Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d<\/p>\n
There are, I think, at least six important points in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129 on which there is disagreement among translators. Despite collecting more than thirty English translations of this hymn, I was unable to find any one translation that understood all six of these the way I understand them. This at last caused me to undertake a new translation, in order to have what I regard as an adequate basis for comparison with the Book of Dzyan. Before giving my translation, I here list these six important points and how I have understood them. The first two of these differ from almost all the translations known to me (but not from the two Sanskrit commentaries of S\u0101ya\u1e47a), the next two differ from most of the previous translations, and the last two differ from more or less than half of them. There are, of course, differences on a number of other points as well (e.g., the meaning of rajas in 1b), sometimes also significant (e.g., the meaning of tapas in 3d). How I understood them may be seen in the translation notes. The six important points of difference are:<\/p>\n
(1) In the second half of verse 3, the \u201cone\u201d (ekam) that was born is the germ (\u0101bhu) of verse 3, not \u201cthat one\u201d (tad ekam) that breathed without air of verse 2. The word that I and some others have taken as a germ (a very rare word of uncertain meaning), also described as \u201cone,\u201d is here understood to be distinct from \u201cthat one\u201d itself. This makes a subtle but philosophically quite significant distinction. Following the natural grammatical construal of the standard yat-tat pronoun correlative found in this line, this verse says only that the germ is born, and applies the adjective \u201cone\u201d to it. Unless the germ is taken to be completely identical with \u201cthat one\u201d that breathed without air of the previous verse, this verse does not say that \u201cthat one\u201d itself is born.<\/p>\n
(2) In the first half of verse 4, the \u201cthat\u201d (tat) that desire came upon is the germ of the previous line, not the \u201cthat one\u201d (tad ekam) that breathed without air of verse 2. This is the natural grammatical construal. Again, unless the germ is taken to be completely identical with \u201cthat one\u201d that breathed without air of verse 2, this verse does not say that desire arose in \u201cthat one\u201d itself.<\/p>\n
(3) In the first quarter of verse 1, an implied \u201cit\u201d is supplied, saying, \u201c[It] was not non-existent, nor was [it] existent then,\u201d rather than the equally possible, \u201cThere was neither non-existence nor existence then.\u201d Supplying \u201cit\u201d is based on parallel passages in the Vedic texts that specifically say \u201cit\u201d in this context. When this verse is translated as saying that there was neither non-existence nor existence then, it is sometimes understood to mean that there was absolutely nothing then, with the result that the cosmos arises from nothing rather than from something.<\/p>\n
(4) In the second half of verse 4, the \u201cdesire\u201d (k\u0101ma) from the first half is carried down. Rather than saying just that the sages found the link between the existent and the non-existent (\u201chardly any discovery at all\u201d\u2014Maurer, p. 228), the verse says what the sages found that link to be, when its two halves are taken together. Desire is the link between the existent and the non-existent. This is how the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary understands it, as does Walter Maurer, who regards it as \u201cthe key to the entire hymn\u201d (p. 220 in his article linked in the previous post on this topic).<\/p>\n
