The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the oldest Upanishadic scriptures, encapsulates profound philosophical inquiries into the nature of being and non-being through its invocations. One such invocation that has resonated through centuries and remains a focal point of spiritual practices is:
In Sanskrit: असतो मा सद्गमय । तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । मृत्योर्माऽमृतं गमय । ॐ शान्ति शान्ति शान्तिः ॥
In phonetic transliteration: Asato mā sadgamaya | Tamaso mā jyotirgamaya | Mṛtyormā amṛtaṁ gamaya | Om śānti śānti śāntiḥ ||
Translation: "Lead me from the unreal to the real; From darkness to light; From death to immortality; Om peace, peace, peace."
This mantra not only sets the tone for spiritual enlightenment but also symbolizes the human yearning to transcend the limitations imposed by ignorance, mortality, and material existence.
For the purposes of this essay, I will concentrate particularly on the first part of this invocation—Asato mā sadgamaya ("Lead me from the unreal to the real")—as it directly addresses the philosophical and existential quest to discern the real from the unreal. This segment epitomizes the search for absolute truth, setting a foundation for exploring the nuanced meanings of reality and illusion.
Traditionally, this mantra is chanted at the beginning of educational sessions and significant ceremonies in India, symbolizing the commencement of a quest for knowledge and enlightenment. Its recitation is meant to purify the mind and soul, setting a solemn tone for the participants to align themselves with their higher goals and aspirations.
Growing up in India, this mantra was a regular part of school assemblies, a practice that imbued my early education with a sense of purpose and introspection. Each recitation served as a reminder of the greater journey towards understanding and truth, influencing not just academic pursuits but shaping a worldview aimed at discerning the real from the unreal. Over time, reflecting on its meaning has deepened my appreciation for its layers of interpretation and its relevance in everyday life.
Philosophical Exploration of Reality
The Bhagavad Gita, situated within the epic Mahabharata, addresses profound existential and philosophical questions through the dialogue between Prince Arjuna and his charioteer, Lord Krishna. At a critical juncture in this dialogue, Krishna imparts wisdom through Chapter 2, Verse 16:
In Sanskrit: नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः | उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ||
In phonetic transliteration: Nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ | Ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas tvanayos tattvadarśibhiḥ ||
Translation: "Of the unreal, there is no being; and the real has no nonexistence. The nature of both of them, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth."
At first glance, the verse might appear tautological or self-evident. One might wonder, can anything more obvious be stated than this? This query itself, however, underscores the profound nature of the Gita, which encapsulates essential truths in seemingly simple statements. These reflections are not mere repetitions but revelations that invite the seeker to explore beyond the surface.
This verse encapsulates the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta: Brahman ( existence, consciousness, bliss ) is real, the world is an appearance, and you are Brahman. Sri Ramakrishna, when asked to teach spirituality in one sentence, responded with this profound truth, emphasizing its sufficiency for enlightenment. The Gita, through Krishna's words, expounds upon this fundamental principle, guiding Arjuna and all seekers towards the realization of their true nature.
This pivotal sloka is delivered on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, just as Arjuna faces the daunting prospect of fighting against his own kin, including revered elders and cherished teachers. In this moment of profound internal conflict, Krishna's teachings are not merely about war but about righteousness and the moral duty to uphold justice. This setting serves as a metaphor for the internal battles we all face, positioning the Gita as a guide not to warfare but to resolving life's moral and existential dilemmas.
It is a common misconception to view the Gita as a text that glorifies war. In reality, the Gita belongs to a family of texts known as Moksha Shastra—scriptures concerned with liberation and enlightenment. The battle depicted in the Gita symbolizes the broader human struggle against ignorance and ego, urging seekers to engage with and overcome personal and spiritual conflicts to achieve a higher state of consciousness. This interpretation aligns with the teachings of the Upanishads, emphasizing the pursuit of eternal truth through self-realization.
By distinguishing between the real (sat) and the unreal (asat), Sri Krishna aims to clarify for Arjuna, and by extension all humanity, that true knowledge involves recognizing the eternal and transient elements of existence. This understanding is crucial for overcoming attachments to the impermanent and focusing on the eternal self (Atman), which transcends the vicissitudes of worldly life.
Transcending Illusions: Analytical Commentary and Interpretations
The core philosophy that the Bhagavad Gita aims to convey is encapsulated in Sloka 16 of Chapter 2 that is stated in the previous section. This verse not only invites a deep contemplation of existence but also offers guidance on transcending the ephemeral nature of the material world.
