If you can get a copy cheap, check out Antonio T. de Nicolas'
Meditations Through Rg Veda: Fourth Dimensional Man. He has whole
chapter on major themes of Rig Veda including whole chapters on the
language of Sat and Asat. He thinks of languages as "intentionality
structures"; Sat and Asat each having their own unique structures,
which he goes into much detail -- it's an interesting analysis you
would no doubt enjoy. The unique thing about the Vedic construction of
the hymns concerning Asat is the multiple entendre is maintained,
rather than ever taking a singular loka or POV. In most western
languages it seems poetry or poetic language is the best way to create
interwoven levels of "seeing" (darshanam), but in Sanskrit all P's of
V can be kept alive simultaneously(!).
Also, from that Vedic classic, The Vedic Experience (Raimon Panikkar):
The Hymn of the Origins
Nasadiya Sukta
1 The vision of this hymn comes out of a profound insight into the
mystery of reality. It is
the product of a mystical experience that far transcends the limits of
logical thinking; it is
a religious chant--for only in music or poetry can such a message be
conveyed--invoking
in splendid verses the Primal Mystery that transcends all categories,
both human and
divine. This hymn, while trying to plumb the depths of the mystery,
formulates no
doctrinal system but expresses itself by means of a rich variety of
different symbols
related to the one single insight. The hymn, in fact, presents an
extraordinary consistency,
which is patent only to the contemplative mind; in the absence of this
latter, however, it is
bound to appear either as syncretistic or as agnostic, as has in fact
been sometimes
asserted.
We are dealing here, in the first place, not with a temporal
cosmogonic hymn describing
the beginning of creation, or even with an ontological theogony, or
with a historical
description concerning the formation of the Gods or even of God. It is
not the description
of a succession of stages through which the world has passed. The
starting point of the
hymn is not a piece of causal thinking seeking the cause of this world
or of God or the
Gods, but rather an intuitive vision of the whole. This hymn does not
attempt to
communicate information but to share a mystical awareness that
transcends the sharpest
lines of demarcation of which the human mind is capable: the divine
and the created,
Being and Nonbeing. It seeks to give expression to the insight of the
oneness of reality
which is experienced as being so totally one that it does not need the
horizon of nonreality
or the background of a thinking process to appear in its entire
actuality. This oneness is so
radically one that every distinction is overcome; it is that
unutterable and unthinkable
process that "sees" all that is and is-not, in its utmost simplicity,
which is, of course, not a
jnana, a gnosis, but an ignorance, an interrogation. The One is not
seen against any
horizon or background. All is included. All is pure horizon. There are
no limits to the
universal or, for that matter, to the concrete.
The first verse brings us straightaway to the heart of the mystery and
is composed of a
series of questions. Neither an affirmation nor a negation is capable
of carrying the weight
of the ultimate mystery. Only the openness of an interrogation can
embrace what our mere
thinking cannot encompass. The Ultimate is neither real nor nonreal,
neither being nor
nonbeing, and thus neither is nor is-not; the apophatism is total and
covers everything,
even itself: "darkness was wrapped in darkness."
Being as well as Nonbeing, the Absolute (or Ultimate) as well as the
Beginning, are
contradictory concepts when applied to the primordial mystery.
"Absolute" means
unrelatedness, and when we speak or think about it we are negating
that character.
"Ultimate" points toward the end of a process that has no "after," and
"Beginning" toward
a point that has no "before." But what is to prevent our thinking a
"previous" to the
Beginning and a "beyond" to the Ultimate, unless our mind artificially
imposes a limit on
its thinking or bursts in the effort? If we think "Being" we cannot be
prevented from
thinking "Nonbeing" also, and so the very concept of an all-including
"Being" which does
not include "Nonbeing" defeats its own purpose. Indeed, a
metaphysician might say that
"Nonbeing" is a nonentity and an unthinkable concept; yet the fact
remains that at least on
the level of our thinking the concept of "Being" cannot include its
contradiction. This
verse tells us that the primordial mystery cannot be pinpointed to any
idea, thing, thought,
or being. It is primarily neither the answer to a set of riddles nor
the object of current
metaphysical speculations concerning the how or the why of creation.
It is beyond
thinking and Being. The symbol of water is the most pertinent one: the
primordial water
covers all, supports all, has no form of its own, is visible and
invisible, has no limits,
pervades everything, it is the first condition of life, the place of
the original seed, the
fertilizing milieu.
