nAsadIya sUktaM (Hymn of creation) (Page 1 of 5)

Thanks CML, SR.

The Nasadiya Suktam is so much consistent, even if metaphorically, with the current quantum cosmology hypothesis/speculations on what happened at time zero..  Scientific theories themselves have not gotten to that time zero yet, though theories of what happened very very shortly afterwords exist. The hypothesis is it is a choatic event arisen due to the nature of the uncertainty inherent in the quantum vacuum state.

Statement like 'That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.' and 'he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.' are how quantum states can be described in normal language. 'darkness concealed in the dark' is a puzzling statement in itself. Also, this clearly states that both Time and Space did not exist before creation, but something existed outside of Time and Space. So that 'One, breathless breathing by its own nature' is a very apt natural language metaphor for a quantum vacuum state.

I do not want to go willy nilly compare our creation hymns to the whatever the latest scientific theory is but I could not resist this one.

SR
Please don't quote the whole passage to add a couple of comments. Interested person will read what is above and a simple citation is enough. Do add your view point and any additional quotes which is not cited.  Thank you...

VK/SR

There is a lot of debate about Mind vs Matter. Physics can probe the mysteries of matter. But it cannot probe mind if mind is unrelated to matter. To understand what happened before creation physics cannot help since it is based on what we know about the properties of matter. Quantum Physics still deals with matter but postulates 'beahviour' that cannot be observed but whose outcome can be observed. Hence mathematical formulations which are validated by 'material behaviour' are accepted as valid theories. But as humans we are capable of creating theories which 'cannot' be validated by outcomes. These are in the realms of fantasies which belong to 'abnormal mental conditions'. The concept of God 'who cannot be observed' (nirguNabrhamam) belongs to that area. saguNabrahmam can of course be observed and vaidated (so far we have not succeeded entirely).

The crucial sentence in the sukta is
so aN^ga veda yadi vA na veda|
which is the undecidable. Since if He knows it then He becomes a saguNabrahmam and eventually 'we' will get to know it. If He is nirguNabrahmam then even He does not know it and we will never know it too! Hence that is the 'undecidable'!

VK

These discussions will take us deep into the concepts of Hindu Philosophy. Some of the answers (not all!) are inthe Brahma sutra. I do not profess to know them except sporadically. I will try my best!

>>That is a prety strong statement, CML. May be I am not catching the drift, do you then imply that the concept of nirguNabrhamam is a fantasy and a result of 'abnormal mental conditions'? Pl. clarify..<<

GuNa means characteristic; it may be material or non material (mental for example). Our mind comprehends everything only through their characteristics. We make analogies (consciously and unconsciously) based on our experience (and at times based on the experiences of those we trust) to understand everything. Suppose someone claims that he has seen God. Then we query him about  God's characteristics and if he is unable explain (logically) we designate him 'mental case' as they said about Ramakrishna Parmahamsa in his early days. This discriminatory power of knowing through the characteristics is 'knowledge' (or veda in sanskrit). Now veda also denotes the process of knowing. In other words we know through the process of knowing what is to be known (God) through his characteristics. But this is the lower level of knowledge (which is easy and attainable for all and is what is called 'bhakti yoga' by  Lord Sri Krishna). Ultimately we wish to know the God who has no characteristics (nirgunabrahmam) by getting rid of our knowledge of all charcteristics pertaining to God. Now if God has no characteristics then how did he create the characteristics. Again he also must know the process of recognizing characteristics. So he does have at least the characteristic of knowing characteristics or he knew the vedas. Already we have started going around in circles. So we may postulate that God is neither a knower of 'existance of creation'(sat AsIt) nor a  not-knower of 'non existance of creation'  (na asat AsIt)(whence the name nAsAdIya sUktam).

The concepts in this sUkta are consistent with the Sankhya philosophy (of kapila) where he postulates a total dichotomy between the ptakriti (the physical universe) and the PuruSha (God); the God is independent and unaware of the physical universe and the universe operates on its own without any input from God! If you accept that then you should be indifferent to God (as the Communists say ' We are not interested in God since he is not a negotiable commodity')

