Sat Asat - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Sat Asat" by Nagin J. Shah, focusing on its philosophical discussion:

The book "Sat Asat" by Nagin J. Shah delves into the philosophical concepts of "Sat" (Existence/Real) and "Asat" (Non-existence/Unreal) within the broader context of Indian philosophy, with a particular emphasis on the Jain perspective. The text highlights how the analysis of dualities like Sat-Asat, Eternal-Non-eternal, General-Particular, and Desirable-Undesirable is central to Indian philosophical discourse.

Historical Development of Sat-Asat Concepts:

The discussion on Sat and Asat traces its origins back to the Rigveda. Initially, the Vedic seers perceived a commonality among the various deities (Indra, Agni, etc.), suggesting that "all gods are Sat" (meaning existent or having a common essence). Here, "Sat" is interpreted as a general characteristic, not in the sense of an omnipresent, eternal universal like that of the Mimamsakas, but rather as a shared existence of all individuals without consideration of time and space. The diverse names given to the same entity are seen as referring to its specific attributes, which can be termed "Asat." While Sat-Asat could potentially imply cause and effect, the Rigveda itself suggests they are born together, negating a direct causal relationship. Therefore, Sat-Asat is best understood as general and particular respectively in this context.

The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda introduces the idea that before creation, there was neither Sat nor Asat, hinting at a potential cause-effect relationship between them and creation. However, the direct causal link between Sat and Asat themselves is not yet suggested.

The Chandogya Upanishad presents a view where creation arises from Asat. This implies creation from absolute nothingness. The Nyaya school discusses and refutes such a view, which posits the origination of existence from non-existence. The Chandogya Upanishad itself refutes this, stating that creation cannot arise from absolute Asat. Instead, it posits that initially, only Sat existed, which then desired to become many, leading to the subsequent creation of various elements. Commentators explain Asat as the unmanifested and Sat as the manifested, thus interpreting "creation from Asat" as the transition from an unmanifest to a manifest state.

Theories of Causality and Sat-Asat:

The text then explores the philosophical debate on whether the effect exists in the cause before its manifestation:

Samkhya (Satkaryavada - Theory of Existing Effect): The Samkhyas argue that the effect exists in the cause, but in a latent or unmanifested form. It becomes manifest when the appropriate conditions are met. This implies a close identity between cause and effect, leading to a theory of gradual organic growth, exemplified by a seed growing into a sprout.
Nyaya (Asatkaryavada - Theory of Non-existing Effect): The Naiyayikas contend that the effect does not exist in the cause, not even in a latent form. Rather, when certain materials come together, an effect is produced that was not present in the cause before. This view posits a complete difference between cause and effect, leading to a mechanical theory of causality, where the arrangement of parts creates a distinct whole, exemplified by threads forming cloth or clay forming a pot.
Vedanta: Some interpret Satkaryavada to mean that the cause is present in the effect. For Vedantins, the causal Brahman (Sat) is inherent in all effects.

Buddhist and Other Indian Philosophical Perspectives:

Buddhism: Lord Buddha, based on his Vibhajyavada (analysis), rejected the notion of an eternal substance, considering only "dharmas" (momentary phenomena) as Sat. The debate then arose whether all dharmas (past, present, and future) are Sat or only present dharmas.
- Vaibhashikas (influenced by Samkhya) considered all dharmas as Sat, citing Buddha's words, thus being Sarvastivada (all exists).
- Sautrantikas refuted this, interpreting Buddha's words to mean that only present dharmas are Sat. This aligns with the Vaiseṣika's Asatkaryavada.
- Yogachara (Vijnanavada) Buddhists considered only momentary consciousness (Vijnana) as Sat, not all momentary things. This places them on par with Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta, with the key difference being that Yogachara Vijnana is momentary and exists in smaller streams, while Advaita's Vijnana (Brahman) is immutable and eternal.
  - Vijnanavadis propose three categories of Sat: Paramartha Sat (ultimate reality), Samvriti Sat (conventional reality), and Parikalpita Sat (imagined reality). They consider momentary Vijnana as Paramartha Sat, momentary external things as Samvriti Sat, and eternal substances as Parikalpita Sat. These latter two can also be considered categories of Asat.
- Shunyavadins consider Shunya (emptiness or Prajna) as Sat. They also have three categories: Parinishpanna (independent), Paratantra (dependent), and Parikalpita (imagined). The difference between Vijnanavadis and Shunyavadins lies in their identification of the ultimate reality – Vijnana for the former, Shunya for the latter – and their paths to realization.

Defining Sat: A Philosophical Quest:

In the early stages, defining Sat was not the primary focus; rather, it was about enumerating the recognized Sat realities.

