7/30/2019 Rig Veda Suktas http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rig-veda-suktas 1/43 Creation Myths Introduction to the Emergence and Meanings of Creation Stories Here are, in short, some of the major perspectives included in my dissertation in progress, at the Lund University History of Ideas and Learning, about creation myths and what they reveal about ancient human thought. Some quests for the human mind have been with us as long as we've been around, and the most intriguing of them all is the very search for our beginning. Where, when and how did it all start? The classic Indian text Rig Veda states with poetic clarity, just how grand a quest the search for such answers is: Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know. In most human cultures, questions of this nature have been answered by myths and legends. Those are often elaborate, with surprising detail and congeniality, and always intriguing to the mind, no matter how old they may be - or how inconsistent with modern scientific understanding. Narrow-minded archetypes In penetration of such myths, a psychoanalytic perspective based on C G Jung's theories is frequently used. Gods are said to represent the archetypes, and mythical events are symbols of man's pursuit of self-realization.
This way of looking at creation myths may very well be triggered by the fact that
these old explanations of the birth of man and cosmos are quite contradictory to what
science tells us, therefore a symbolic and psychological interpretation of the myths seemsto be the only way to claim their value for present man. The myths are described as
expressions of human emotional needs, the details and ingredients in them are said to
evolve from the dark corners of our subconscious - somewhat like dreams.
This is, of course, a narrow-minded perspective. Not only does it all too readilyassume that modern science has found all the true answers, but more serious is the
implication it contains, that people of the past had no ability for scientific, deductive
reasoning, maybe not even a genuine interest in questions of this nature.
Homo rudis
Before we assume that our ancestors' explanations are mere emanations from the
subconscious, we must at least try to see if their theories might have made good sense atthe time. We should remind ourselves that not long ago did our prestigious science
believe the earth to be in the center of the universe, furthermore they believed it to be no
older than six thousand years. In those days, this all made good sense.
So, let's try to follow the thoughts of our ancestors, when they pondered on the worldand its distant past, and see what conclusions this must have led them to. The myths stem
from times when very little was known about nature and its laws, so we have to think like
someone almost completely ignorant - let's call him homo rudis, the unlearned man.
When homo rudis studies the world around him, he sees people being born and dying,
he sees his race multiplying from generation to generation, and wonders where it allstarted. Must there not have been a first man and woman, and if so - where did they come
from? Being the first people, their creation must have been the work of others. The samemust be true for animals and plants.
People out of tears
Sure enough, a primordial couple is found in most creation myths. Adam and Eve have
their counterparts, for example in the charming Nordic myth of Ask and Embla - the firsta tree, the second a vine embracing it, before the gods made them into man and woman.
In the Mayan legend of Popol vuh, people are made out of corn, in Egyptian myth out of
the tears of the sun god Re - and certainly our species has been cause for crying severaltimes since.
In many a myth, man is made in a beastly fashion that our deeds give good reason to
assume - like the Babylonian tale Enuma elish, where people are shaped out of the blood
and veins of an executed god. Marduk, the initiator of man's creation, has a clear purposefor him:
That they might be at ease!The Babylonian gods sure are a violent lot, in war against each other. Marduk believes
that the devotion of men might appease them, so that things can finally come to order.
But of gods or out of nature's ingredients man and woman are created - fully grown
adults at the moment of their coming into being, except for the tales of the Eskimos onGreenland, where the first people are children growing out of the earth. There they lie,
one day, with closed eyes, unable even to crawl. The earth itself feeds them.
Anything not being born
Most creation myths state it clearly: when the first man and woman were born, they
immediately started to reproduce. All the people in the world come from these
extraordinarily conceived ancestors. Also animals and plants, obviously chained to thecycle of birth and dying, are believed to have a beginning much like that of man.
Then homo rudis asks himself - is there anything eternal, neither being born nor giving
birth? The sun is reborn each day, the moon and stars each night, the mountains wither,
the soil is washed away by rain. What remains?
Well, the air seems ever present, but to the mind of homo rudis its presence is sovague that it's rather taken for granted, somewhat like the space in which we all move.
You cannot touch it, and not move away from it. There's something much more palpable,
and still seemingly eternal: the sea.
The sea stretches further than the eye can see, deeper than man can reach, it chews onland much like man bites the flesh from the bones of his prey. The land seems to have
been raised out of the sea, and surely it can be swallowed into the sea again. Homo rudis
will find it hard to imagine a time when the sea was not.
Primordial sea
In Jungian analysis of myths, the primordial sea is regarded as a symbol of chaos, which
is an interesting - although unnecessary - way of explaining the fact that it is present in
almost every creation myth we know of. When homo rudis searches for somethingeternal, he will find the sea by pure observation and deductive reasoning, whatever his
subconscious might point out.
Well, modern science tells us that life itself was born in the sea, and that all plants andcreatures on land came from the sea. Homo rudis did well, in pointing out the sea as a
The sea and the water are essential elements in most myths of creation. In Enuma elish
of the Babylonians, there is at first Apsu, the sweet water entity, and Tiamat, the salt
water entity, in separate dwellings. Then Mummu, a trickster type of god connected tothe rain, makes them meet, and thus creation begins. Rain brings sweet and salt water
together. Doesn't it make good sense?
In the Japanese myth of Kojiki, the twin gods Izanagi and Izanami stir up the ocean
with a spear, making an island appear. There they settle down and embrace in a fashionso lustful, that the 19th century English translator Basil Hall Chamberlain felt the need to
switch to Latin. Out of their incestuous copulation the world is born.
Fire meets ice
The Viking tales show some variation to the theme. There is in the beginning a great gap
called Ginnunga, which simply means immeasurable. In this gap fire meets ice, and in the
water from the melting ice the very painstaking process of creation takes place.
Even the Bible has its primordial sea, in the book of Genesis, where God's spirit"hovered over the surface of the water". Although the Bible is usually said to describe
creation from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, this is not clearly the case. Genesis starts with
the words: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but then heexplicitly makes the heavens on the second day of creation. The introduction should be
read merely as a headline. This is most likely the case also with the second tale of
creation in Genesis, starting (at 2:4) with a similar phrase.
It is very hard to find a myth, where the world is created out of nothing. It's vaguely
hinted in the Zoroastrian text Avesta and in the Koran, among the few. In almost allcases, even when nothingness is implied, there is really in the beginning: something. The
problem of imagining something out of nothing is obvious to everyone who ever tried it,also to modern scientists. They find it just as hard to settle with the Big Bang theory.
What do Gods have in common?
In all creation myths, gods of some sort are the initiators of worldly life. They're not at all
as eternal as the sea, nor do they handle their affairs with such a firm control and clear intention as the Christian god is generally assumed to have done. Rarely do they have his
exclusive monopoly.
Really, to call them "gods" is saying almost nothing about them. What can the
Egyptian sunrise creature Chepre have in common with the vindictive Odin of Nordictales, or the almighty Jahve? Their personalities differ immensely, as do their powers and
their functions. Even when it comes to the act of creation, they have such different ways
to go about it, that it doesn't make much sense giving them the same title.
Although most of them are far from almighty, and some of them just as mortal as
ordinary men, it's most certainly the Christian god who's been their measure. The studies
of myth and religion have been conducted by Christians, consequently within a Christianframework and terminology.
Laws of drama
Those mythical figures we call gods, really behave just like humans. They fall in love,they act on impulse, and frequently regret their actions. The most firm of rules about
them - and it seems, alas, for man as well - is: as soon as there is more than one of them,
they start fighting each other.
The roles of the different gods in these myths could fit into those of Jung's archetypes, but more readily into the laws of dramaturgy. Already the ancient Greeks knew what
rules to obey, to make a drama meaningful and exciting. Aristotle put it in writing in his
"Poetics", some three hundred years BC.