This essay endeavors to take a deep dive into the seemingly straightforward yet philosophically rich content of this sloka through a series of opposing views and their refutations. Drawing upon the classical commentaries of Sankaracharya's Gita Bhashyam, Madhusudhan Saraswathi's Gudhartha Dipika and a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda1, it integrates traditional interpretations with my personal reflections to enrich and modernize the understanding of these teachings. While there is a risk that these interpretations might not precisely align with the original teachings of such revered masters, this exploration is undertaken in the spirit of broadening understanding and adding a contemporary perspective to these timeless philosophical discussions.
The Idea of Existence as Intrinsic Property of Reality
The philosophy of being, or the philosophy of existence, can be approached from three perspectives: sat (existence), chit (consciousness), and ananda (bliss). This verse focuses on the approach from sat, exploring the nature of is-ness or existence itself.
To understand this concept, one can consider the difference between intrinsic and incidental properties. An intrinsic property is essential to the nature of an entity, while an incidental property is borrowed and temporary. The example of a hot potato illustrates this distinction: the heat in the potato is an incidental property, borrowed from the boiling water, which in turn borrowed it from the hot pan, and so on. The fire, however, possesses heat as an intrinsic property, not borrowed from any external source.
Applying this analogy to existence, we can see that all entities in the world, including our bodies and the entire universe, have borrowed or incidental existence. They come into being and eventually disappear, indicating that existence does not inherently belong to them. However, if there were an entity with existence as an intrinsic property, it would be eternal, never born and never dying.
It is important to note that the question of whether existence can be considered a property is a complex philosophical issue that has been debated extensively. Many philosophers would object to this characterization. However, for the purpose of this exploration, let us suppose that existence is an incidental property. While this idea may be contentious, it offers an interesting perspective to consider and explore.
Sri Krishna teaches that this eternal entity is none other than the true self, referred to as Atman or Brahman in the scriptures. Defined as the foundational reality underlying all existence, Brahman is described as the unchanging ground of consciousness from which all phenomenal experiences arise. Understanding and internalizing this truth—the realization that one’s true nature is not different from Brahman—empowers individuals to transcend the fleeting illusions of the material world, leading towards spiritual enlightenment and ultimate liberation.
The Gita, through this verse, sets forth the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta, guiding seekers towards the realization of their true nature as Brahman. By understanding the distinction between the real and the unreal, and recognizing the eternal, intrinsic existence of the self, one can transcend the limitations of worldly existence and achieve the highest goal of spiritual awakening.
On the Nature of the Unreal
In the philosophical discourse of the Bhagavad Gita, the “asat”, or unreal, is defined by its limitations—specifically, those of time (kala), space (desa), and matter (vastu). Consider the example of a pot, which is bound by the temporal dimensions of its existence; it is subject to a 'before' its creation and an 'after' its destruction ( put in other words, this just means that the pot does not exist before its creation and after its destruction ). This temporal boundary signifies that its existence is not eternal but occasional and finite.
Additionally, the pot is confined spatially—it exists in a specific place and not everywhere, illustrating its spatial limitation. This concept of spatial limitation highlights the nonexistence of an object elsewhere, restricting it to a particular location at a given time.
An object that is temporally limited is also spatially limited; this is because its defined form does not allow it to exist everywhere. However, although objects bound by time generally possess spatial constraints as well, the Naiyayikas (ancient Indian logicians) do not recognize temporal limitations for atoms and similar entities. Consequently, spatial limitations are specifically highlighted separately in discussions to address this distinction.
In addition to temporal and spatial limitations, the concept of objective limitation encompasses three distinct types of differences that help define the unreal (asat) in philosophical terms. These differences include:
Sajātīya-vibhāga: The difference of an object from other objects within the same category or genus. For instance, one tree is differentiated from another tree based on specific characteristics.
Vijātīya-vibhāga: The difference of an object from objects of different categories. For example, a tree is distinct from stones, not just in form but also in substance and nature.
Svagata-vibhāga: The internal differences within the object itself, such as the distinctions between the leaves, flowers, and branches of the same tree.
Objective limitation is mentioned separately because the Naiyayikas, or logicians, assert that while objects like space may not be subject to temporal or spatial limitations, they are still defined by their objective limitations. Furthermore, according to Sankhya, Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Consciousness) are not constrained by spatial or temporal boundaries; however, they are subject to objective limitations. Prakriti, the material principle, and Purusha, the principle of consciousness, interact within these objective frameworks to manifest the phenomenal world.