"&#3208; &#3253;&#3263;&#3253;&#3263;&#3239; &#3256;&#3267;&#3255;&#3277;&#3231;&#3263;&#3247;&#3265; &#3247;&#3262;&#3253;&#3240;&#3263;&#3202;&#3238; &#3209;&#3236;&#3277;&#3242;&#3240;&#3277;&#3240;&#3253;&#3262;&#3223;&#3263;&#3238;&#3270;&#3247;&#3275;, &#3205;&#3253;&#3240;&#3265; &#3205;&#3238;&#3240;&#3277;&#3240;&#3265; &#3239;&#3262;&#3248;&#3235; &#3246;&#3262;&#3233;&#3263;&#3221;&#3274;&#3202;&#3233;&#3263;&#3238;&#3277;&#3238;&#3262;&#3240;&#3270;. &#3205;&#3237;&#3253;&#3262; &#3239;&#3262;&#3248;&#3235; &#3246;&#3262;&#3233;&#3263;&#3221;&#3274;&#3251;&#3277;&#3251;&#3238;&#3263;&#3238;&#3277;&#3238;&#3262;&#3223; &#3242;&#3277;&#3248;&#3251;&#3247; &#3246;&#3262;&#3233;&#3265;&#3236;&#3277;&#3236;&#3262;&#3240;&#3270;. &#3206;&#3221;&#3262;&#3254;&#3238;&#3250;&#3277;&#3250;&#3263;&#3248;&#3265;&#3253; &#3247;&#3262;&#3247;&#3240;&#3265; &#3207;&#3238;&#3248; &#3205;&#3239;&#3277;&#3247;&#3221;&#3277;&#3255;&#3240;&#3275;, &#3205;&#3253;&#3240;&#3240;&#3277;&#3240;&#3265; &#3246;&#3263;&#3236;&#3277;&#3248;&#3240;&#3271;! &#3240;&#3264;&#3240;&#3265; &#3218;&#3202;&#3238;&#3265; &#3253;&#3271;&#3251;&#3270; &#3236;&#3263;&#3251;&#3263;&#3247;&#3238;&#3263;&#3238;&#3277;&#3238;&#3248;&#3270; &#3236;&#3263;&#3251;&#3263;&#3238;&#3265;&#3221;&#3275;!"

Is everyone able to read the kannaDa baraha font?

Yes, I can read it as well and Suji's quote has the kannada text in regular, non-bold font.

VK

In my view Maths is nothing other than playing with symbols according to set rules. The rules are the axiom systems and the 'admissible' opertions. The incompleteness of such a system was proved by Godel. In other words there are always 'undecidables' in any axiom systems and hence elevating Maths to a level of superiority is unwarranted. The logical systems of which 'language' is a subset is equally a valid approach. Our ancient seers adopted 'language' (sUtra) as the means of logical inference. Brahmasutra is one such monumental work. In that system 'God' is the undecidable. You need the metalogic to grasp Him. That idea is succinctly expressed in the 'nAsAdIya sUktam'.

While the western philosophers were tied down to the deductive approach which is closed(based on the Euclidean Geometry!) we Indians always took the inductive approach which is open. An example is the Paninian grammar which tried to compact sanskrit language (but failed to incorporate vedic language (as SR legitiamtely points out)). Codification kills creativity. That again is one of the banes of our CM wherein we rigidly demand classicism. If we permit the 'inductive' approach there is scope for expansion and new visions. I realize now I am digressing!

I thought this might interest people who havent heard about it. It is taken from an editorial published in The Matrix Fans website (though not related wholly to the language-discussions of this thread)

Verses from the Upanishads used in the film "Matrix Revolutions":

asato ma sad gamaya
tamaso ma jyotir gamaya
mrtyor mamrtam gamaya   

From delusion lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality   
   
vidyam cavidyam ca yas
tad vedobhayam saha
avidyaya mrtyum tirtva
vidyayamrtam asnute   

He who knows both knowledge and action, with action overcomes death and with knowledge reaches immortality.   
   
yasmin dyauh prthivi cantariksam otam manah saha pranais ca sarvaih tam evaikam janatha atmanam anya vacah vimuncatha amrtasya esah setuh   

In him are woven the sky and the earth and all the regions of the air, and in him rest the mind and all the powers of life. Know him as the ONE and leave aside all other words. He is the bridge of immortality.   
   
indriyebhyah param mano
manasah sattvam uttamam
sattvad adhi mahan atma
mahato vyaktam uttamam   

Beyond the senses is the mind, and beyond the mind is reason, its essence. Beyond reason is the Spirit in man, and beyond this is the Spirit of the Universe, the evolver of all.   
   
yada pancavatisthante
jnanani manasa saha
buddhis ca na vicestate
tam ahuh paramam gatim   

When the five senses and the mind are still, and reason itself rests in silence, then begins the Path supreme.   
   
Ya ya ya ya yada yadaya
Ya ya ya ya yada yada yada yada
Yada yada yada yada yada        
   

bhidyate hrdayagranthis
chidyante sarvasamsayah
ksiyante casya karmani
tasmin drste paravare   

And when he is seen in his immanence and transcendence, then the ties that have bound the heart are unloosened, the doubts of the mind vanish, and the law of Karma works no more   
   

These are the lyrics to Neodammerung, the epic music that plays throughout the Superbrawl. The original language is sanskrit.

