Guest guest Posted April 29, 2000 Report Share Posted April 29, 2000 Rajiv wrote:- There is one more sruthi saying " nasat assetno sataseet ..."(Rg. ved ?) which means"neither sat nor asat was present " ... Scholars please refer to this sruthi also and explain the apparent contradiction. Dear Bhagavatha, The terms sat and asat though literally stand for existence and non-existence,are interpreted differently in different contexts by Sri.Ramanuja. summary 1:- In the chandogya upanishad,where uddalaka says"Sat alone was this in the beginning",the term sat is taken to be the supreme brahman having jiva and prakriti in their subtle aspects as his body. summary 2:- The statement above you have mentioned from Rig veda is repeated in bhagavad gita in 16th slokha of chapter2.Here sat is interpreted as jiva atman and asat as prakriti in the state of effect.This meaning in the context is very appropriate as during the time prior to creation both jiva and prakriti were in subtle form,hence from the gross point of view the statement"Neither sat nor asat were present" is appropriate. If you compare summary 1 and summary2,both are correct from their point of view and there is no contradiction.Also literally understanding the statement makes no sense and is illogical since either existence or non-existence has to be there and both cannot co-exist anytime as they are opposite to each other. For more,you can read Sri.Ramanuja acharya's Gita bhashya chapter2 16th slokha. Hope,this answers your doubt. Sri krishnaarpanamasthu B.N.Suresh Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Messenger. http://im./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.