The term “asatah” (असतः) refers to entities that are defined by the limitations discussed previously—temporal, spatial, and objective. This includes all phenomena and elements within the empirical world, such as temperature variations like cold and heat. These are not permanent fixtures but conditions that arise and subside within the confines of specific circumstances.
In Sanskrit, the phrase “na vidyate bhavah” (न विद्यते भावः) translates as “there is no being” or “there is no absolute reality” in such transient phenomena. This statement highlights that these elements do not exist independently; they have no being outside the conditions that define and delimit them. For example, clay is the underlying ( absolute ) reality of a pot; for a pot is subject to limitations and cannot exist independent of the clay.
All objects of perception inherently possess limitations by time, space, or characteristics, simply because they are not omnipresent. This limitation is a fundamental aspect of the empirical world where everything that is perceptible is bound by specific conditions and contexts. For instance, a tree exists in a certain location for a certain duration and exhibits specific traits that distinguish it from other entities.
Contrastingly, entities that are absolutely real are not confined by these limitations. Such a real entity is omnipresent—existing everywhere and at all times, transcending the constraints that define and restrict the objects of perception. The distinction here is crucial and foundational in understanding the nature of reality from a metaphysical perspective.
To illustrate this concept, consider the analogies of a mirage in a desert or a snake mistakenly perceived on a rope. These illusions occur when a limited and transitory object is imposed upon an underlying reality that does not actually embody those perceived characteristics. A mirage appears to be water, and a snake appears to be on the rope, yet both perceptions are misinterpretations of the actual substrates—an expanse of sand and a rope, respectively.
Addressing the Nature of Reality
A common objection encountered in discussions on the nature of reality versus illusion concerns the transient nature of objects and their underlying reality. Critics often ask: “If a transitory object is considered imaginary, might the real entity underlying it also be imaginary, especially since it too appears transitory when differentiated from the unreal?” This question challenges the distinction between the real and unreal by suggesting that if the perceived reality of an object, like a rope mistakenly seen as a snake, alters upon closer examination, then perhaps the underlying reality—the rope in this case—might also be illusory.
Sri Krishna addresses this objection in the verse by stating, “Na abhavah vidyate satah”, which means “the real has no nonexistence”. In other words, the real, or the underlying reality, cannot be subject to the same transient nature as the unreal objects that are perceived.
The concept of objective limitation, which refers to the differences that define an object, is based on the idea that the substratum, or the underlying reality, is itself real. However, this objective limitation does not apply to the real entity simply because it is different from the unreal2. According to the principle that “nonexistence (in the form of difference) is determined by two realities”, there can be no relationship between reality and unreal objects, such as the concept of a square circle, which is inherently contradictory3. Moreover, since the ultimate reality—described as one, self-effulgent, eternal, and omnipresent—permeates all existence, it does not support the existence of multiple real entities. This all-pervasiveness of reality means experiences such as ‘The pot is real’ are reflective of the underlying reality (Brahman) rather than serving as evidence of multiple, independent realities. Therefore, Brahman cannot be considered relative or contrastive based on the existence of objects like pots, which are merely manifestations within the larger reality.
To further elucidate this concept, consider representing the spatial limitations of a pot using a Cartesian coordinate system (XY axes). The coordinates specify the pot's location and boundaries within a defined range, highlighting its finite existence.
However, the Cartesian plane itself symbolizes a more fundamental reality, akin to Brahman. It remains unchanged and independent of the objects it hosts, much like Brahman exists unaffected by the transient phenomena within the universe. The pot, marked by specific coordinates, reflects its limited nature, whereas the plane—enduring and unbounded—mirrors the infinite and unchanging reality of Brahman. This analogy illustrates how finite objects are supported by but do not alter the infinite reality, offering a visual understanding of the relationship between ephemeral objects and the eternal underlying reality.
Addressing the Logician’s view of Reality
The Naiyayikas hold a fundamentally different view of reality from that presented in the Bhagavad Gita. They assert that there is no such thing as an independent reality that exists devoid of substance, quality, or action—every aspect of reality is interwoven with spatial, temporal, and objective limitations. According to them, the ultimate reality is not a singular, overarching entity but a generality composed of various substances, qualities, and actions that define existence.