(5) In the third quarter of verse 1, the verb \u0101var\u012bvar is taken as derived from the root v\u1e5bt, \u201cexist, turn, move,\u201d rather than from the root v\u1e5b, \u201ccover.\u201d The verse therefore asks \u201cwhat moved?\u201d rather than \u201cwhat covered?\u201d This apparently describes the breathing without air of \u201cthat one\u201d in verse 2. In taking the verb this way, I follow many of the later translators, based on the meaning found in parallel passages in the Vedic texts, rather than most of the earlier translators, based on the gloss given by S\u0101ya\u1e47a (\u201ccovered\u201d). Further, this being an \u201cintensive\u201d verb, I show the intensive sense with the word \u201cincessantly\u201d in my translation of it as \u201cmoved incessantly.\u201d<\/p>\n
(6) In the second quarter of verse 7, the unstated subject of the verb dadhe (\u201cproduced, made, established, upheld\u201d) is taken to be \u201cit\u201d (\u201cthis creation or manifestation\u201d) rather than \u201che\u201d (the \u201coverseer\u201d). This applies whether the perfect middle verb dadhe is taken in a middle sense, \u201c[it] made [itself],\u201d or in a passive sense, \u201c[it] was made.\u201d When taken as \u201c[he] made [it],\u201d the \u201che,\u201d the \u201coverseer\u201d from the next line, is usually understood to be a personal being, a creator, “God” (\u012b\u015bvara), as the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses \u201coverseer\u201d (adhyak\u1e63a). However, there is no indication in the previous verses of anything but an evolutionary process of creation or manifestation, nothing that would require the involvement or direction of a personal being as creator. Only about a third of the English translations take \u201che\u201d as the subject; mine is among the majority that do not.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d:<\/p>\n
na\u0301\u0304sad \u0101s\u012bn n\u00f3 s\u00e1d \u0101s\u012bt tada\u0301\u0304n\u012b\u1e43 na\u0301\u0304s\u012bd r\u00e1jo n\u00f3 v\u00fdom\u0101 par\u00f3 y\u00e1t<\/p>\n
k\u00edm a\u0301\u0304var\u012bva\u1e25 k\u00faha k\u00e1sya \u015b\u00e1rmann \u00e1mbha\u1e25 k\u00edm \u0101s\u012bd g\u00e1hana\u1e43 gabh\u012br\u00e1m || 1 ||<\/p>\n
1. [It] was not non-existent, nor was [it] existent then. There was no world, nor sky, [nor] what is beyond. What moved incessantly? Where? In the abode of what? Was [it] water, dense [and] deep?<\/p>\n
n\u00e1 m\u1e5bty\u00far \u0101s\u012bd amr\u0301\u0323ta\u1e43 n\u00e1 t\u00e1rhi n\u00e1 ra\u0301\u0304try\u0101 \u00e1hna \u0101s\u012bt praket\u00e1\u1e25<\/p>\n
a\u0301\u0304n\u012bd av\u0101t\u00e1\u1e43 svadh\u00e1y\u0101 t\u00e1d \u00e9ka\u1e43 t\u00e1sm\u0101d dh\u0101ny\u00e1n n\u00e1 par\u00e1\u1e25 k\u00ed\u1e43 cana\u0301\u0304sa || 2 ||<\/p>\n
2. There was not death nor life (\u201cnon-death\u201d) then. There was no distinguishing sign of night [or] of day. That one breathed without air by [its] inherent power. Other than just that, there was not anything else.<\/p>\n
t\u00e1ma \u0101s\u012bt t\u00e1mas\u0101 g\u016b\u1e37h\u00e1m \u00e1gre \u2019praket\u00e1\u1e43 salil\u00e1\u1e43 s\u00e1rvam \u0101 id\u00e1m<\/p>\n
tucchy\u00e9n\u0101bhv \u00e1pihita\u1e43 y\u00e1d a\u0301\u0304s\u012bt t\u00e1pasas t\u00e1n mahina\u0301\u0304j\u0101yat\u00e1ikam || 3 ||<\/p>\n
3. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was water without distinguishing sign. That one germ which was covered by the void was born through the power of heat.<\/p>\n
ka\u0301\u0304mas t\u00e1d \u00e1gre s\u00e1m avartata\u0301\u0304dhi m\u00e1naso r\u00e9ta\u1e25 pratham\u00e1\u1e43 y\u00e1d a\u0301\u0304s\u012bt<\/p>\n
sat\u00f3 b\u00e1ndhum \u00e1sati n\u00edr avindan h\u1e5bd\u00ed prati\u0301\u0304\u1e63y\u0101 kav\u00e1yo man\u012b\u1e63a\u0301\u0304 || 4 ||<\/p>\n
4. Desire in the beginning came upon that [germ], which was the first seed of mind. Sages, having searched in the heart with inspired thought, found out [desire to be] the link of the existent in the non-existent.<\/p>\n
tira\u015bci\u0301\u0304no v\u00edtato ra\u015bm\u00edr e\u1e63\u0101m adh\u00e1\u1e25 svid \u0101si\u0301\u03043d up\u00e1ri svid \u0101s\u012b3t<\/p>\n