The laws for good drama are easier to spot in myths and tales of old, than are thedepth psychology theories. One example is the threesome of most tales, often explained
with the number three being of symbolic significance. Yet, when a story is told, three
times is the minimum of repetition needed to get the dramatic effect: the first time is aunique event, the second makes a pattern and the third breaks it. Any fewer than three is
not possible, more is not necessary.
Also, the laws of drama mention characters necessary to push the plot on, and what
roles they must have. Some of them, like the hero and the so called shadow, even have
the same names as Jungian archetypes. Their roles, though, differ some.
Myths are found to be quite reasonable attempts of old, to explain the world we live
in, but they are also stories, often kept alive only by telling from one generation to the
next. They would probably not have remained in our memories, were they not exciting tothe listeners.
world. In Rig Veda, the collection of hymns from around 1500
to 800 BCE, the poet of one of them contemplates the very
question if something can be first, i.e. if there can have been a
creation at all.
This is in a famous hymn of the tenth mandala (Rig Veda 10:129), which is generallyregarded as one of the later hymns, probably composed in the 9th century BCE. It has the
Indian name Nasadiya Sukta, "Not the Non-existen", and is often given the English title
Creation, because of its subject.
The advanced abstract reasoning in the hymn has brought it a lot of attention, not onlywithin indology, but from scholars of philosophy and the history of religion as well. Its
line of thought relates splendidly to cosmological thinking of the philosophers of Ancient
Greece, all through to present day astronomy. And it ends with what seems like a punchline, a paradox taken to the extreme, almost as if the unknown poet of it was
making a joke.Mainly, it reveals an insoluble paradox in which the human mind of the past as well as
the present easily gets trapped. Much of what puzzled people three thousand years ago,still puzzles us today. So, we should be wary of taking for granted that our ancestors were
intellectually inferior to us. We have more facts, but they knew what we still would not
know today, nor tomorrow.
That's what this Creation hymn of Rig Veda points out.
Max Müller's Version of Rig Veda 10:129
The German philologist and Orientalist Max Müller (1823-1900), who spent most of
his academic life in England, compiled a sanskrit edition of the Rig Veda between
1849 and 1874, whereof the 10th mandala was published in 1862. He also published
an English version of Rig Veda 10:129 in his book A History of Ancient Sanskrit
Literature (London 1859, p. 564).
Müller seems not to have done the translation by himself, since he writes rather
cryptically: "I subjoin a metrical translation of this hymn, which I owe to the kindness of
a friend." (p. 563) No name is given, nor is it explained if the friend helped with thetranslation of the sanskrit original or only with the metrics. I would assume the latter.
Here is the translation of Rig Veda 10:129 in full. Unlike the other translators of the
hymn, Max Müller made no division into verses. It is evident that the metrical effort hastwisted things here and there, as can be seen when comparing with other versions, but thesubject-matter mostly remains quite the same also in the details.
Was not, nor heaven's broad woof outstretched above.
What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?Was it the water's fathomless abyss?
There was not death - hence was there naught immortal,
There was no confine betwixt day and night;
The only One breathed breathless in itself,Other than it there nothing since has been.
Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled
In gloom profound, - an ocean without light. -The germ that still lay covered in the husk
Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.
Then first came Love upon it, the new spring
Of mind - yea, poets in their hearts discerned,Pondering, this bond between created things
And uncreated. Comes this spark from earth,Piercing and all-pervading, or from heaven?
Then seeds were sown, and mighty power arose -
Nature below, and Power and Will above.
Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here,Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang? -
The gods themselves came later into being. -
Who knows from whence this great creation sprang? -He from whom all this great creation came.
Whether his will created or was mute,The Most High seer that is in highest heaven,He knows it, - or perchance e'en He knows not.
Actually, Max Müller offers not one, but two translations of Rig Veda 10:129 in his
book A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (London 1859). On the pages preceding theone with the metrical version presented above, Müller quotes a much more
straightforward translation of it as he discusses the meaning of every part of the hymn (p.
559-63). Unfortunately, this version is not complete. Parts of the hymn text he settles for explaining without quoting. Both the extant quotes and his comments will be referred to
below.
Not even nothing
The hymn starts off by establishing just how incomprehensibly empty it was beforecreation. Neither something nor nothing existed. The hymn presents them as opposites in
need of one another, like the two sides of a coin.
In his straightforward version, Max Müller puts it differently from above: "Nothing
that is, was then, even what is not, did not exist then." (p. 559) That alters the meaning
slightly. This quote simply suggests that what does not exist now didn't exist back then,either. The metrical version stays with the paradox of the original state being void even of
nothing. The latter is also supposed by other translations of the hymn.
The confusing opening statement plays with the idea that if nothing exists, then there
is nothing missing that could be something. If nothing is a state lacking something, thensomething is needed for nothing to lack something else. Otherwise they both lack any
meaning.
It raises the questions discussed also by the philosophers of Ancient Greece: Can there be nothing, and can something come out of nothing? These dilemmas hide in any concept
of the world having an origin, before which it was not.
"Heaven's broad woof" of the hymn's second line is a concept close to the Bible's
Genesis idea of a firmament, the sky as a dome covering the earth. The Rig Veda hymn
suggests a heavenly fabric that could have the same shape, but it could also be the idea of
a sphere surrounding earth completely, like the celestial spheres imagined by Plato and
Aristotle. Many other traditions picture the sky as a solid thing surrounding the world,where the sun, the moon, and the stars moved about much like men walk on earth.
The abyss of water mentioned in the fourth line is a very familiar concept in creationmyths - the primordial sea out of which the world was thought to emerge. To ancient
men, the sea was the most persistent of all: endless, unchanging, deeper than eyes could
reach, surrounding all land. All creatures died eventually, trees withered and fell,
mountains eroded, even the celestial lights sometimes behaved unpredictably, but the sea
seemed completely unaffected. So, most traditions regarded the sea as eternal.
This Rig Veda hymn dares to question that. Not deny it, but question it. If there was astate before the creation of the world, would there even be a primordial sea in it?
The One
In this primordial nothing there were neither mortal nor immortal beings, the hymn
claims. The latter is a very radical statement of a mind from 3,000 years ago or more. Itwould have been equally radical, only a couple of hundred years before our present time.
The ideas of what we somewhat inaccurately call gods have been an important part of the
human world view almost all through civilization, and in most if not all cultures of theworld.
In human thought through the past thousands of years, the concept of a world withoutdivine creatures, conscious beings outside the palpable existence, has been almost
unfathomable. So much in nature suggested already to primordial man that there is moreto life than what the eyes can see. Things move in heaven and on earth, without visible
means. Also, there is the mystery of the human mind, full of memories and dreams.
Primordial man could not compute it all without imagining invisible active forces, whichtherefore must have awareness and intention or they would do nothing. What we today
describe as natural laws were given divine features by primordial man observing their
effects, simply from the lack of finding any more plausible explanation for them.
So, the Rig Veda hymn makes a mental leap suggesting their absense in the state
before creation. But the hymn is not what we would call atheistic, since it soon introduces"the One" as the only thing somehow present in this primordial nothing.
This One is not described in any detail, but the hymn makes it the creator, or initiator,
of the world to emerge. It's the agent of the creation, that necessary something or someone without which nothing could happen. A primus motor, a first cause, as Aristotle
would have it. For something to start to happen, something else must cause it. The poet of
this hymn implies the same, although vaguely.
The One is breathing breathlessly in itself, which is sort of a metaphor for the paradoxof something existing in nothing, before the creation. It's what we would call a potential,
yet unmanifested. Something that can happen but still hasn't done so.