I believe the first three lines sum up the trilogy.

"From delusion lead me to truth" - in the first film Neo becomes aware of the truth about his reality, and escapes the delusion of the Matrix

"From darkness lead me to light" - in Reloaded Neo is enlightened about the true nature of the Matrix.
"From death lead me to immortality" - In Revolutions Neo dies in the real world, but his mind is immortalised in the Source.

Smith's deletion completes the Hindu allegory present throughout the film. The Source manifests itself in the Matrix as white light.

This excerpt from the Brihadâranyaka Upanishad describes the death process of the enlightened:

"When consciousness that is in the eye turns back, the dying man no longer sees any form. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not see. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not smell. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not taste. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not speak. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not hear. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not think or touch or know."

The Smith that Neo becomes does nothing, he does not think or touch or know. Neo has

"The point of his heart lights up, and by that light the Self departs, either through the eye, or the skull, or through some other door of the body."

I think this way of looking at things is more near home than others. The limitation we have as "humans" is that we look at things in terms of time and space and dichotomies. We can only percieve and understand through our senses. It is "Impossible" to think otherwise except by giving up all shackles of science and human limitation by meditating on "That Supreme".

For example, I find it impossible to imagine  a "limitless/boundless" universe that is "expanding". ANd if I try to imagine a universe with boundary/end, which in itself is immense beyond imagination, I cannot fathom what is beyond it. A simpler example much closer home and easier to understand:- we see everything in colour and that is how "It is" as far as we are concerned. But most other animals and insects see everything in black and white and as far as they are concerned, that "is how it is". To us, their perception is limited. And to all those animals, "Our perception" is confounding and falsely copmplex. Now who is to decide which is "true" to original. Perhaps neither. Maybe everything that we percieve is distorted and false. Which could well be the origin of the concept of "mAyA".

God is beyond dichotomies and hence the question of "know" and "not know" is redundant. Because if "That" "knows" then there is possibly something that "That" does "Not know" which is impossible if God is "Allpervading" and "omniscient" Our language is created for our convenience and thus has all limitations that our faculties impose. Or perhaps it is our "interpretations" that are limited and not the language per se.

We cannot impose our limitations on God. This is what our SAstras and vEdas say- that God is "dESakAlAtIta". This is exactly the same as "beyond time and space". Hence "That" is nirguNa.

so aN^ga veda yadi vA naveda|
deserves a lexical analysis. here is a word by word meaning!
so = saH = He
aN^ga = indeed/verily
veda = I/he knew (past perfect); also means I/he know(s) (present tense; but this usage is in the classical sanskrit and cannot be applied to the vedic sanskrit!)
yadi = if
vA = or
na = not

The sentence literally translates to
'he indeed (knew) if not (knew)'

Hence Griffith's translation
'he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. ' fits if we make allowance for his use of classical sanskrit (knows for knew) and equating perhaps to 'doubtful if'.

Dayananda's
'know Him if thou dost not know him.'
does not fit since the verb is not in the imperative second person (viddhi).

Now let us see whether the 'first person' makes any sense here. let us take 'so aN^ga' as complete in itself when it would mean
He indeed/verily (is) (the verb is implied)
In otherwords the author (bharadvAja) admits that He exists (whatever be the controversy about his creation or non creation of the world).
Now the latter part is
I knew if or I not knew
or I knew (Him) or if I did not know (Him).
Or in other words the seer doubts his knowledge or non-knowledge of Him who indeed exists (whether he created the world or not). I believe this explanation is logical and consistent with the theistic faith of the vedic seers (cf. the puruShssUktam..' vEdAhamEtam puruSham mahAntaM..."

Or in summary these final words are the expression of faith by the seer on the existance of the Almighty and an expression of doubt regarding his comprehension of Him irrespective of the fact of creation!

CML guNa is attribute, AkAra is form - right?

vedas are considered 'apauruShaM' meaning not created by 'man'. The vedic seer (see--> seer) is the mantra draShTa (d^Rish=see), he is the one who 'discovers' it through meditation! The same word became 'pArppAn' (pArppavan =one who sees) which became 'pAppAn' (now used in the derogatory sense ). (from the talks of parmaachaarya...)

The Iranian (and Greek connections) are fascinating and worth investigating. But vedic sanskrit is native to India and not borrowed from those sources. It is equally likely words found in those languages may have found their way from sanskrit!(while westerners prefer it the other way around!)

That is new... and I like it very much!!