retodha\u0301\u0304 \u0101san mahima\u0301\u0304na \u0101san svadha\u0301\u0304 av\u00e1st\u0101t pr\u00e1yati\u1e25 par\u00e1st\u0101t || 5 ||<\/p>\n
5. Their cord was extended across. Was there a below? Was there an above? There were seed-placers, there were powers; inherent power below, impulse above.<\/p>\n
k\u00f3 addha\u0301\u0304 veda k\u00e1 ih\u00e1 pr\u00e1 vocat k\u00fata a\u0301\u0304j\u0101t\u0101 k\u00fata iy\u00e1\u1e43 v\u00eds\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di\u1e25<\/p>\n
arva\u0301\u0304g deva\u0301\u0304 asy\u00e1 vis\u00e1rjanena\u0301\u0304th\u0101 k\u00f3 veda y\u00e1ta \u0101babhu\u0301\u0304va || 6 ||<\/p>\n
6. Who really knows? Who here can say? From where has [it] been born? From where [has come] this manifestation? The gods are later than the manifestation of this [cosmos]. Then who knows from what [it] has come into being?<\/p>\n
iy\u00e1\u1e43 v\u00eds\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6dir y\u00e1ta \u0101babhu\u0301\u0304va y\u00e1di v\u0101 dadh\u00e9 y\u00e1di v\u0101 n\u00e1<\/p>\n
y\u00f3 asya\u0301\u0304dhyak\u1e63a\u1e25 param\u00e9 v\u00fdoman s\u00f3 a\u1e45g\u00e1 veda y\u00e1di v\u0101 n\u00e1 v\u00e9da || 7 ||<\/p>\n
7. From what this manifestation has come into being, whether [it] was made or whether not, its overseer who is in the highest heaven, he surely knows; or else [he] knows not.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Translation Notes<\/p>\n
\u201c. . . a mere translation of the Veda, however accurate, intelligible, poetical, and even beautiful, is of absolutely no value for the advancement of Vedic scholarship, unless it is followed by pi\u00e8ces justificatives, that is, unless the translator gives his reasons why he has translated every word about which there can be any doubt, in his own way, and not in any other.\u201d (F. Max M\u00fcller, Vedic Hymns<\/i>, Part I, p. x, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 32, 1891.)<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.1a:<\/b> na\u0301\u0304sad \u0101s\u012bn n\u00f3 s\u00e1d \u0101s\u012bt tada\u0301\u0304n\u012b\u1e43, \u201c[It] was not non-existent, nor was [it] existent then.\u201d Most translators take this line as the equally possible, \u201cThere was neither non-existence nor existence then.\u201d I understand this line with an implied subject, \u201cit,\u201d in agreement with Walter Maurer (1975, p. 221), though he takes its referent as \u201call this (world)\u201d (sarvam idam) from verse 3, while I take its referent as \u201cthat one\u201d (tad ekam) from verse 2. To me, the convincing evidence for understanding an implied subject here (\u201cit, this, that\u201d) comes from what are by far the oldest extant re-statements of this line. These are found in the br\u0101hma\u1e47as. There, the word idam, \u201cthis, it,\u201d is explicitly stated. \u015aatapatha-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 10.5.3.1 says: neva v\u0101 idam agre \u2019sad \u0101s\u012bn neva sad \u0101s\u012bt, \u201cIn the beginning this was certainly not non-existent, [it] was certainly not existent.\u201d (In translating this, I follow Joel Brereton\u2019s convincing explanation of neva, na iva, as a strong negation in his article, \u201cThe Particle iva<\/i> in Vedic Prose,\u201d Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/i>, vol. 102, 1982, pp. 443-450, especially p. 448, paragraph 4.1.2.) In the next sentence the \u015aatapatha-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> quotes the same line that we are discussing, \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.1a. Similarly, Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 2.2.9.1 says: ida\u1e43 v\u0101 agre naiva ki\u1e43can\u0101s\u012bt | na dyaur \u0101s\u012bt | na p\u1e5bthiv\u012b | n\u0101ntarik\u1e63am |, \u201cThis, indeed, in the beginning, was not even anything; not the heavens; not the earth; not the atmosphere.\u201d We see here also a re-statement of our next line, \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.1b: \u201cThere was no world, nor sky, [nor] what is beyond.\u201d<\/p>\n
