by Sri Bmal Mohanty
VOL No. 18
April. 2002

CHAPTER Nineteen- LOOKING FOR GOD BETWEEN REAL AND UNREAL - an approach

"Based on the lectures by Sri Bimal Mohanty"

We very often have this doubt in our minds - the conflict between real and unreal.

"Jagat mithya - the world is all unreal"- this is one of the most quoted observations of Sanatan philosophy. How do we reconcile to this concept in our day to day life? What I see, what I touch what I hear is everything unreal? If all these are unreal, then who ever is the basis of all these and is the sum-total of all these, can He be real? If The Bramhan is the essence of the world and the world is unreal, then logically one can ask is Bramhan also unreal?

The Sanatan Philosophy verily rests on the concept - which is unique to itself- that everything that is real or unreal, thoughts, or that which transcends thought, action, inaction, good, bad, and for that matter all opposites together are part and parcel of Bramhan. To put it simply all subjects and objects as well as their contradictions are part of Bramhan. Real is Bramhan and unreal is also Bramhan.

For ordinary people in the initial stages of Sadhana, this is indeed a difficult pill to swallow. Often people make a statement Bramheiva sarvam.- Bramhan is everything- and then accept this statement on its face value without a murmur, because that is what our scriptures have declared. But there are many who find it difficult to do so and remain in a sort of perpetual confusion.

There seems to be some kind of contradiction here.

Either that, or perhaps the very concept of these often used concepts like satya (truth), mithya (false), real, unreal, asti (existing), nasti (nonexisting), nitya (permanent), anitya (nonpermanent), call out for proper understanding.

In any case, it is a very vexed question and is indeed a major barrier to be overcome in the path of sadhana.

Let us try to understand what these contradictory terms, which are often used to describe the same Bramhan, actually mean.

These english words `unreal' and `real' do not carry enough meaning to express the concept of asti or "what is" and nasti or "is not" in sanatan philosophy. Even the word mithya is perhaps a too strong word.

The two words used freely in our scriptures are sat and asat. Both are derived from the same root. The word `real' does not fully express what the Upanishadic term sat means while trying to explain Bramhan when we describe it as Om Tat Sat.

If we are looking for God in everything, we must necessarily first understand this riddle of Sat and asat., reality and unreality. We may declare that God is every where, but will never believe it in our heart of hearts.

Perhaps the nearest translation of sat could be, that which exists, and exists beyond all limitations of perception, beyond the limitations of physical proof dictated by the limited capabilities of our physical faculties.

One can not explain sat by mere words. Even by reading or listening, it can not be grasped in totality. Everything that we see within the limited range of our sense faculties happen to be those which are there now and disappear, or replaced in the next moment. Thus they are termed unreal or asat.