The seer then continues by a series of negatives: there was neither
death nor nondeath, nor
any distinction between day and night. All the opposites, including
the contradictories, are
on this side of the curtain. At this point we have not yet reached
Being and thus we have
not yet the possibility of limiting Being by Nonbeing.11
This One is not even a concept. It is not a concept limit like truth,
goodness, beauty, and
similar concepts when applied to the Absolute; it is rather the limit
of a concept,
unthinkable in itself and yet present on the other side of the curtain
as the necessary
condition for the very existence and intelligibility of everything.
Whereas the concepts of
being, goodness, truth, and the like admit degrees of approximation to
the fullness of that
to which they refer, the One does not. There are degrees of being, of
goodness, of truth.
There are no degrees of oneness. The One represents the peak of
mystical awareness,
which India developed later in her Advaitic philosophy, and the West
in Trinitarian
theology.
Darkness and emptiness are also symbols of the first moment. This
darkness is not,
however, the moral or even the ontological darkness of the world, but
the primordial
darkness of the Origin. The negative as well as the positive aspect of
existence belongs to
the Ultimate. Evil and good, the positive and the negative, both are
embraced in the One
that encompasses everything. Now, to cancel darkness by darkness, is
it not to let the light
shine forth? Furthermore, it is said that desire, love, fervor, were
the dynamic forces that
brought reality to a temporal process of originating something out of
something. Out of
nothing nothing can come. Nothingness is not previous to, but
coextensive with Being.
The source of Being is not another Being or anything that can be
considered as being an
origin out of which things come to be. The process, according to the
intuition of the Vedic
rishi, is one of concentration, of condensation, of an emergence by
the power of love. This
love cannot be a desire toward "something" that does not exist, or
even a desire coming
out of a nonexisting Being. It is this very concentration that
originates the Self which is
going to be and have that love. Primordial love is neither a
transitive nor an intransitive
act; it is neither an act directed toward the other (which in this
case does not exist) nor an
act directed toward oneself (which in this case is also nonexistent),
but it is the constitutive
act by which existence comes into being. Without love there is no
being, but love does not
happen without ardor or tapas. It is fervor, tapas, that makes the
being be; they are not
separable. The relation between kama, desire and love, on the one
hand, and tapas, ardor
and heat, on the other, is one of the universal cosmic laws linking
Being and the whole
realm of beings (vv.3-4).
The poets, those sages who seek to penetrate the mystery of reality,
discover in Nonbeing
the gravitational center of Being; only when this is realized can the
cord that differentiates
them be extended. The rope connecting Being and Nonbeing is the
ultimate rope of
salvation (v. 5).
The two last stanzas voice several agonized queries and give
expression to a deep-rooted
unextirpable uncertainty for which no reply is vouchsafed, because
reality is still on the
move and any definite answer would preclude its constant newness. This
insight brings us
again to that ultimate level where the One is situated. From that
depth the sage expresses
the most fundamental question about the essential and existential
enigma of the universe:
What, he asks, is the origin of this universe, of all this, idam? Who,
or what, is its purpose,
its end, its direction? It cannot be the Gods, for they themselves
belong on this side of the
curtain. Nobody can know what is the very foundation of knowing, nor
can anyone say
that it is not known. This latter assumption would amount to being
biased in favor of a
certain negative theology or philosophy. To say that we do not know
can be as assertive as
to say that we do know. The last question is not the expression of a
renunciation of
knowledge or a declaration of agnosticism, which would here amount to
a dogmatic
affirmation, but the declaration that the problem--and not only the
answer--is beyond the
subject and object of knowledge itself. Only he who is beyond and
above everything many
know--or he may not, for how may there be any assurance concerning it?
It is not only that
we know that we do not know, which would then be mere pretending, but
that we really
do not know even if it is at all knowable by any possible knowledge.
The hymn concludes
with this query, this constitutive uncertainty which is of infinite
magnitude, because we
are all involved in it. To answer the query would amount to killing
the very unfolding of
reality. It is the openness of this interrogation which allows the
universe to emerge and to
exist.
Nasadiya Sukta
RV X, 129
1. At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing.
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was its wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable and deep?
2. There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.
The One breathed without breath, by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing else at all.
3. Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate. Then
that which was hidden by the Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be.
4. In the beginning Love arose,
which was the primal germ cell of the mind.
The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.
5. A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above.
6. Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?
Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?
7. That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows or maybe He does not!
1. SB X, 5, 3, 1-2 (§ I 13) considers that manas, the mind, or rather
the spirit, is the one
and only thing that fulfills the condition of being neither existent
nor nonexistent. The
spirit is existent only in things, and things without the spirit are
nonexistent.