Some of the translators who take the line under discussion as, \u201cThere was neither non-existence nor existence then,\u201d understand it to say that there was nothing then. Thus, creation would be creation out of nothing. But this is more an Abrahamic than an Indian idea. It is not that there was nothing then, but rather that what there was cannot be called either existent or non-existent, being or non-being; it is beyond dualistic conception. This is a basic idea in Indian thought. This idea is basic to what is often regarded as the pinnacle of Hindu Ved\u0101nta thought, the Advaita or \u201cnon-dual\u201d tradition; and this idea is basic to what is often regarded as the pinnacle of Mah\u0101y\u0101na Buddhist thought, the Madhyamaka or \u201cmiddle way\u201d tradition. The Madhyamaka view is defined in an often-quoted verse as follows:<\/p>\n
na san n\u0101san na sad-asan na c\u0101py anubhay\u0101tmakam |<\/p>\n
catu\u1e63-ko\u1e6di-vinirmukta\u1e43 tattva\u1e43 m\u0101dhyamik\u0101 vidu\u1e25 ||<\/p>\n
\u201cThe M\u0101dhyamikas know reality free from the four positions of the tetralemma: neither is it existent, nor non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, nor is it neither.\u201d<\/p>\n
(found in the J\u00f1\u0101na-s\u0101ra-samuccaya<\/i>, etc.; here translated by David Seyfort Ruegg, Three Studies in the History of Indian and Tibetan Madhyamaka Philosophy<\/i>, Wien, 2000, p. 143).<\/p>\n
In accordance with Indian thought, the commentator S\u0101ya\u1e47a assumes here an implied subject, which he specifies as the root cause (m\u016bla-k\u0101ra\u1e47a) of this world (asya jagata\u1e25). This subject that is neither non-existent nor existent cannot be nothing, because in Indian thought creation out of nothing is impossible. S\u0101ya\u1e47a comments: \u201cAt that time, what remained in the state of dissolution, the root cause of this world, was not non-existent, i.e., totally non-existent like the horns of a hare. For not from a cause of such kind is the arising of an existing world possible.\u201d<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.1b:<\/b> na\u0301\u0304s\u012bd r\u00e1jo n\u00f3 v\u00fdom\u0101 par\u00f3 y\u00e1t, \u201cThere was no world, nor sky, [nor] what is beyond.\u201d Most translators take the word rajas here to mean \u201catmosphere\u201d or \u201csky\u201d or \u201cair\u201d or \u201cmidspace\u201d rather than \u201cworld\u201d as I have taken it, and therefore see only two things here rather than three. For example, Arthur Macdonell in his very helpful Vedic Reader for Students<\/i> (which most of us in the West learned with) translates this line as: \u201cthere was not the air nor the heaven which is beyond.\u201d Of course, rajas does mean \u201catmosphere\u201d in many Vedic passages. But it also means \u201cworld,\u201d as in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164.6 for example, where six worlds are spoken of; and it was glossed as loka in the plural (lok\u0101\u1e25), \u201cworlds,\u201d in the very early Nirukta<\/i> by Yaska (4.19). It does not necessarily mean our world, but can refer to any globe in a series of worlds. These are often given as fourteen in number in Hindu texts. To us, the higher such worlds would be the same as higher heavens or heaven worlds. They may be placed by us in what we call the atmosphere or sky. Both of the commentators, Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava and S\u0101ya\u1e47a (in his \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary), gloss rajas here as loka, \u201cworld\u201d (the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary takes rajas as the gu\u1e47a rajas). They see three things here rather than two, as does the old Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/em> at 2.2.9.1. As we saw in the previous note, these three are there given as: \u201cnot the heavens; not the earth; not the atmosphere.