[Advaita-l] nAsadIya sUktam

Aurobind Padiyath aurobind.padiyath at gmail.com
Wed Feb 10 07:52:03 CST 2016

Hari Om!

1. If you have gone thru the Chandogya Upanishad. You will find both the
statements "सत् एव सौम्या इदं अग्रे आसीत्। and असत् एव अग्रे आसीत्।
As Brahman the Sat alone existed in the beginning. Also the non-existance.
(Of what? ) All that is seemingly existing now.
The kaala or time came into being only on the advent of creation so That
which is before the seemingly existing Jagat cannot be within the realm of
time. But then why did the Rishi say "नो सत् आसीत्"? Because that is prior
to both Sat and Asat and hence how can you even say that Sat was there
prior to creation? Hence there is nothing wrong in saying it is "त्रिकाल
आभादित सत्". Because the time and the Jagat in reality has not happened but
like the rope and snake is an appearance. All the three states it was only
rope and only rope existed. Similarly even the three states and the Jagat
is an appearance in Chit.

2. If you "accept" the creation then the creator as a witness to his
creation need to witness the creation. As the creator of the snake on the
rope, I am creating the experience of the snake by creation of a
non-existing snake. But I was not knowing how I created the nonexistent
snake at the same time I experienced the apparent reality of the snake too.
For that experiencing to happen did a real snake come up and vanish? No.
But the experience was real. So can you tell I knew how I created that
snake? The Rishi is asking a similar doubt. Do not mix up with
Hiranyagarbha etc here.

Hari Om!
Aurobind Padiyath

On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:47 Venkateswaran N E via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> नमस्ते
> I have couple of questions on nAsadIya sUktam of R^ig veda, and request
> the list members to clarify.
> 1. The sUkta begins with नास॑दासी॒न्नो सदा॑सीत्त॒दानी॒म् for which the
> anvaya is "तदानीं न असत् आसीत् नो सत् आसीत्"
> How do we reconcile नो सत् आसीत् with the famous advaitic dictum that
> Brahman is "त्रिकाल आभादित सत्" .
> 2. Again the sUkta ends with - यो अ॒स्याध्य॑क्षः पर॒मे व्यो॑म॒न्त्सो अ॒ङ्ग
> वे॑द॒ यदि॑ वा॒ न वेद॑॥ - "How did this universe come to be? Perhaps the
> Lord of this universe, who lives in the highest heaven, surely knows. Or
> perhaps he too does not!"
> Here whom does अ॒स्याध्य॑क्षः indicate ?
> Is it hiranyagarbha / Ishvara or brahman itself?
> If it is brahman, it would mean that brahman does not know how this
> universe came by? Is this an acceptable position on advaita?
> At the same time we consider Ishvara as omniscient. So how could Ishvara
> not know how the creation happened.
> Thanks in advance,
> Venkateswaran N E
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

Aurobind Padiyath

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list