Nyaya-Vaisheshikas: Believe in two elements, Sat and Asat. The six "Bhava" (existent) substances are Dravya (substance), Guna (quality), Karma (action), Samanya (generality), Vishesha (particularity), and Samavaya (inherence). The "Abhava" (non-existent) is considered Asat. They grant the term "Artha" to only Dravya, Guna, and Karma.
Samkhyas: Consider both the immutable, eternal Purusha and the changing Prakriti as Sat.
Vedantins: Accept only Purusha (Brahman) as Sat.
Jains: Describe five substances – Jiva (soul), Pudgala (matter), Dharma (motion principle), Adharma (rest principle), and Akasha (space) – as Astikaya (possessing existence).
Buddhists: Consider only Dharmas as Sat.

The attempt to define Sat began later.

Buddhists: Defined Sat by its characteristic of momentariness ("Yat Sat Tat Kshana-livat").
Shankara: In contrast, defined Sat by its characteristic of being unaffected by the three divisions of time (trikalabadhitattva), meaning immutability. Thus, Buddhists saw only variations as Sat, while Shankaracharya saw only substances in a specific sense as Sat.
Jains: Consider both substance and its modifications (Paryaya) as inherent to the nature of reality. Their definition of Sat is "Utpāda-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktam" (having origination, decay, and permanence). Origination and decay are modifications (Paryaya), while the substance remains permanent. Jain "Dhruva" (permanence) refers to the inherent nature of the substance itself, not absolute immutability. While Samkhyas accept both mutable and immutable permanence, Jains consistently uphold mutable permanence. Even the soul (Atman/Purusha) is considered mutable-permanent by Jains, not immutable like in Samkhya.
Nyaya-Vaisheshikas: Defined Sat as "Satta-yogitvam" (connected with Satta), meaning that which possesses the supreme universal "Satta."

These definitions were subject to criticism:

The Jain definition was challenged for accepting contradictory qualities in one entity.
The Nyaya-Vaisheshika definition was criticized because, by their own standard, some of their recognized Sat-Bhava substances would be considered Asat, as "Satta" only resides in Dravya, Guna, and Karma.
The definitions of Shankaracharya and Buddhists were opposed on the grounds that neither an absolutely immutable entity free from change nor a completely disconnected momentary entity is experienced.

Arthakriyakaritvam (Capacity to Act): A Unifying Concept:

Amidst these debates, the Buddhists introduced a characteristic that was largely accepted by most philosophers: "Arthakriyakaritvam" (the capacity to perform an action or produce an effect). However, philosophers heavily debated how to apply this to their ultimate realities:

Buddhists proved that only momentary things are Arthakari.
Vedantins asserted that only immutable things are Arthakari.
Jains demonstrated that mutable-immutable things are Arthakari.

Shankara's Three Categories of Sat:

Shankara, like the Vijnanavadis and Shunyavadins, recognizes three categories of Sat:

Paramarthika Sat (Ultimate Reality): Unchangeable Brahman, as it is permanent in all three times.
Vyavaharika Sat (Conventional Reality): Things like pots and cloths, which exist only during the period of transaction but are ultimately sublated by knowledge.
Pratibhasika Sat (Apparent Reality): Illusory phenomena like the perception of a snake in a rope, which exist only during the period of manifestation and are sublated by the knowledge of the substratum.

Shankara posits Avidya (ignorance) as the causal material for the manifested world, which is considered neither Sat nor Asat but Sadasadvilakshana (different from both Sat and Asat). It is not Sat because it is sublated, and not Asat because it is the cause of the manifested world. The roots of this Sadasadvilakshana doctrine are found in the Nasadiya Sukta, where it's stated that the cause of creation was neither Sat nor Asat.

Similarities and Differences:

The Sadasadvilakshana doctrine is compared to Buddha's "Avyakrita" (unexplainable) and Shunyavada's "Chatushkoti Vinirmuktatva" (freedom from four categories). Verses from the Upanishads, Chandrakirti, and Buddhist texts are cited in this context.

The Jain concept of "Avaktavya" (unspeakable) in the famous Syadvada's Saptabhangi (seven-valued logic) also reflects the Sadasadvilakshana doctrine. A thing is Sat in its own substance, place, time, and mode, and Asat in its relation to other substances, places, times, and modes. However, these two aspects cannot be spoken simultaneously, making the thing Avaktavya. The author clarifies that this doesn't mean the object's nature is unknowable, but rather that its Sat and Asat aspects can be known together but not expressed together. Some modern Jain scholars interpret Avaktavya as the inability to know all infinite Sat and Asat aspects of an object.

Conclusion:

The text concludes by summarizing the evolution of the Sat-Asat concept. It began as a discussion of general-particular, then introduced the idea of cause and effect with creation, incorporated the element of time, debated the relationship between Sat and Asat, explored the existence of the effect in the cause, categorized Sat into three levels, led to various definitions and refutations, and ultimately gave rise to the Sadasadvilakshana doctrine. This intellectual churning around the Sat-Asat duality has enriched Indian philosophy with numerous schools of thought. The author expresses a desire for similar comprehensive analyses of other dualistic concepts to further illuminate Indian philosophical traditions.

Note: The text also mentions Pandit Sukhlalji as a co-author of this article.