\u201d This gives us a perfectly logical and fitting interpretation as the world, the sky, and what is beyond.<\/p>\n There are important references in The Secret Doctrine<\/i> that include the term rajas. The first is vol. 2, p. 385 fn., where the plural form raj\u0101\u1e43si, \u201cworlds,\u201d is used. The second is vol. 2, pp. 621-622, where both the singular form, raja\u1e25 (mistakenly changed to r\u0101ja in the 1978 ed.), and the plural form, raj\u0101\u1e43si, are used in an extract from the secret commentaries.<\/p>\n RV 10.129.1c:<\/b> k\u00edm a\u0301\u0304var\u012bva\u1e25 k\u00faha k\u00e1sya \u015b\u00e1rmann, \u201cWhat moved incessantly? Where? In the abode of what?\u201d The verb \u0101var\u012bvar (\u0101 avar\u012bvar), an intensive imperfect third person singular active, may be derived from the root v\u1e5b, \u201ccover,\u201d or possibly from the root v\u1e5bt, \u201cexist, turn, move.\u201d In the former derivation, this verse quarter would begin, \u201cWhat covered [all]?\u201d I have taken it in the latter derivation, \u201cmoved.\u201d Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava takes it as \u201ccovered,\u201d glossing it as \u0101cch\u0101day\u0101m \u0101sa. S\u0101ya\u1e47a also takes it as derived from v\u1e5b, \u201ccover,\u201d as has long been known. The majority of translators followed him in doing this, especially the earlier ones. More recently, most of the translators who have critically studied the Vedic Sanskrit of this hymn (in contradistinction to the translators whose intent was more to improve the language of the previous translations) have taken avar\u012bvar as derived from the root v\u1e5bt, \u201cexist, turn, move.\u201d<\/p>\n The method of trying to determine the meaning of Vedic words by comparing their usage in all their occurrences in the Vedic texts was pioneered by Rudolph Roth, and he contributed the results to the massive seven-volume Sanskrit-W\u00f6rterbuch<\/i> (1855-1875, in German). There (vol. 6, 1871, page column 757, lines 5-6) he derived \u0101var\u012bvar in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.1 from vart (v\u1e5bt), specifically rejecting the commentator\u2019s (S\u0101ya\u1e47a\u2019s) derivation of it from var (v\u1e5b). He translated \u0101var\u012bvar into German as, \u201cregte sich,\u201d or in English, \u201cstirred.\u201d Hermann Grassmann followed Roth in deriving avar\u012bvar from the root v\u1e5bt in his still widely used W\u00f6rterbuch zum Rig-Veda<\/i> (1873, page column 1333; hymn 10.129 is there numbered 955). Grassmann in his 1876-1877 German translation of the Rig-Veda<\/i> (vol. 2, p. 406) translated this phrase as, \u201cWas regte sich?,\u201d or in English, \u201cWhat stirred?\u201d Among English translations, \u201cstirred\u201d was used by Edward J. Thomas (1923), Franklin Edgerton (1965), Wendy Doniger O\u2019Flaherty (1981), and Joel Brereton (1999). Karl Geldner and Adolf Kaegi in their joint 1875 German translation of this hymn (p. 165) translated this phrase as, \u201cBewegt\u2019 sich was?,\u201d taking \u0101var\u012bvar as \u201cmoved\u201d (likewise derived from v\u1e5bt). Geldner used the derivation from v\u1e5b in his 1908 German translation of this hymn (p. 14) that included the commentary by S\u0101ya\u1e47a (who derived avar\u012bvar from v\u1e5b). Geldner ultimately used the derivation of avar\u012bvar from v\u1e5bt in his posthumously published 1951 German translation of the Rig-Veda<\/i> (vol. 3, p. 359), \u201cWas strich hin und her?,\u201d adding the phrase \u201cback and forth\u201d to the general idea of \u201cmoved.\u201d The first English translation to depart from the meaning \u201ccovered\u201d for \u0101var\u012bvar was Macdonell\u2019s 1900 translation, which used \u201cmotion\u201d (\u201cWhat motion was there?\u201d). However, he returned to the derivation from v\u1e5b in his translations of 1917 (\u201cWhat did it contain?