Max Müller elaborates on this line, giving it an alternative interpretation, within
quotes as if the hymn line could also be translated accordingly, which is doubtful and notrepeated by other translators: "That One breathed, and lived; it enjoyed more than mere
existence; yet its life was not dependent on anything else, as our life depends on the air
which we breathe. It breathed breathless." (p. 560)
Breathing is a universal sign of being alive, which in turn is a prerequisite for being a
primus motor, a starter of what never happened before. This has been discussed by Plato
in his theory of ideas, demanding forms to exist as possibilities before they can turn into physical shapes. To the ancient mind, evidently also that of the poet of this hymn,
creation of something new must start as an idea, an intention, in its source. The world
must be wished before it can be created.
The hymn later explores what might have given birth to that wish in the One.
The Germ and the Ignition
The primordial ocean is mentioned again in the tenth line of the hymn, establishing its
existence, contrary to the doubts expressed in line four. This inconsistency needs to be pondered. Why would the poet of the hymn first doubt the existence of what he later
takes for granted? He is in need of a setting, a stage for what is to come.
We may have trouble seeing an uncreated world filled with water, but the primordial
sea is a dead one, in the midst of darkness. It is better seen as a space in which a worldcan appear, than as one ingredient in that world. In the many creation myths where it's the
initial state, the word chaos is often used of it, as if synonymous. The Greek word implies
a vast void, a gap renounce of any structure, sort of like a melting pot. That can also bedescribed as chaotic, in our normal use of the word, since it is formless and nothing is yet
possible to emerge from it.
The Rig Veda hymn strongly suggests something of the same kind as the original
state. And the One is described as a germ, the potential of something growing, in that
water. Max Müller compares the germ of the hymn to the spring, bringing new life to theworld: "The beginning of the world was conceived like the spring of nature; one miracle
was explained by another." (p. 561) Spring is mentioned specifically in the hymn, but I'veonly found that to be the case in Müller's translation.
Indra. Sculpture in gilt bronze from Nepal, 13th century. Indra is one of the major deities, mentioned in many of the Rig Veda hymns, though not in 10:129. In spite of the pleasant appearance here, Indra is the god of war and thunder. He has many parallels inother mythologies.
This germ was present in the timeless original state, but dormant, and could be so
forever. What would have brought the world from this sleeping potential to reality? That
is another riddle at the core of any creation story - what made the uncreated world become a created one?
The following question about where the initial spark may have come from, earth or
heaven, is puzzling in this setting. Neither existed when heat ignited something in the primordial sea. Max Müller also confesses his confusion about this line of the hymn: "We
hardly know into what new sphere of thought the poet enters." (p. 562)
Other translators substitute the spark for a ray or a cord, altering the meaning of the
line substantially. In their versions, it's the instrument by which the high is separatedfrom the low, heaven from earth, with the divine ruling forces in the former and the ruled
creatures of the world on the latter. That may be more accurate than Müller's
interpretation, but his translation, too, includes the division into high and low. He alsomentions a "ray of light" as an alternative translation (p. 562).
Max Müller. Painting by George Frederic Watts, 1895.
As the hymn continues, the question seems to be rhetorical, debuffing other theoriesabout the creation that involve heaven and earth. The hymn declares that something
started it, so that the power of will was above and nature, the physical creation, below as
a receiver or mould on which that power continued the process.
What the hymn seems to suggest, also in Müller's version, is that after the initial spark,
the world was divided into heaven and earth, with the former as the sovereign and the
latter its subject. This, too, is a very common world order in creation myths. Heaven rulesearth, not the other way around. The sky is regarded as the abode of the powers that
shape and govern the world. Well, essentially, that's also how we see it in an
astronomical perspective.
What the hymn insists, though, is that neither heaven nor earth existed at first.Creation started without them, so they must also have been created by that initial impulse.
The Only One Knowing - or Not
The hymn returns to the question of what was the first impulse of the creation, what was
the true origin of it. The very start. Not even the gods would know, the hymn boldlystates, since they, too, were absent at that moment.
This statement is not as radical as it may seem in a monotheistic perspective. Most
mythologies have a succession of gods, some even dying by the hands of others. Gods are born and have parents. That's quite the norm in polytheistic traditions. So, they can't all
have been present in the very beginning. Only the one initiating it could. That's what the
hymn concludes.
Max Müller regards this primordial divinity as a new character introduced in thehymn: "the poet now speaks of an Adhyaksha, an overseer, a contemplator, who resides
in the highest heavens." (p. 563) He calls this overseer "the source of creation," whether
intentional or unintentional. I can't see that the hymn specifies a new being in these lines,
neither in Müller's translation nor that of others. The most immediate interpretationwould be that this refers to the One mentioned earlier in the hymn.
This one highest and earliest of gods, out of whom creation sprung whether that being
willed it or not, is the only one who can know how it all began. Because he was the onlyone there.
Then again, maybe even he doesn't know it.
The last sentense is the punchline that most likely triggered the whole hymn to be
written. The only one who can know might not know. That's how hidden and mysterious
the creation of the world is.
Max Müller suggests two slightly different ways of translating the last few words:"They either mean 'Or does he not know?' and this would be a question of defiance
addressed to all who might doubt his former assertion; or they mean 'Or he knows not,'
and this would be a confession of doubt on the part of the poet." (p. 563) Not a very bigdifference in essence, since both versions accept the possibility to doubt the existance of
But the line plays another role than questioning the existence of a supreme deity.
Instead, it points out that even such a sovereign may be unaware of how the world began.
It's a consequence of the paradox of creation: the world born without a world to be bornin. A beginning that must still have had a past, to which it could not belong although it
could not spring into being without it. These paradoxes continue to play tricks on our
minds.
Why would not the initial creator god, if that's at all a relevant description of the Onesuggested in the hymn, be aware of the creation and how it happened? The hymn is
possible to interpret as implying that the One was but a seed, a possibility, at that
primordial state - not a knowing sovereign of it. He became aware when ignited by theheat, but was not the cause of it. A dormant god, or the seed of a god, like an embryo, yet
unborn. Such a god would be ignorant of the very beginning, although being part of it.
Already by mentioning that the other gods were not present from the start, the hymn
makes it possible that also the first of them may have been caused by something else, a
possibility in the primordial state. It touches the question relevant also in monotheism:Who created the creator god? That question is not alien to the poet of this hymn. Indeed,
it's most likely what inspired the hymn in the first place.
H. H. Wilson's Version of Rig Veda 10:129
Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860) was an English orientalist who lived many
years in India and translated several sanskrit texts. He was the first to make a
translation of the complete Rig Veda ( Rig-Veda Sanhitá: A Collection of Ancient
Hindu Hymns), which was published in six volumes during the years 1850-88. So, he
was dead long before the last volume was printed.
It's in the sixth and last of the volumes that Rig Veda 10:129 is found, but not withthat header. Wilson used a different system of organizing the hymns, in which this one
was Anuva'ka XI, Adhya'ya VII, Súkta I (CXXIX), Varga XVII .
The translation is richly commented, mainly by extensive footnotes, in which hemostly expressed the opinion of Sayana, a prominent 14th century commentator on the
Veda scriptures, whose comments were also published in the Max Müller Sanskrit edition
of the Rig Veda ( Rig-Veda-Samhita: The Sacred Hymns of the Brahman, 1849-74).
Contrary to Max Müller in his English version of the hymn ( A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, London 1859, p. 564), H. H. Wilson divided it into seven verses. The
same has been done by every translation to follow, as far as I have seen. His system of sorting the Rig Veda hymns, though, seems to have no follower.
The Author of the Creation and of the Hymn
H. H. Wilson introduces the Rig Veda 10:129 hymn by stating (Wilson, p. 350): "The
deity is Paramátmá, the author of the creation, preservation and dissolution of the various
entities {bhávas), these being the subjects treated of in the hymn; the Rishi is Paramátmá,under his appellation Parameshthin."
