[Advaita-l] 'न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते' Gita 13.12

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,
Kindly permit me to rephrase the sentence / paragraph <The Upanishadic view is that the "Brahman" cannot be said to be "Sat" (manifested) alone or not "Asat" (unmanifested) alone> 

as follows:
The Upanishadic view is that the "Brahman" cannot be said to be either "sat" (or manifested) alone or "Asat" (or unmanifested) alone.

Regards,Sunil KB
 


    On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 9:07 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
 

 Dear friends,
The Upanishadic view is that the "Brahman" cannot be said to be "Sat" (manifested) alone or not "Asat" (unmanifested) alone. 

Firstly, "Brahman" was one (unmanifested) at one stage  and wanted to be many ( manifested) at the other stage. 

Secondly, The "Brahman"  manifests to the extent of only a quarter of Himself, when manifested.
Regards,Sunil KB
 


    On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 11:38 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
 

 Sri Durga Prasad Ji observed


<< Gita 13.12

'न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते'

Question is whether
a. 'न' goes with सत् and असत्
or
b. 'न' goes with 'तत् उच्यते'.

That is
a. तत् उच्यते - 'न सत् न असत्'
or
b. 'न सत् इति उच्यते and न असत् इति उच्यते'.

In other words,
a. It is said that Brahma neither exists nor doesnot exit.
or
b. It cannot be said whether Brahma is in the form of existence or
non-existence. >> .


Sri D V N Sarma Ji observed


<< The breakup of the statement is

न सत् तत् न असत् उच्यते

प्रथमं न सतः, द्वितीयं न असतः इति मे मतिः >> .


In my understanding this is to be interpreted in accordance with the well
known Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad statement << अथात आदेशो नेति नेति न
ह्येतस्मादिति >> . Hence the anvaya in the present case would be << सत् न
इति उच्यते >> and << असत् न इति उच्यते >> . This leads to the understanding
<< That which is perceived as existing ( in the vyavaharic sense ) is NOT
Brahman >> and << That which is perceived as nonexisting ( again in the
vyavaharic sense ) is NOT Brahman >> .


This also answers the doubt expressed by Sri Venkatraghavan Ji


<< The description of Brahman as neither existing nor non existing, (सदसद्
विलक्शणम्?) appears to use terminology employed to describe avidyA/mAyA. In
what sense is this meant? >> .


In the lakshana vakya << सदसद्
विलक्शणम् >> , सत् is used in the paramarthic sense while in the BG verse
it is used in the vyavaharic sense as explained above.


In my view the verse quoted by Sri Siva Senani Ji from Vakyapadiya


<< "न तदस्ति न तन्नास्ति न तदेकं न तत्पृथक्।

न संसृष्टं विभक्तं वा विकृतं न च नान्यथा ॥१२॥

It (Brahman)neither exists, nor does it not exist; It is neither One, nor
is it different;It is neither co-mingled, nor in a separated state; neither
is it modified, nor is it other than modified." >>


should also be understood in the  manner as explained in the context of the
BG verse only. I am not sure if Sri Siva Senani Ji agrees with this or not.


Regards


Chandramouli

2015-12-16 10:07 GMT+05:30 Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> Hari Om,
> Namaste.
>
>
> Gita 13.12
> 'न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते'
>
> Question is whether
> a. 'न' goes with सत् and असत्
> or
> b. 'न' goes with 'तत् उच्यते'.
>
> That is
> a. तत् उच्यते - 'न सत् न असत्'
> or
> b. 'न सत् इति उच्यते and न असत् इति उच्यते'.
>
> In other words,
> a. It is said that Brahma neither exists nor doesnot exit.
> or
> b. It cannot be said whether Brahma is in the form of existence or
> non-existence.
>
> Regards
> -- durga prasad
>
>
>
>
> 2015-12-14 21:59 GMT-08:00 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Sri Siva SenAni,
> > > Namaste.
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for the sterling work in sharing research with us.
> > You
> > > had translated from Dravyasamuddesa as follows:
> > >
> > > "न तदस्ति न तन्नास्ति न तदेकं न तत्पृथक्।
> > >
> > > न संसृष्टं विभक्तं वा विकृतं न च नान्यथा ॥१२॥
> > >
> > > It (Brahman)neither exists, nor does it not exist; It is neither One,
> nor
> > > is it different;It is neither co-mingled, nor in a separated state;
> > neither
> > > is it modified, nor is it other than modified."
> > >
> > > The description of Brahman as neither existing nor non existing, (सदसद्
> > > विलक्शणम्?) appears to use terminology employed to describe
> avidyA/mAyA.
> > In
> > > what sense is this meant?
> > >
> >
> >
> > One can read the BG 13.12 bhāṣya:
> >
> > ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते ।
> > अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ॥ १२ ॥
> >
> > ननु सर्वाः बुद्धयः अस्तिनास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगताः एव । तत्र एवं सति ज्ञेयमपि
> > अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्, नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा
> > स्यात् । न, अतीन्द्रियत्वेन उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात् । यद्धि
> > इन्द्रियगम्यं वस्तु घटादिकम्, तत् अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्,
> > नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात् । इदं तु ज्ञेयम् अतीन्द्रियत्वेन
> > शब्दैकप्रमाणगम्यत्वात् न घटादिवत् उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयम् इत्यतः ‘न
> > सत्तन्नासत्’ इति उच्यते ॥
> >
> > To put in simple terms: A pot, when encountered, is said to 'be': अस्ति
> घटः
> > । When the pot is destroyed, we say: नास्ति घटः ।  Brahman, not being
> > something that comes into existence and goes out of existence like a pot,
> > is beyond the conceptions of asti and nāsti.  That is what is taught by
> the
> > BG 13.12 expression: न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते |
> >
> > regards
> > vs
> >
> > As an aside what ख्यातिवाद does व्याकरण use?
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Venkatraghavan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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


  
_______________________________________________
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