\u201d) and 1922 (\u201cWhat was concealed?\u201d). Closely related to \u201cmove\u201d is the meaning of v\u1e5bt as \u201cexist,\u201d taken by Walter Maurer in his 1975 translation (\u201cWhat existed?\u201d).<\/p>\n Taking avar\u012bvar as derived from the root v\u1e5bt, \u201cexist, turn, move,\u201d is done on the basis of the meaning as found in parallel passages. In \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.51.6 the term \u0101 avar\u012bvur is used in connection with a chariot. Like avar\u012bvar, there is no \u201ct\u201d in avar\u012bvur, and here the meaning is evidently related to motion rather than covering (v\u1e5bt rather than v\u1e5b). Hermann Oldenberg in his \u1e5agveda: Textkritische und exegetische Noten<\/i> has succinctly stated the case for v\u1e5bt (vol. 2, 1912, pp. 346-347, in German). Geldner has done so even more briefly in a note to his German translation (vol. 3, 1951, pp. 359-360). He cites parallels where cognate forms describe the alternating motion of wind and of breath. To me, the convincing evidence is that the next verse, 10.129.2c, speaks of the breath: \u201cThat one breathed without air.\u201d So we would expect the verb \u0101var\u012bvar here in 10.129.1c to be describing the alternating motion of the breath, its coming and going. In a parallel passage at \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164.30-31, after speaking of the breath in the prior verse, the verb \u0101 var\u012bvarti (clearly from v\u1e5bt) is used in the next verse to describe \u201ccoming hither and going afar\u201d (Vasudeva S. Agrawala translation, Vision in Long Darkness<\/i>, 1963, p. 112). I have used \u201cmoved\u201d rather than the more poetic \u201cstirred,\u201d because \u201cstirred\u201d describes an awaking from sleep, while the hymn apparently describes the regular movement of the breath during sleep.<\/p>\n In my translation of \u0101var\u012bvar as \u201cmoved incessantly,\u201d the \u201cincessantly\u201d is an attempt to render the sense of \u201crepeated\u201d in the intensive verb form. The so-called intensive is a verb that shows either repeated or intensified action.\u00a0Thus, repeated action is shown by Jan Gonda\u2019s translation (1966), \u201cmoved intermittently,\u201d by Hans Henrich Hock\u2019s translation (2007), \u201ckept on moving,\u201d and by Geldner\u2019s German translation (1951), \u201chin und her\u201d (\u201cback and forth\u201d), while intensified action is shown by Paul-Emile Dumont\u2019s translation (1969), \u201cwas violently moving,\u201d and by Louis Renou\u2019s French translation (1956), \u201cmouvait puissamment\u201d (\u201cmoved powerfully\u201d). The other translations mentioned above, \u201cstirred,\u201d etc., do not reflect the intensive sense. Since the verb \u0101var\u012bvar has been associated with alternating motion, the intensive sense of repeated could perhaps just as well be rendered \u201crhythmically\u201d as \u201cincessantly.\u201d In regard to the coming and going of the breath, \u201cmoved rhythmically\u201d would certainly be applicable.<\/p>\n The phrase, kasya \u015barman, translated by me as, \u201cIn the abode of what?,\u201d is most often translated as, \u201cIn whose protection?\u201d (The interrogative pronoun kasya can equally mean \u201cof what\u201d or \u201cof who, whose.\u201d) While the word \u015barman means \u201cprotection\u201d in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> verses such as 6.75.11, I could never see the relevance of such a meaning in this verse, asking such a question here. It always seemed incongruous to me to ask \u201cIn whose protection?,\u201d when the entire cosmos was out of existence, or in a state of dissolution. Such a question would assume a \u201cwho\u201d outside of the cosmos, who had not dissolved with it, and who was there to protect it. One must also wonder what there was then that it would need protection against, when the entire cosmos was dissolved. Therefore I have accepted the meaning of \u015barman as found in the ancient Vedic word-list known as the Nigha\u1e47\u1e6du<\/i>, where (3.4) it is given in a group of twenty-two words for g\u1e5bha, \u201chouse,\u201d and have translated it as \u201cabode.