Paramátmá, the Supreme Soul, is a Vedic deity. Parameshthin, who stands in the
highest place, is a title to distinguish superiority, and rishi is what the poets of the Vedic
hymns are called.
Horace Hayman Wilson, portrait by unknown artist.
So, Wilson would have it that Paramátmá was regarded as the initiator of the creationas well as the one revealing the text of the hymn, as if by writing it. This may be the
opinion of Sayana, but the hymn itself suggests little of it. Since it actually questions a
conscious and intentional creation, it would be odd if a certain deity was meant.
Instead, the Rig Veda 10:129 hymn is the speculation of a human mind, bewildered byit all. In its many doubts and uncertainties, it's as far from a divine edict as one can get.
The hymn is not a piece of mythology, but a meditation on the paradox of creation.
Here is Wilson's translation of Rig Veda 10:129 in its entirety (Wilson, p. 350ff),
which presents each verse like prose, without line breaks, contrary to most other translators:
(Anuva'ka XI, Adhya'ya VII, Súkta I (CXXIX), Varga XVII)
Creation. Nasadiya Sukta ("Not the non-existent")
1. The non-existent was not, the existent was not; then the world was not, nor the firmament, nor that which is above (the firmament). How could there be any investing envelope, and where? Of what (could there be) felicity? How (could there be) the deepunfathomable water?
2. Death was not nor at that period immortality, there was no indication of day or night;THAT ONE unbreathed upon breathed of his own strength, other than THAT there wasnothing else whatever.
3. There was darkness covered by darkness in the beginning, all this (world) wasundistinguishable water; that empty united (world) which was covered by a mere
nothing, was produced through the power of austerity.
4. In the beginning there was desire, which was the first seed of mind; sages having meditated in their hearts have discovered by their wisdom the connexion of the existent with the non-existent.
5. Their ray was stretched out, whether across, or below, or above; (some) were shedders of seed, (others) were mighty; food was inferior, the eater was superior.
6. Who really knows? who in this world may declare it? whence was this creation,whence was it engendered? The gods (were) subsequent to the (world's) creation; so who
knows whence it arose?
7. He from whom this creation arose, he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can);he who is its superintendent in the highest heaven, he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does).
Minor Deviations
Substantially, the Wilson version of Rig Veda 10:129 is very close to that of Max Müller,which I have presented previously. Most of the differences are synonyms or altered
orders of words. The content remains the same. But there are some deviations that
suggest differences of opinion on how to understand parts of the hymn.
The first significant deviation regards the breath of the One, whom H. H. Wilson withuppercase letters calls THAT ONE. Max Müller says that he "breathed breathless,"
whereas Wilson writes that the One "unbreathed upon breathed of his own strength."
To be unbreathed upon is simply to be the first, born and bred by none. To breathe
breathless, on the other hand, suggests another kind of existence than the worldly one in
which breath is essential to life and ends simultaneously. Both writings point out a
primordial deity, but with differing arguments.
As for the initial emergence of what was to be the world, Max Müller mentions a"germ" bursting forward from "fervent heat." H. H. Wilson on the other hand has
"austerity" as the primal power initiating creation in the void. That's a strange choice of word, not repeated in other translations. He explains it in a footnote (Wilson, p. 351):
"Tapas is said to mean not penance, but the contemplation of the things which werecreated." It still makes little sense.
Having contemplation, pure thought, being the ignition of the creation makes it similar
to Genesis 1 of the Bible, where God creates from his mind by simply saying: "Let there be..." Maybe Wilson was influenced by the Christian context quite present in his society.
It would fit better with other translations of Rig Veda 10:129 if austerity here meant
something like contraction or compression, which would indeed increase the temperature.
But that's something we've learned from modern physics. We can't take for granted that it
was known 3,000 years ago in India, when this Rig Veda hymn was written.
Desire Instead of Love
H. H. Wilson is more credible, though, in the next deviation from Max Müller's version
of Rig Veda 10:129. He chooses "desire" instead of "love" as the driving force in thecontinued development of the world. Here he agrees with most translators to proceed
him.
Müller was quite aware of this word's relevance, but his poetic version of the Rig
Veda hymn used another, maybe simply to avoid becoming profane.
Wilson calls desire "the first seed of mind." Indeed, it's the engine behind will-power in all living things. A craving of whatever kind pushes us into action. Without the desire
for something, we would be unable to seek it.
Eat or Be Eaten
As for the continued impulse of creation, Müller calls it a spark and Wilson a ray, which
is almost the same. They both describe a division of the world into high and low, strong
and weak. Wilson uses a grim polarity – that between food and eater.
It's a traditional view in European society that superiority is decided by who eatswhom. The second creation story of the Bible, Genesis 2, states clearly that the animals
are created to serve man in one way or other. Man is to be the food of no beast, thereby
proving to be the crown of creation.
This reasoning is not only biblical, but can be found in many societies – especiallythose with agriculture, since that became a much more methodical exploitation of nature
than in hunter-gatherer societies. The society in which Rig Veda 10:129 emerged was
certainly an agricultural one. Its writer as well as its contemporary readers would have no problem understanding the statement.
In a footnote (Wilson, p. 352), H. H. Wilson adds a perspective to the world division
into opposite directions by that initial ray, which he takes from Sayana, who claimed that
the description refers to "the suddenness of creation" and that "creation took placesimultaneously in all three portions of the universe."
This comes close to our modern understanding of the Big Bang, although Wilson'stext preceded our knowledge of it with several decades and Sayana's comments date
hundreds of years earlier. But it's not unfathomable in the Judeo-Christian tradition,familiar with the idea of God filling the whole world, day by day, with different things.
When he ordered light, the whole universe was instantly lit as it is now. As for Indian
cosmology at the time of Sayana, there were hardly any unfathomable perspectives on thecosmos.
The Joke All But Gone
The last part of the Rig Veda 10:129 hymn, ending with the paradox that almost seems
like a joke, has a complicated form in H. H. Wilson's version, almost spoiling the pun of
the very last line. He makes it double: only the creator can uphold creation, and only thecreator can know from what it arose.
Well, actually the joke is gone, replaced by what comes close to tautology. Of course,
if the only one who can will not, nobody else can do it instead. Otherwise he wouldn't bethe only one.
In Max Müller's version, the paradox of even the creator being ignorant of the origin
of the creation stands out, but it's lost with Wilson. Later translations are much closer to
Müller in this case. I'm glad. Without the ending punchline, Rig Veda 10:129 would losea lot of its charm.
What H. H. Wilson focuses on, instead, is the cosmology implied by the hymn, and
the mythology behind it. I doubt that his approach is the most rewarding one, since it'sstill hard to abandon the strong impression that the hymn was written as a reflection on
the very paradox of creation, about which even a creator god would be dazed.
Ralph T. H. Griffith's Version of Rig Veda 10:129
In 1889, just one year after the release of the last volume of the first complete
translation of the Rig Veda by H. H. Wilson, another one was published. It was done
by a fellow British indologist, Ralph T. H. Griffith (1826-1906).
Ralph T. H. Griffith translated several of the Vedic scriptures, as well as other ancientSanskrit texts. He based his Rig Veda translation on the Max Müller Sanskrit edition
( Rig-Veda-Samhita : The Sacred Hymns of the Brahman, 1849-74).
Below is the Griffith version of Rig Veda 10:129, taken from the Benares 1897 second
edition volume II of The Hymns of the Rigveda: Translated With a Popular Commentary(p. 575f):
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent : there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth
of water?
2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal : no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature : apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3. Darkness there was : at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and formless : by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in thenon-existent.
5. Transversely was their severing line extended : what was above it then, and what below it?There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.
6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comesthis creation?The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came
into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knowsnot.
