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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/