Soul Is Neither Sat Nor Asat by Siddhantarathnam K. Ganesalingam
Thoughts of the south and Tamil literatures.
The Indian philosophical systems, in general, classify all things, known
and unknown, into two categories, Sat and Asat. These two words, sat and
asat are interpreted to give different meanings by different schools of
thought. They relate to pair of opposites, such as real and unreal, eternal
and non-eternal, permanent and impermanent, animate and inanimate. The
three entities, God, soul and cosmos are included in these classifications.
While considering these classifications, Saiva Siddhanta speaks of soul as
one which cannot be accommodated into any of these two categories. It
places it in a third category and names it as Sadasat . Also the
interpretation given to sat and asat in Siddhanta philosophy varies from
those in other systems.
To understand and appreciate the concept of sadasat, an understanding of
the Siddhanta view of God, Soul and Universe is necessary.
Saiva Siddhanta is a philosophy of pluralistic realism, the concept of the
triple realities of Pati, Pasu and Pasam is the bedrock of the Siddhanta
tradition. Although these words are interpreted to mean God, soul and
bondage (or material of bondage) respectively, their import and connotation
are not exactly the same. Pasam which consists of anavam, kanmam and maya
is sometimes referred to mean anavam only because of its capacity to
obscure the soul and keep it in bondage from the beginning. Pasu and pasam
are as real and without beginning as God Himself. This is a significant
Siddhanta concept which is clearly told by Thirumoolar in his
Thirumanthiram verse l 115 as follows:-
"pathipasu paasam enappakar muundrin
Patiyinaip poolpasu paasam anaathi"
The basic difference between Saiva Siddhanta philosophy and other Indian
philosophical systems can be traced to this concept.
While Siddhantins speak of these three entities as real, there are others
who consider two or one or none of these as real or meaningful. A branch of
Buddhist thought does not accept any as real. Sankhya system of philosophy
accepts pasu and pasam as real with certain variations. Materialists do not
believe in God or soul. For them the phenomenal world and its materials of
enjoyment are the only real and meaningful entities.
The interpretations and classifications of Sat and Asat by various
traditions, to a large extent, have relevance to their interpretation and
acceptance of the three entities, viz, God, Soul and the Universe. (or
matter).
In the Vendanta philosophy, sat and asat mean real and unreal respectively.
The Brahmam or God is the only reality and is therefore sat. All other
things are its appearances and are neither real nor unreal (Sadasat
vilakshana). This is not acceptable to the siddhanta system, as Maya from
which the body organs, world and materials of enjoyment (dhanu, karana.
bhuvana and bhoga) manifest, is neither non-eternal nor unreal.{ADI
SHANKARA}
The concept of maya in Vedanta is quite different from that in Siddhanta.
While Vedanta interprets it to mean as illusion or indeterminateness, it is
real in Siddhanta. According to Saiva Siddhanta, maya is the primordial
cause from which the entire universe including the physical bodies with
their mental and psychological faculties are evolved. Arulnandhi
Sivachariyar refers maya as a seed of this work. It is called maya because
all objects emanate from it and go back to it. The formation of the word
maya in Tamil is illustrative of this: "ma" stands for decay or involution
and "ya" stands for birth or evolution.
One of the important concept of Saiva Siddhanta is "What is in existence
cannot die and what is non-existent cannot be born". ("ullathu azhiyaathu,
illathu thondraathu") This is called Satkaryavada which takes a dominant
place in Sankhya and Siddhanta philosophies. {KR II law of the
THRMODYNAMICS} A parallel to this can be found in the theory of
conservation of energy in science. Energy can only be transformed from one
form to another, it cannot be destroyed or created. Destruction and
creation in common usage is only a transformation. Saiva Siddhanta speaks
in the same way in its theory of Satkariyavada. Birth and death are
considered as mere trasformation of Maya from one form to another (sukshma
to sthula and vice versa).
Any definition of sat or asat should be consistent with this principle of
satkaryavada. Accordingly, asat is that which is liable to change,
origination and decay. By this definition the concept of satkaryavadha is
taken into account and the eternality of pasam is neither denied nor
compromised with for its everchanging nature. It also follows that the only
unchangeable entity, Pathi or God is sat.
Another quality identified with asat is that which is known by being
pointed out (sutti arithal). All wordly things which are known in this way
are, therefore, asat and God which cannot be known in this manner is sat.
So this way of knowing by pointing out and the everchanging nature are two
characteristics by which sat and asat are distinguished.
Though the phenomenal world and other components of pasam are said to be
asat, Siddhanta philosophy does not dismiss them as unreal. They are just
as real as God, the sat.
So far, in the analysis of sat and asat, the place of soul has not been
discussed.
Almost all religious traditions appear to have more complications in
comprehending the nature of souls, than that of God or the cosmos. This may
be because of the soul’s apparent elusive association with the visible
physical body, the knowledge formed regarding its identification with or
separateness from the body and its activities, realisation of its subtle
presence, its limitations etc. This has resulted in a diversity of
definitions, explanations and arguments regarding it.
These diverse views include identification of soul with one or many of the
entities such as God (Brahmam) senses, mind, body, breath and paradoxical
definitions such as "neither real nor unreal", "both real and unreal", etc.