In this logical framework, objects that appear unreal, such as pots, are considered to gain reality through the operation of their causes and lose it once those causes cease. This perspective directly challenges Krishna's declaration in the Gita that “of the unreal, there is no being; the real has no nonexistence”.
Responding to this viewpoint, Sri Krishna counters in the second half of the sloka, emphasizing that the true nature of both the real and the unreal has been conclusively realized and ascertained by the seers of truth. These enlightened individuals, through deep deliberation and the authoritative guidance of Sruti (revealed scriptures) and Smriti (traditional texts), have discerned that reality, which is constant and unchanging, does not adhere to the temporal flux associated with material objects.
Sri Krishna may be suggesting that this profound understanding is accessible not through mere intellectual debate but through genuine spiritual insight. The distinction between the real and the unreal remains clear and unambiguous to those who truly comprehend the nature of Brahman, the ultimate reality. Thus, the sloka suggests that the deeper realization of Brahman, beyond intellectual speculation, is crucial for understanding the immutable nature of reality, a truth often obscured by the sophistry of lesser debates.
This discussion not only highlights the differing perspectives on reality between the Naiyayika logician and the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita but also underscores the importance of transcending intellectual debate to embrace a deeper, more spiritually informed understanding of the nature of existence.
Refuting the Naiyayika Logician’s Viewpoint with Advaitic Insights
The Naiyayikas hold a fundamentally structuralist view of reality, asserting that reality is comprised of discernible and distinct categories such as substances (dravya), qualities (guna), and actions (karma). These elements are considered real because they can be directly perceived and interacted with, with their reality further defined through secondary categories like generality (samanya), particularity (vishesha), and inherence (samavaya). According to this view, objects like pots gain and lose reality through the causal operations that bring them into and out of existence.
This categorical approach, however, is challenged by the insights derived from Madhusudhan Saraswati's Advaita Vedanta commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Madhusudhan Saraswati suggests a fundamentally different understanding of reality that transcends empirical and transient categorizations.
Shortcomings of the Naiyayika’s Views and Advaitic Responses
While the Naiyayika school provides a structured and categorical approach to understanding reality, its framework is not without limitations. These shortcomings are effectively addressed by Advaita Vedanta, which offers a more nuanced and profound understanding of reality.
Dependency on Empirical Categories:
Naiyayika Shortcoming: The Naiyayika view depends heavily on empirical observation and categorization of reality into substances (dravya), qualities (guna), and actions (karma). This approach confines reality to what can be perceived and measured, potentially overlooking the underlying essence that transcends these categories.
Advaitic Response: Madhusudhan Saraswati, in his commentary, argues that such empirical categorizations are merely superficial. Advaita posits that all perceived differences and categories are ultimately illusory (Maya), superimposed on Brahman, the singular reality that is both immanent and transcendent. This view highlights the limitation of relying solely on sensory and cognitive perceptions to define reality.
Transient vs. Permanent Reality:
Naiyayika Shortcoming: Naiyayikas treat objects as temporarily real based on their causal relationships. This perspective implies that reality is changeable and contingent, subject to the arising and ceasing of conditions.
Advaitic Response: In contrast, Advaita Vedanta underscores the permanence and constancy of reality. Brahman is eternal and unchanging, unaffected by temporal conditions. This distinction emphasizes that what Naiyayikas consider real is merely ephemeral, whereas the true reality (Brahman) remains constant, illustrating the inadequacy of the Naiyayika framework in addressing the eternal nature of reality.
Multiplicity vs. Non-duality:
Naiyayika Shortcoming: By advocating for the realness of multiple categories, Naiyayikas inherently support a multiplicity of realities, which can lead to philosophical fragmentation and inconsistencies regarding the unity of existence.
Advaitic Response: Advaita Vedanta resolves this by advocating for non-duality (Advaita), asserting that all multiplicity is a manifestation of a single reality. This approach reconciles apparent contradictions and dualities within the phenomenal world by recognizing them as expressions of one underlying reality—Brahman. This unity provides a more coherent and holistic understanding of the universe.
Intellectual Understanding vs. Spiritual Insight:
Naiyayika Shortcoming: The intellectual and analytical method of the Naiyayikas, while rigorous, often remains at the level of conceptual debate, which may not lead to transformative spiritual insight.
