History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c95.19

v7.c95.19

²⁴³⁸ ब्रह्मणस्पतिरेता सं कर्मार इवाधमत् । देवानां पूर्व्ये युगेऽसतः सदजायत ॥ ऋ X. 72 2. Here 'Asat' must be taken to mean 'undeveloped' (*Avyakta*) and not as meaning 'non-existent'. The Br Up (I. 4. 7) states 'all this was then (before creation began) undeveloped and it was developed by name and form' Similarly, in the Tai. Up II. 7 it is said असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् ततो वै सदजायत But the Chān. Up. (VI. 3. 1-3) emphatically asserts "in the beginning there was that only which was 'sat', one only without a second; some say 'in the beginning there was that only which is *asat*, from which arose *sat*'; but how could it be thus, how would *sat* (that which is) spring from *asat* (that which is not)? It is sat only that was at the beginning, one without a second. It reflected 'may I be many, may I produce', it created fire &c" Śaṅkarācārya on V. S I 4 15 refers to Tai Up II. 7 'asad vā idam-agra āsīt' and Chān. Up III. 19. 1 'asad-evedam-agra āsīt' and explains what is meant by *asat* in such passages viz 'नामरूप-व्याकृतवस्तुविषयः प्रायेण सच्छब्दः प्रसिद्ध इति तद्व्याकरणाभावापेक्षया प्रागुत्पत्ते सदेव ब्रह्मासदिवासीदित्युपचर्यते; and points out that in such passages Śruti itself adds words which give the go by and refute the words 'asad-evedam' &c In Ṛg X. 72. 4 (aditer dakṣo ajāyata) Prof Velankar (Pro of All I. O. Conference, 17th Session in 1953) holds 'aditeh' to be in the genitive case (p 62) and not in the ablative case, to avoid the riddle how Dakṣa and Aditi were born of each other, but that breaks the symmetry of the words, such as 'asataḥ', 'uttānapadah', 'bhuvaḥ' that precede and are taken as ablatives The present author demurs to this explanation offered by Prof. Velankar.