Siddhanta philosophers have given thought to all these views and
established their own doctrine relating to soul. Arulnandhi Sivachchariyar
has written extensively in his Sivagnanasiddhiar Parapakkam about various
doctrines prevailing during his time and refuted their claims.
Based on theoretical analysis and practical experiences (of saints and
sages), Siddhanta philosophers found that the souls cannot be grouped as
sat or asat.
An essential or primary quality of the soul is to exhibit the nature of
things with which it is associated. Also it has a dependent nature. It
depends either on God which is sat or things which are asat. When
associated with asat it exhibits the characteristic of asat, and while in
release (from its bondage) it reflects the character of sat which is Siva.
It is for these reasons the soul is often compared to a crystal which
reflects the colour of its environment.
Although the soul, in its wordly state, exhibits the character of asat when
in association with it, it does not loose its inherent nature and become
one with it. This and other Siddhantic views were in existence in the Tamil
land long before a systematic Saiva Siddhanta treatise like Sivaganabhodam
was formulated.
The view that the soul is in association with the body ( a product of maya)
which is asat, and it exhibits its (body’s) quality, but retains its
(soul’s) inherent nature is clearly reflected in the following sutra of
Tholkappiam.
"meyodu iyayinum uyiriyal thiriyaa"
This ancient Tamil text of Tholkappiam, in describing the nature of Tamil
letters and the grammatical formation of words, has given a glimpse of the
siddhanta philosopohy relating to God, soul and the cosmos. Usageof words
such as iraivan, katavul, uyir, mei, vinai in Tholkappiyam is itself a
proof to an already developed philosophy of the Tamils, which is Siddhanta
philosophy. The following words of Marai Malai Adikal explains this:-
"At the very dawn of Tamil civilization of which we catch a glimpse through
Tholkappiam, the oldest Tamil work extant, we find the views about God,
soul and matter and salvation to have become thoroughly sound and complete".
Similar views were expressed by scholars from both West and East. From
these, one can infer that there was a system of philosophical thought
developed in Tamil land and it was not studied and given due recognition.
The unique quality of the soul exhibiting the characteristic of sat or
asat, and retaining its inherent natures, does not allow it to be grouped
into either sat or asat.
Another two words which are somewhat related to sat and asat and used to
classify things differently are cit and acit. God and soul have one quality
in common. Both have intelligence, but of varing grade. God’s intelligence
is all pervasive, while that of the soul is limited. Because of this, God
is sometimes referred to as sukshma cit and soul as thula cit. God is
intelligence or wisdom personified and does not need any agency (or
instruments) to know the things. Compared to God’s wisdom (cit) the soul’s
wisdom is almost nil. So relatively, the soul is acit. Because of this the
soul is sometimes described as citacit. Sivagnanasiddhiyar (verse 203)
describes God as arulcit and soul as cit which gets his grace.(arulserum
cit)
Although the soul is a cit having intelligence, it is enshrouded by anava
malam which obscures its knowledge and induces ignorance. The anava malam
is attached to the life potential of the soul from the beginning like
verdigris, the green rust in copper. The Lord or Pathi, by his infinite
grace or Cit Sakthi helps the soul to evolve.
In the process of evolution the soul gets attached to the products of maya
(dhanu, karana, buvana and bhoga). The God’s citsakthi awakens the soul’s
citsakthi, which in turn acts through its physiological and psychological
instruments. In this condition the soul see things which are asat and
cannot see God which is sat.
It is a quality of the soul to gain knowledge only by deep experience. It
experiences asat and know it as asat. God cannot be experienced or known in
the manner in which worldly things are experienced or known. To know or to
realise God, a change in perception is required. This involves certain
discipline or procedure in every stage of development of the soul. Saiva
Siddhanta speaks extensively of these disciplines and procedures for change
of perception. (An explanation of these is beyond the scope of this
article). The important thing is that the soul has the capacity to
experience both sat and asat and to know them as sat and asat.
These two kinds of knowledge (knowledge of sat and knowledge of asat) are
not in the nature of entities which are sat and asat. For God who is
Satchitananda (sat=cit=ananda) and whose knowledge is all pervasive, there
is no necessity to know as asat. As for asat, it is unintelligent and hence
cannot know sat. It is only the soul or Anma which has the knowledge of
both sat and asat. This is explained by Umpathi Sivachchariyar in his
Thiruvaruptpayan couplet.""cat acatai saarathu,
asaththu ariyaathu angkan avai
uyththal sathacatam uyir"
This quality of the soul to know sat and asat, but being neither of these
two is clearly explained in few fords in Sivaganabhodam Sutra 7.
"iruthiran ariula irandalaa aanmaa"
Going by its literal meaning, sadasat is interpreted by some scholars to
mean both sat and asat. This confusion is cleared in the above quoted sutra
as "Anma which is neither of the two". The name sadasat is given to the
soul because of its capacity to know both sat and asat.In itself it is
neither sat nor asat.
K Rajaram IRS 27 1 24
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo565tb6DXT6q0mTgT_rNztoknkXPHHKdUxPVmctLDU_g%40mail.gmail.com.