Less of Sayana
Compared to the H. H. Wilson version presented previously, Ralph T. H. Griffith has produced a Rig Veda 10:129 translation that is slightly clearer and closer to those of the
following century. But the differences are small. Griffith is familiar with the Wilson Rig
Veda translation, as shown also in a footnote regarding 10:129 (Griffith, p. 575) - but
there he expresses disagreement.
Griffith is not as eager to use the Sayana comments from the 14th century. Instead, he
mainly stays with what the text itself implies and how his own contemporary indologists
interpret it at disputed points.
This makes his language slightly more straightforward and therefore more accessibleto readers of our time.
I can't say, though, that it makes a truer representation of the hymn. For example, I
hesitate at Griffith's version of the One's breathing.
Already by writing "That One Thing," instead of Wilson's "That One" or Max Müller's
"The only One," Griffith implies something that would hardly be in the mind of a Vedic poet: an initial force without a will and conscious intention. A thing. Later in the hymn he
calls it a "Unit."
In a footnote (Griffith, p. 575) he defines That One Thing as "the single primordial
substance, the unit out of which the universe was developed."
To ancient minds, it would be preposterous. How could the world evolve without a
will making it do so? It was possible to an educated mind of the late 19th century, evenmore so in our time, but not so to thinkers of ancient India. To them it would be hard to
understand how things could create things, and impossible to see them give birth to living
beings.
As for the One's breathing, Griffith expresses it in a way that is little more than acontradiction: "breathless, breathed by its own nature." Did it breathe or not? Hardly
both. H. H. Wilson is more clever when stating that the One was "unbreathed upon,"
which simply means that he was the first, and Müller says " breathed breathless in itself,"implying a deity instead of an earthly creature.
But what do Griffith's words suggest? Any breathing being would be doing so by its
own nature - or it would cease to be. Probably, Griffith aims at Müller's solution, but fails
both its clarity and its implications.
The Sea as Chaos
Although in the beginning of his translation mentioning the unfathomed depth of water,
Griffith changes to the word "chaos" in the fourth verse, where both H. H. Wilson and
Max Müller stay with the water. Thereby, he uses a meaning of the word chaos linked toits Greek origin.
What Griffith calls the "indiscriminated chaos" is the primordial sea, present in so
many creation myths as the only eternal thing at the dawn of time. So did the ancient
Greeks use the word, which originally means void or abyss, signifying a gap, an emptyspace yet to be filled.
So, it's not necessarily a sea, although that's the case in most creation myths. It's the
space in which creation is to take place, without which ancient minds could not fathom
the emergence of a world at all. There had to be a where for the when and what to take place.
In Rig Veda 10:129, though, the word used is most definitely one of a body of water,
as indicated by Max Müller and H. H. Wilson. Griffith is jumping to conclusions,
influenced by European tradition.
In the 20th century, he was accompanied in this choice of word by a number of
researchers using Jungian theory as basis for their analysis of ancient myth. Among them,chaos is regarded as synonymous to the primordial sea, a state before the emergence of
the world order as we see it today.
It can't be far from how the poet of Rig Veda 10:129 regarded that initial state, but
substituting the dark water with the concept chaos brings the risk of taking that
interpretation for granted. Also, such terminology conforms creation myths to some kindof standard they may not fit that well.
Polarization of the World
In the fifth verse, what Griffith calls a "severing line" H. H. Wilson described as a ray
and Max Müller calls it a spark. Griffith's choice of word makes it clear that whathappens in creation is a division between high and low, heaven and earth, the powerful
deities above and the mortal beings below.
The latter are little but mere servants of the gods, which is often pointed out in
creation myths. It's a way of admitting how helpless mankind is as fate strikes. Often wehave nothing more to do than hope for the mercy of the mighty powers above.
But Griffith corrupts this simple message in the following lines. The mighty forces are
begetters, alright, and the people on earth are mere victims. But it seems to be
contradicted by "free action here" implying that mankind has a free will that might be
able to change fate and reverse the decrees of the gods. That would be hard for the poetof this hymn to imagine. Griffith probably slips into the Christian view on this issue.
He admits to the problem of these words, calling them obscure in a footnote (Griffith,
p. 576), where he suggests: "An intevening stanza may, perhaps, have been lost."
Nor does the expression "energy up yonder" make much sense. The previoustranslations mention power or might. Energy is a concept that demands definition, and
risks becoming quite anacronistic. An energy is something to be used, but the power
above suggested by Rig Veda 10:129 is in the hands of the heavenly users and no oneelse.
The idea of superior powers in heaven is frequent in creation myths around the world,
as well as in their mythologies. The importance of the sun to life on earth is probably ther
foremost reason for it. Also, in ancient times, the light offered by the moon and thespectacle of the stars may have nourished such views.
Mainly, though, our ancestors needed to explain why they had the ability to act but
still could not control their destinies. The unreachable sky and its mysteries became the
symbol for this earthly inadequacy.
Controlling Eye
Finally, a short note on Griffith's choice of the word "eye" in the last verse. In his versionit's the eye that controls this world, like a guardian. Also H. H. Wilson has an odd way of
expressing the same thing. He calls it a superintendent. Max Müller actually comes rather close to Griffith by calling it "the most high seer."
All three versions make it clear that a guardian of sorts is intended. The highest
divinity, who may have created the whole world, is now satisfied by watching over it.
Thus, the world seems to be regarded in much the same way as the clockwork universeimagined by European deists of the 18th century. In their view, there might have been a
god who created the world, like winding up a clock, but then it just kept on ticking by
itself, governed by the natural laws established at that initial moment.
It's not impossible that the Indian poet of Rig Veda 10:129 had a similar idea, but the
wording of the last verse still suggests that the primordial deity is not just watching the
world like a spectator. He may intervene, when finding reason for it. At the very least, he
is able to do so, with a might none in the earthly world can resist.
In all his might, though, he may still be uncertain about how it all began. Power is not
necessarily accompanied by the same amount of knowledge.
A. A. Macdonell's Version of Rig Veda 10:129
Arthur Anthony Macdonell (1854-1930) was an India born Professor in Sanskrit,
getting his education and professional career in Germany and Great Britain. He was
appointed Boden Professor of Sanskrit in 1899, a position first held by H. H. Wilson,
mentioned above. Among other works he wrote a grammar of Sanskrit and several
books on the Vedic scriptures.
His version of Rig Veda 10:129 below is from the book Hymns from the Rigveda,
printed in India, 1922, as part of The Heritage of India Series. Unfortunately Macdonelldoesn't comment on the hymn, except for two short sentences in the introductory text
preceding his translation of the hymn.
He stresses that Rig Veda 10:129 is "particularly interesting as the starting point of the
evolutionary philosophy represented in later times by the Sankhya system." (Macdonell, p. 16) Sankhya, or Samkhya, is an old school of Hindu philosophy, developed during the
first centuries CE. That's a thousand years later than the Rig Veda 10:129 hymn is
presumed to have been composed.
Macdonell also stresses the literary quality of the hymn, illustrating "how philosophical speculation can be clothed in poetry of no mean order." (Macdonell, p. 18).
I have seen no opposition to this praise elsewhere. Here is his English version of the
hymn:
Rig Veda, Mandala 10, hymn CXXIX. Creation.
Nasadiya Sukta ("Not the non-existent")
1. Non-being then existed not nor being:There was no air, nor sky that is beyond it.What was concealed? Wherein? In whose protection? And was there deep unfathomable water?
2. Death then existed not nor life immortal;Of neither night nor day was any token. By its inherent force the One breathed windless: No other thing than that beyond existed.
3. Darkness there was at first by darkness hidden;Without distinctive marks, this all was water.That which, becoming, by the void was covered,That One by force of heat came into being.
4. Desire entered the One in the beginning: It was the earliest seed, of thought the product.The sages searching in their hearts with wisdom, Found out the bond of being in non-being.
5. Their ray extended light across the darkness:
But was the One above or was it under?Creative force was there, and fertile power: Below was energy, above was impulse.
6. Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it?Whence was it born, and whence came this creation?The gods were born after this world's creation:Then who can know from whence it has arisen?
7. None knoweth whence creation has arisen; And whether he has or has not produced it;
He who surveys it in the highest heaven, He only knows, or haply he may know not.
New Clarity
It may be an illusion created by this translation being several decades younger than theones presented above, but Macdonell's version from 1922 stands out with its clarity and
straightforwardness. Already in the first line, he introduces being and non-being, where
both Wilson and Griffith have somewhat elaborate solutions with existent and non-
existent. Perhaps a slight Shakespearean influence has touched Macdonell in this choice.
In the following, he uses concealed instead of covered and protection instead of
shelter. That adds precision to the statements of the hymn, eliminating some alternateinterpretations of these lines.
The One that Has to Be
As for the One, Macdonell writes that it breathed windless by its inherent force. That's an
interesting solution. This primordial deity did breathe, that is to say it was alive, but it
needed no air. Its inherent force is an expression coming close to Griffith's "by its own
nature."
Both imply an existence out of some inner necessity. It is there because something like
it has to be. There has to be One to begin with, since there would be no beginning with
none. In ancient thought, the whole world over, agents of creation had to have the will bywhich to make it happen, which also means they had to be creatures able to will. Not just
things or impersonal natural laws.
So, at the dawn of time there had to be somebody initiating the creation process. Themystery is what reason this original One might have had for it, and what power that
primordial being had at its command. Here it's indicated that this power of being and
doing is out of logical necessity. If there had been no such One in the beginning, there
would have been no creation. Since there was one, creation had to take place, eventually.
Darkness Hidden by DarknessThe darkness hidden by darkness is a paradox pointed out also in the previous
translations, although with slightly different wordings. It's a powerful description of a
primordial chaotic state. Also, it's plain logic: without any light anywhere, how to perceive the lack of it, or the darkness as such? Only when things are divided into
opposites are theirs traits recognizable.
This original state is described as water, the primordial sea found in so many creation
myths. In Macdonell's wording, the universe before creation is one where everything isfloating, without border, without anything by which to tell it apart from anything else. A
melting pot of everything yet to emerge.
Springing into Action
The concept of a melting pot is almost suggested by the heat that makes the One come
into being. In previous translations, it's not as clear as in Macdonell's wording that the
One is created out of this chaos. Their versions make it possible that the One existed
already in the primordial chaotic state, although passive. That's really also how one must
read the previous verse in Macdonell's translation.
He may have jumped to conclusions here. The One must have existed in some way before the creation commenced, or he would not have been able to administer it. He
would just be part of it.
Instead, what the heat accomplishes is that the One springs into action. Almost like an
explosion. As the temperature rose, for no other reason than the potential of the initialstate, things started to happen and the void of the primordial sea was divided into
distinguishable parts.
What drives the One to begin and pursue the act of creation is desire, an emotion
signified by heat. Heat is to inanimate nature what desire is to a conscious creature. Inother words: what begins as desire is expressed by heat.
This desire is one to create. It's the fuel of will-power, a wish to make somethinghappen, which has to forego the actual making. This is also what the previous versions of
Rig Veda 10:129 suggest, maybe with more distinction than that of Macdonell. It's alsowhat the sages realized: non-being contains the seed of being, the former leading to the
latter as soon as there is intention.
Their Ray
Next comes a ray that somehow divides the world into the above and the below.Macdonell speaks of it as "their ray" and so does Wilson. Griffith calls it "their severing
line." Of the translators previously presented, only Max Müller chooses an impersonal
origin: "this spark."
To whom the ray belongs according to the others is unclear. Are the owners or originators of the ray, with Macdonell's words, being and non-being, or the sages, or the
seed of desire and the One in which that seed appeared? The only thing that makes some
kind of sense is that the ray is produced by the relation between being and non-being. If so, it can be called a spark of potential: it appears because being must emerge out of non-
being.
That fits with the general idea of the hymn, focusing on the paradox of creation. Rig
Veda 10:129 seems to repeatedly state that creation was unavoidable, a natural necessity,simply because there could be no non-being without its opposite, being. Plato and
Aristotle would have enjoyed discussing it with the poet of this hymn.
In Macdonell's version, this ray becomes the divider of the world into high and low,
but then he asks on what side the One might be. None of the other translators ask thesame question, but seem to take for granted that the One is above – or perhaps beyond.
It's hard to see how the One, initiating the process of creation, can become a victim of it.
So, Macdonell might be at mistake here, although he is clear about the rest of thedivision, putting the creative force above and its manifestation below.
As for the rest of the hymn, Macdonell's version doesn't contradict the others.
English Versions of Rig Veda 10:129
The Rig Veda (which can be translated to something like Verses of Wisdom) is a
massive body of texts, divided into ten part, refered to as mandala, which in turn
consist of numerous hymns. The first Western translation of any part of it was toLatin, by Friedrich August Rosen in 1830. The first complete translation was in
English, made by H. H. Wilson, who published it in six volumes over the years 1850-
88.
The year after the release of H. H. Wilson's last volume, in 1889, another complete
translation into English was published - that of Ralph T. H. Griffith. Both have had later editions, revised by later indologists. The Wilson and Griffith works are still the only
complete English translations.
There's not a myriad of complete translations into other Western languages, either. In
1951-57, Karl Friedrich Geldner published a German version, which was used for a
Russian version in 1989-99. So far, that's it.
As for the English versions, they were heavily dependent on the sanskrit edition of the
Rig Veda compiled by Max Müller between 1849 and 1874, whereof the 10th mandala
was published in 1862 ( Rig-Veda-Samhita¯ : The Sacred Hymns of the Bra¯hman,volume 4). Müller was also editor of the 50 volumes Sacred Books of the East , published
between 1879 and 1910, containing translations of most Asian classics of philosophy and
religion.
Although Max Müller's sanskrit edition of Rig Veda doesn't include an Englishtranslation, except for fragments in comments and footnotes, he did publish an English
version of Rig Veda 10:129 in his book A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature from1859.
The most frequently used English translations of that hymn today are Griffith's version
and that of A. L. Basham in The Wonder That Was India from 1954. In this presentation
of Rig Veda 10:129, I use those as well as Max Müller's, H. H. Wilson's, and a few others
for comparison. They are not that different, but where they diverge there's reason for caution, especially where fundamental ideas contained in the hymn are concerned.
Frankly, I find that we are in need of a renewed translation of the hymn, where
preconceptions of an often ethnocentric nature are removed. All the classics have the problem that translators need to interpret them by means of a context belonging to their
time and culture instead of that of the original text. Otherwise, the translated text would
be very difficult for contemporary readers to grasp. But that also leads to the content andideas of the source text being distorted, especially when a translation remains past the
The 19th century, which brought us many translation of classics from around the
world, was one of industrial imperialism and Christian missionary activities expanding all
over the globe. Anthropology and ethnography accompanied these ambitions closely. For example, the fact that the pioneering transmittance of the Indian classics was done in
Britain is of no surprise, since in those days India belonged to the British Empire.
The British were curious about the exotic Indian culture they regared as part of their
domain, and the scholars were genuinely impressed by what they found. But they camefrom the Empire and they were molded by a Christian society, so they perceived and
described their findings accordingly. In spite of their admiration for Eastern traditional
thought, they continued to regard other cultures and religions as primitive in comparisonto their own, as if not yet having reached the same level of evolution.