Advaitic Response: Advaita Vedanta transcends intellectual theorizing by advocating for direct experiential knowledge (Aparokshanubhuti) of reality. Madhusudhan Saraswati emphasizes that true knowledge of reality comes from an inner spiritual experience of oneness with Brahman, beyond the limitations of intellectual discourse.
Advaita Vedanta's responses to the shortcomings of the Naiyayika viewpoint offer a more integrated and spiritually profound perspective. By highlighting the limitations of relying on empirical and categorical definitions of reality, Advaita encourages a deeper exploration of the non-dual nature of existence, transcending the confines of intellectual categorization to embrace a universal and eternal truth. This comprehensive understanding not only addresses but also rectifies the philosophical gaps left by the Naiyayika approach, providing a pathway towards a more complete realization of the nature of reality.
Practical Implications and Modern Relevance
Understanding the nature of reality versus illusion, as articulated in the philosophical traditions of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, holds profound implications for one's life and spiritual practice. The teachings underscore the importance of discerning the real from the unreal—where the “real” is that which is eternal and immutable, and the “unreal” is that which is transient and subject to change. This fundamental insight is crucial for developing a deeper sense of detachment and equanimity.
Detachment and Equanimity
In practical terms, recognizing the transient nature of the material world helps cultivate detachment. This does not imply a rejection or neglect of worldly responsibilities or relationships, but rather a deeper understanding that true happiness and peace do not derive from these temporary states or objects. This perspective aligns with the concept of equanimity—the balanced state of mind, undisturbed by joy or sorrow, gain or loss. Equanimity is essential in spiritual traditions for maintaining mental clarity and emotional stability in the face of life's inevitable fluctuations.
Application in Contemporary Life
In the contemporary context, these teachings can be incredibly valuable. Modern life is often characterized by rapid changes and significant challenges that can lead to stress and disillusionment. By applying the principles of detachment and focusing on the eternal nature of the self (Atman), which is synonymous with Brahman, individuals can navigate these complexities more effectively. This approach encourages a focus on personal and spiritual growth rather than material acquisition or external validation.
Spiritual Growth and Enlightenment
The ultimate goal of these teachings is to guide individuals towards spiritual enlightenment and liberation (moksha). By realizing that the eternal self is the only true reality, one can diminish the impact of ephemeral joys and sorrows. This realization fosters a deeper engagement with life from a place of wisdom and serenity, prioritizing spiritual values over transient pleasures.
Concluding Thoughts
While the teachings of the Gita, especially in the dialogue where Krishna reveals to Arjuna the nature of reality, suggest a disengagement from the illusory aspects of the world, they also advocate for active participation in life with a sense of duty and righteousness. Krishna’s message to Arjuna about his true nature—that of being one with the eternal and omnipresent reality—raises profound questions about the purpose of worldly engagement.
Although this essay does not delve into the specifics of why Arjuna should proceed with the battle after gaining this knowledge (a topic explored in the following chapters of the Gita), it highlights a crucial aspect of spiritual philosophy: engagement in the world with awareness of its illusory nature is not contradictory but is a step towards achieving higher spiritual realization.
For those interested in exploring how these philosophical insights translate into action, the third chapter of the Bhagavad Gita offers further elucidation. As we contemplate these teachings, we realize that they not only provide philosophical clarity but also practical guidance for living a fulfilled and balanced life, anchored in spiritual wisdom.
This exploration invites each of us to consider our own lives in the light of these timeless teachings, applying ancient wisdom to the pressing issues and personal journeys we face today. By understanding and internalizing the distinction between the real and the unreal, we open ourselves to a more profound engagement with life, grounded in spiritual depth and insight.
Although the ultimate reality is distinct from the unreal, it does not possess objective limitations merely due to this distinction. For instance, consider clay, which forms the foundational substance of all pots. Clay does not exhibit objective limitations simply because it differs from a pot. This difference does not constrain or define the essence of clay, which remains a consistent and fundamental reality regardless of the forms it may assume.
Logicians categorize nonexistence into four types: antecedent nonexistence (before creation), nonexistence after destruction, absolute nonexistence, and mutual nonexistence (difference based on relativity between entities). An example of mutual nonexistence is observing that 'a pot is different from a cloth,' where both the pot and the cloth are real and distinct entities forming the basis of their differentiation. This essay, however, does not focus on these relative differences but on the inherent existence of reality.
an amazing read!! ngl, some portions were needlessly long and complicated...but this was a great essay nonetheless.