Cf. § I 14.
Indian tradition has interpreted these first two mantras as voicing
all the different
perspectives under which the ultimate metaphysical problem can be
envisaged. Cf. SU IV,
18 (§ I 7); BG XIII, 12.
2. Own impulse: svadha, the active principle, has been translated as
'by its own
energy" (Zaehner), "power" (Mascaró, Macdonell, Edgerton),
"impulse" (Bose), "of
itself" (Misch), "strength" (Raghavan), "will power" (Telang-Chaubey),
"élan,"
"initiative" (Renou), "Eigengesetz" (Geldner), just to give an idea of
different readings.
Cf. the later idea of shakti or the divine power of the Godhead,
always represented as the
Goddess, spouse of the corresponding God.
The One: tad ekam . Cf . § VI 1 and also RV I, 164, 10; X, 82, 2; 6 (§
VII 12); AV VIII, 9,
25-26; IX, 9, 7; IsU 4 (§ VII 11).
Cf. other texts in § I 7.
3. For the primordial Waters, cf. § I 15 for further references.
Indiscriminate: apraketa, without a recognizable sign,
undifferentiated, indistinguishable,
unrecognizable, referring to the amorphous chaos, the unformed
primordial Waters.
Water: salila, flood, surge, waves, the ocean, waters. The Greek word
pelagos would
perhaps render the idea of salila, the open sea without shores or
boundaries, amorphous
water, a kind of chaotic magma.
The Void: abhu, or abhu, the primordial potency, capable of becoming
everything.
Ardor: tapas, cf. § I 2.
4. Cf. AV XIX, 52, 1 (§ II 13), where it is translated somewhat
differently.
5. "Bearers of seed" are considered to be the male forces and "mighty
forces" the female
principle. Cf. daksa and aditi as the masculine and feminine
principles, respectively, in
RV X, 72, 4 (§ VII 2).
6. Cf. KenU I, 1 (§ VI 3).
On Nov 3, 2007, at 5:38 AM, cardemaister wrote:
(Just killing time...)
I believe the Sanskrit word 'sat' is most of the time
translated to '[that which is] real', or somesuch.
Adding the prefix 'a' (asat) renders the opposite of 'sat'.
Actually, 'sat' is the present participle of the verb 'as' (to be).
(In the present tense indicative conjugation the singular forms
begin with 'a', e.g. 'asmi = I am' , dual and plural forms begin with
's', e.g. 'santi = they are'.)
I think in English for instance 'dancing' in 'dancing Shiva' is
a present participle.
The primary meaning of 'as' is 'to be', and stuff:
as, asti 1 be, exist, happen, become; be present or at hand; fall or
[[,]] belong to (gen. or dat.), be enough for (gen.), be able to
(dat.); turn to, serve for (2 dat.). {astu} or {evamastu} well, so
be it. With {na} not be, be gone. Pers. or impers. with another fin.
verb = I happen to or it happens that I, e.g. {asti pazyasi} do you
happen to see? {asmi vikrINe} I happen to sell.
Thus, perhaps one could say that the basic meaning of 'sat' as
a present participle is 'being', although in English 'being'
is prolly almost always used as a noun... :0
Dunno how often the words 'sat' and 'asat' appear "together"
in e.g. Rgveda. Here are a couple of "famous" examples:
naasad aasiin no sad aasiit tadaaniim (RV X 129, 1)
(na; *asat*; aasiit; na+u; *sat*; aasiit tadaaniim).
(The form 'aasiit' is the 3rd singular imperfect - a past
tense form - of 'as'.)
In inflected forms 'sat' and 'asat' appear in the
fourth verse:
sato bandhum asati nir avindan
hRdi pratiiSyaa kavayo maniiSaa.
(pada paaTha, without sandhi:
sataH; bandhum; asati; niH; avindan;
hRdi; pratiiSya; kavayaH; maniiSaa.)
Macdonell's translation:
Sages [kavayaH] seeking [pratiiSya]
in (their) hearts [hRdi] with wisdom [maniiSaa]
found out [nir avindan] the bond [bandhum]
*of* the existent (sataH) *in* the non-existent (asati).
sataH (in sandhi satas, sato): genitive
(possessive) singular ("sat's, of sat")
asati: locative singular ("in asat").
Please keep in mind that the forms 'sato' and
'sataH' are semantically absolutely "the same",
that is, the "huge" difference in form doesn't
have any effect whatsoever on the meaning.