Ekanta
27 October 2010, 12:58 PM
Its hard sometimes when translating sat/ asat, even revered translators seem to mix it up (or correct me if Im wrong).
From Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad Kārikā (with words separated)
na asti asat hetukam asat sat asat hetukam tathā |
sat ca sat hetukam na asti sat hetukam asat kutaḥ || MaUK 4.40 ||
It seems to me there are 4 possibilities since there are 2 variables (sat + asat)
asat - asat
asat - sat
sat - sat
sat - asat
One out of three translators I have read have all 4 possibilities, which one?
Nikhilananda:
1. The unreal cannot have another unreality for its cause,
2. nor can the real have the unreal for its cause.
3. The real cannot be the cause of the real.
4. And how utterly impossible it is for the real to be the cause of the unreal!
Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli:
1. There is no non-existent that serves as the cause of the non-existent,
2. in the same way as the existent does not serve as the cause of the non-existent.
3. There is no real entity that serves as the cause of another real entity.
4. How can the unreal be the product of the real?
Gambhirananda:
1. There is no unreal thing that has an unreality as its cause,
2. Similarly there is no unreal thing that has a reality as its cause.
3. Moreover, there is no existing thing that has another existing thing as its cause.
4. How can there be an unreal thing that is produced out of something real?
From Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad Kārikā (with words separated)
na asti asat hetukam asat sat asat hetukam tathā |
sat ca sat hetukam na asti sat hetukam asat kutaḥ || MaUK 4.40 ||
It seems to me there are 4 possibilities since there are 2 variables (sat + asat)
asat - asat
asat - sat
sat - sat
sat - asat
One out of three translators I have read have all 4 possibilities, which one?
Nikhilananda:
1. The unreal cannot have another unreality for its cause,
2. nor can the real have the unreal for its cause.
3. The real cannot be the cause of the real.
4. And how utterly impossible it is for the real to be the cause of the unreal!
Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli:
1. There is no non-existent that serves as the cause of the non-existent,
2. in the same way as the existent does not serve as the cause of the non-existent.
3. There is no real entity that serves as the cause of another real entity.
4. How can the unreal be the product of the real?
Gambhirananda:
1. There is no unreal thing that has an unreality as its cause,
2. Similarly there is no unreal thing that has a reality as its cause.
3. Moreover, there is no existing thing that has another existing thing as its cause.
4. How can there be an unreal thing that is produced out of something real?