Max Müller, who was quite instrumental in presenting Indian and other Eastern
classics to the West, expressed a firm belief in monotheism as an expression of a more
advanced human mind than that of polytheism - but he did oppose the sort of Darwinian
idea that it could not be fathomed by others than later generations of humanity. In the RigVeda, he saw several examples of monotheism from times preceding the establishment of
that idea even in the Christian world. Therefore, he warned against assuming that thedevelopment from polytheism into monotheism, which might be accurate for the
European history, would readily apply to the East. He compared what he called the
Semitic tradition to that of the Aryan in ancient India:
"Whereas the Semitic nations relapsed from time to time into polytheism, the Aryansof India seem to have relapsed into Monotheism. In both cases these changes were not the
result of a gradual and regular process, but of individual impulses and peculiar
influences." ( A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.558-9)
Still, in his relation to the texts he studied, he proved quite convinced of monotheismas intellectually superior, which may be why he spelled it with a capital initial letter but
polytheism not, in the quote above. It's particularly evident in his comments on Rig Veda
10:129 in the same book (p. 559-68).
The other English translators were from the very same epoque and society, so theexisting complete versions of Rig Veda must be regarded with this in mind. These men
from the same society are likely to have interpreted Rig Veda in a similar fashion, which
may in parts deviate substantially from the intentions of the original texts - as well asfrom how we would understand them, if we were to make independent translations today.
Due to its popularity, the Rig Veda 10:129 has been translated several times since the
19th century. Frequently used translations in texts on the hymn are those by A. A.
Macdonell ( Hymns From the Rigveda, London 1922), A. L. Basham (The Wonder That Was India, London 1954, p. 247-8, with later revisions), and Wendy O'Flaherty (The Rig Veda: An Anthology, 108 Hymns Translated from the Sanskrit , Harmondsworth 1981).
This hymn is from [R.V.10.129]. I have drawn heavily on the translation by Ralph T.H.Griffith for this article.
It is a "cosmology" hymn, that seeks to explain the origin of creation. Briefly, it describes
the chaos that preceded creation, when there was neither death nor immortality. From this
chaos, the "One", animated by its own impulse, breathed and came into existence. Fromthe unfathomable depths of water, from the darkness of the cosmic void, emerged this
spirit, animated by desire.
It goes on to say how the wise seers are able to perceive the kinship between being and
non-being (that are separated merely by a thin line) by searching their heart for wisdom.They see the seminal powers that create the mighty, fertile forces. They see the impulse
above the line and strength below.
It ends with a rather startling refrain. "After all, who really knows what happened and
who can presume to tell it? What is the origin of creation? For, even the Gods themselvesare younger than it. He whether he created it or did not, He who surveys it all from the
highest heaven, He knows - or maybe even he does not!"
This end-refrain, where it leaves open the possibility that even the Supreme being may be
ignorant of the mystery of creation, makes it rather unique among the creation songs.
1. Then was neither being nor non-being; there was no realm of air nor sky beyond. What
covered it, and where? what sheltered it? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2. Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal; no sign was there, nor day's and
night's divider. That One being, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it therewas nothing else.
3. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness all was indiscriminate chaos. All that
existed then was void and formless: by the great power of warmth was born that unit.
4. Thereafter rose desire in the beginning, desire, the primal seed and germ of spirit.
Seers who searched their heart for wisdom discovered the kinship between the being andnon-being.
5. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below
it? There were seminal begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energyup yonder.
6.Who knows and who can say, whence it was born and whence came this creation? The
Gods are later than this world's creation. Who knows then whence it first came into
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not, He who surveys
it all from his highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps even he does not!
Of course, just like any other Sukta, what has been given here is merely the gist of itsliteral meaning. There are many commentaries that attribute a much deeper significance
to this hymn and explain each term in great detail, but some of them use really "creative"interpretation of the words to arrive at their conclusions.
There is a really good poetic translation of this Sukta that can be found here.
It is He who by His greatness became the One King of the breathing and the seeing, who
is the Lord of man and bird and beast.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?It is He through whose glory the snow-clad mountains rose, and the ocean spread with the
river, they say. His arms are the quarters of the sky.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings ?It is He through whom the heaven is strong and the earth firm, who has steadied the light
and the sky's vault, and measured out the sphere of clouds in the mid-region.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offering?It is He to whom heaven and earth, placed in the light by his grace, look up, radiant with
the mind while over them the sun, rising, brightly shines.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
When the mighty waters came, carrying the universal germ, producing the flame of life,then dwelt there in harmony the One Spirit of the Devas.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
It is He who in his might surveyed the waters, conferring skill and creating worship - He,
the God of gods, the One and only One.>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
Father of the world - may He not destroy us who with Truth as his Law made the heavensand produced waters, vast and beautiful.
>->Who is the deity we shall worship with our offerings?
Lord of creation! No one other than thee pervades all these that have come into being.May that be ours, for which our prayers rise, may we be masters of many treasures!
4. In the cosmic mind, all pervadingDesire, the primal seed made its first appearance
And the wise men, seeking deep in their heart
Could see the link between ‘that is’ and ‘that is not’.5. Reins of the link, a grid of crisscross lines,Holds all the seeds and mighty forces,
Microcosmic forces within
And macro forces out above.
6. Who really knows, who can declareWhen it started or where from?
And where will the creation end?
Seekers and sought entered later –
And so who knows when all this manifested?
7. That one, out of which the creation cameMay hold the reins or not,
Perceiving all from above, That one alone
Knows the beginning – may not know too.
But Veda is not only poetry; it also goes deep into the cause of the events taking place inthe universe and unveils the facts. Modern cosmology tells us that the universe started
with a ‘Big Bang’. Let us compare these verses with the statements of the Big Bang
theory and assess the scientific approach manifested in Veda.Let me confess at the beginning, I could not do justice to the poetic beauty of the original. I could not do justice
to the poetic beauty of the original. In just seven verses, we find ourselves in the ‘no time,
no space’ mode, gradually reaching the center of deep darkness, surrounded by smooth,
unending plasma. And lo! Out of shapeless nothing, matter with shape emerges. Thewhole description is picturesque. Poetry is said to be a window with a frame of words and
through this window, we see beyond time and place. Surely these verses awaken the poet
in us and make us see far, far beyond.
The beginning and the first moments as described by the big bang theory and the
statements from Nasadiya Sukta are given side-by-side for easy comparison:
Time Sequence Cosmology Rig Veda
Beginning of time There is no physics. Theorycannot account for conditions
10-32 seconds after Big Bang The inflationary mode ends,having made the universe
smooth and almost
homogenous. Matter, anti-matter, and radiation are a
bubbling opaque stew
And an uninterruptedcontinuum of fluid.(2nd line of
3rd Verse)
10-4 seconds after big bang Universe expands. Matter andanti-matter annihilate each
other. There is slightly more
matter and this excess
comprises the matter in theuniverse today forming
galaxies.
Out came in material formand shape That One lying
deep inside, on its own
intent(Last 2 lines of 3rd
Verse)
It can be seen that the modern science is saying the same thing what Rig Veda declaredearlier.
Rig Veda says in the sixth verse, who will know and who can declare when and where
from it all started since we, the seekers were not there and also the causative forces were
not present. They came later. Even gravity broke away from the presumed unified forcelater. Veda makes it clear that so long you are in search of the causative forces only, you
will not get the answer. The same view is expressed by Robert Jastrow (internationally
known astronomer and authority on life in cosmos; founder and director of NASA’s
Goddard Institute of Space Studies), in his book “God and the Astronomers”. Theessence of the mathematical calculations and scientific observations in to the galaxies is:
The universe has a beginning – that it began at a certain moment in time, under circumstances that seem to make it impossible – jot just now, but ever – to find out whatforce or forces brought the world into being at that moment. The famous British theorist,
Edward Milne, wrote a mathematical treatise on relativity and he concluded by saying:
“As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, that is left to the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.”
