duration of experience but are ultimately sublatable.
  • Pratibhasika Sat: Illusory phenomena (like mistaking a rope for a snake) are apparent realities that exist only during the moment of perception and are sublated by the knowledge of the underlying substratum.
• Shankara posits Avidya (ignorance) as the material cause of the changing world, describing it as "Sadasadvilakshana" (distinct from both Sat and Asat). It is not "Sat" because it is sublatable, and not "Asat" because it is the causal material for the manifest world.
• The text draws parallels between this "Sadasadvilakshana" concept and the Nasadiya Sukta, Buddha's "Avyakrita" (unconditioned), and the Madhyamika doctrine of being beyond the four categories.
• The Jain "Avaktavya" (inexpressible) from the Syadvada (theory of manifold predication) is also presented as related. An entity is "Sat" in its own substance, space, time, and mode, and "Asat" in the substance, space, time, and mode of another. However, these two aspects cannot be simultaneously expressed in words, hence "Avaktavya." Modern Jain scholars interpret this as the existence of infinite positive and negative attributes that cannot be fully grasped.

Conclusion:

The text concludes by summarizing the historical trajectory of the "Sat-Asat" discourse. It moved from a basic understanding of commonality and difference to exploring causal relationships, temporal precedence, and the nature of existence itself. The debate over "Sat" and "Asat" fueled the development of various philosophical systems in India, each offering unique definitions and critiques. The author expresses a hope that similar analyses of other philosophical dualities will illuminate the broader landscape of Indian thought.