Will the universe eventually stop expanding and start contracting or will it expand
forever? Stephen W. Hawking, famous theoretical physicist of the present day, says in his
book “A Brief History Time”: “If the density of the matter in the universe is greater thanthe critical value, gravity will stop the expansion at some time in the future” . As we are
not in a position at present to calculate the density even to an approximation, we cannot
answer the question. Robert Jastrow confirms there is a theory in the scientific worldenvisaging a cosmos that oscillates forever passing through infinite number of moments
of creation in a never-ending cycle of birth, death and repetition. This has the advantage
of being able to answer the question – What preceded the explosion? (In his book “God
and the Astronomers”). Veda also says that this creation and its ending is a repetitivecycle.
Modern cosmology, on the basis of available evidence, envisages the end will come in
darkness. Beginning follows the end. Veda describes the beginning in the same way –
darkness concealed in darkness was the state of things.
Cosmology limits its search and research to material universe only. Is molecule simply a
sum of its atoms? Ca n we define an atom as only a group of electrons and protons? Manis not a bundle of flesh and bones only? Herbert Reeves, the famous astrophysicist, after
discussing about the primordial force of Big Bang and subsequent distinct forces likegravity, asks a relevant question: “Did not the universe, somewhere, aim at achieving
self-awareness through the creation of human mind?” (His article in Figaro-Magazine of
February 1983) The answer is available in Rig Veda for all thinkers of all ages. Theanswer does not limit human beings only, but extends to all animate and inanimate
worlds. Cosmic mind and primordial desire appeared on the scene. Desire entered the
mind. Seeds and forces, we know and will know are manifested. These ‘seeds’ for germination (also procreation) and the ‘forces’ to keep all matter into cohesive shapes,
spread throughout to transform into macro and micro worlds.
The cosmic mind is also mentioned as Prajapati in other Suktas. In Satapatha Brahmana
(6-1-1-8) it is stated – “prajaapati rakaamayata”, meaning Prajapati desired. Cosmic minddesired and it happened. Same is the case in the microcosmic world of human body. We
desire, act and incidents take place.
Every object has not only a mechanical formula but also purpose. All are purposive in
tune with the all-pervading purposiveness around. This can only be explained byaccepting that the cosmic mind and its forces are all-pervading, within also. The human
mind perceives (Vedic word for this is “pasya”) to find out their purpose. Why should we
have this desire? Because human mind also emerged from the same cosmic mind and the
desire is part of that primal desire. Thus Veda not only defines and describes all“containers” in this universe, but also their “contents”.
The Kavi, Rishi or Wiseman seeking deep in his heart could see the link since both the
physical and spiritual hearts (“known” to him) are there. Veda says that is the way to“see” and know.
The last verse is more profound in its meaning. That One, the “author” of all events
should know the beginning. Veda says That One also may not know! That breathless One
is breathing on its own. The beginning of universe, its expansion, demise and re-emergence – entire process is like involuntary inhaling and exhaling. If someone puts a
question to any other one, when did you start that particular inhalation, the obvious
answer will be – I do not know. It is a continuous process of which I hardly take noticeof. The process is a continuum. Beginning and end are relevant to us, parts and parcels of
universe. We float and sink in the ocean of time but not that continuous flow of events or
its “author”.
Veda explains all natural phenomena (a) in a poetical manner, appealing to the estheticmind, (b) gives details in a practical prosaic way to satisfy the pragmatic, down-to-the-
earth mind, and also (c) discusses the philosophic approach to meet the demand of the
spiritual seeking mind. The knowledge is communicated to all the three facets of the
ever-inquisitive human mind, effectively. That is the way the timeless book speaks.
Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda)
When we were 20 years younger, Doordarshan telecasted a serial named “Bharat Ek Khoj”. This serial had a beautiful lyric which was aired during title sequence and at end
This poem composed by Vanraj Bhatia for Shyam Benegal’s TV serial was actually
translation of 1st and 7th verse respectively of 129th Hymn of the 10th Book of Rig Veda.This Rig Vedic hymn was composed by Rishi Parmesthi Prajapati and it talks about the
origin of the universe. Yes, this musing about the puzzle of universe has a history, which
extends up to the RigVeda age!
This hymn is known as Nasadiya Sukta, having got its name from the first word of thehymn i.e. Nasadasinno. The hymn contains total 7 verses. Let us go through it. We will
see two translations of each verse, one by Ralf Griffith and other by Swami Vivekanand.
Griffith’s translation of Rig Veda is widely used, whereas Swami Vivekanand’stranslation is necessary to understand meaning of verses from Indian line of thinking, of
which western translators are not supposed to have a correct understanding always.
moving away from us. From this observation it has been deducted that universe is
expanding and, as it is expanding, once upon a time, it is calculated to be 13.7 billion
years ago, the Universe started expanding from infinitesimally small state. This is Big-Bang theory, the most acceptable scientific theory of origin of universe.
Let us give a glance on main premise and findings of the Big Bang Theory-
1. There was a “beginning” of our Universe.
2. It started from infinitesimally small, infinitely hot and infinitely dense state. This
state has been given a name – “singularity”.
3. After coming into existence, it started expanding and is expanding till date.
4. From where “singularity” came, why it came, where it appeared etc is unknown.
5. The singularity did not appeared in space, as space was not there in beginning. Infact, space began inside the “singularity”. Before singularity there was nothing- neither
space, nor time, nothing.
As neither Nasadiya Sukta nor Big Bang Theory claims to have solved the mystery of the
creation of the Universe, rather Nasadiya Sukta expresses a big doubt that whether we
would ever be able to solve the mystery, when it expresses “perhaps even He known not
(verse 7)”, the quest will be on. But what is really interesting is the convergence of thoughts of Rig Vedic rishis and modern scientist in the quest, despite adopting radically
different methodologies and despite being separated by a time span of 10,000 years. Also,
how wonderful is the proclamation in a religious book that “God was created after the
creation of Universe”!
-Deepesh
Neither Being nor non-Being existed then;There was no sky, nor heaven, which is beyond. What covered? Where was it and in whose shelter? Was the water the deep abyss in which it lay? [1]
There was no death, hence neither was anything immortal;
There was no distinction between night and day.By its inherent force the One breathed windless;Nothing other than that existed. [2]
Darkness there was,In the beginning all this was a sea without light;That which, becoming, by the void was covered,That One by the force of heat came into being. [3]
Desire entered the One in the beginning,It was the earliest seed, the product of thought.The Sages searching in their hearts with wisdomFound the bond of Being in non-Being. [4]
Their ray extended light across the darkness;But was the One below or was it above?Creative force and fertile power was there;Below was energy and will, above. [5]
W ho knows for certain? Who shall declare it here? When was it born and when came the creation?The Devas came later, Who then knows whence it arose? [6]
None knows when creation has arisen; Whether He made it or did not make it,He who surveys it in the highest heaven,Only He knows, or maybe even He knows not! [7]
[Trans. Raimundo Pannikar]
The Nasadiya Sukta
The Nasadiya Sukta is another very famous hymn from the tenth book of the Rigveda. Itis actually named after the first word in the hymn (nasadasin, meaning "non-Being
was"), and attributed to Sage Parameshti Prajapati. This hymn is often referred to as theHymn of Creation for obvious reasons. The basic meaning of the Nasadiya Sukta is fairly
easy to grasp, but the importance of this hymn to the development of monistic thought
cannot be stressed enough. This Nasadiya Sukta is sometimes considered the first writtenevidence of monistic thought.
The hymn mentions quite clearly that that which "exists" before the beginning isneither Being nor non-Being. In later monistic philosophy, that which is neitherBeing nor non-Being is referred to as Nirguna Brahman (in Vedanta) orParamashiva (in Tantra), and the individual Atman is equated with that essentialUltimate Reality. Perhaps most importantly, the Nasadiya Sukta leaves us withsomething to think about: perhaps only He who surveys from the highest of heavens knows how creation has arisen, or perhaps He does not!