\u201d<\/p>\n Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava, who often follows the Nigha\u1e47\u1e6du<\/i>, glosses \u015barman here as g\u1e5bhe, \u201cin the house.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries give us another meaning of \u015barman, taking it as sukha, \u201chappiness,\u201d which is explained in relation to bhoga, \u201cenjoyment.\u201d The meaning \u201chouse\u201d can be seen behind Ananda K. Coomaraswamy\u2019s 1933 translation of \u015barman here as \u201cresting-place.\u201d I think this translation of \u015barman is a good take on \u201chouse,\u201d and was going to adopt it; but then the question, \u201cIn the resting-place of what?\u201d would be answered with, \u201cThe formerly manifested cosmos.\u201d I do not think that this obvious fact is what is being asked about here. I understand the question to be asking about the ultimate reality that is now asleep during pralaya when the cosmos is not in manifestation. So I have chosen \u201cabode\u201d for \u015barman, and translated this phrase as: \u201cIn the abode of what?\u201d<\/p>\n Like the Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava gloss of \u015barman in the locative case, \u201cin the house,\u201d so the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary has \u015barman in the locative case, \u015barma\u1e47i, \u201cin the enjoyment\/happiness.\u201d The many translators who translate this phrase as \u201cIn whose protection?\u201d similarly understand \u015barman as a locative here. This is because, for words such as \u015barman ending in \u201c-an,\u201d locatives without the final \u201ci\u201d are actually more common in the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> than those that have it. This fact was ascertained by Charles R. Lanman in his comprehensive study, \u201cA Statistical Account of Noun-Inflection in the Veda,\u201d presented to the American Oriental Society in 1877 (published in Journal of the American Oriental Society<\/i>, vol. 10, 1872-1880, pp. 325-601). Of 330 instances, 127 have the final \u201ci,\u201d while 203 have dropped it (see pp. 535-536). The word \u015barman has it 11 times, and drops it 17 times. Lanman writes: \u201cI examined the passages in which the above 330 forms occur, and found that the choice between the two forms was often decided simply by the metre.\u201d The fact about the dropped locative ending was duly reported by A. A. Macdonell in his Vedic Grammar<\/i>, p. 203, paragraph 325, and in his Vedic Grammar for Students<\/i>, p. 67, para. 90.<\/p>\n RV 10.129.1d:<\/b> \u00e1mbha\u1e25 k\u00edm \u0101s\u012bd g\u00e1hana\u1e43 gabh\u012br\u00e1m, \u201cWas [it] water, dense [and] deep?\u201d The interrogative kim can be taken in more than one way, so that this could be asking: \u201cWas there water?\u201d (as most translators take it), or even \u201cWhat was water?,\u201d besides \u201cWas [it] water?\u201d The two words gahana and gabh\u012bra both mean \u201cdeep, thick.\u201d They are so closely related in meaning that, in order to make good English, they have often been given in a phrase (or paraphrase) here, such as \u201cfathomless abyss.\u201d Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava does not gloss them, but the two different commentaries that go under S\u0101ya\u1e47a\u2019s name gloss them consistently. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses gahanam as du\u1e63prave\u015bam, \u201chard to penetrate.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary (2.8.9.3) glosses gahanam as prave\u1e63\u1e6dum a\u015bakyam, \u201cunable to penetrate.\u201d Seeing no reason not to accept these glosses, I have therefore translated gahana as \u201cdense.\u201d S\u0101ya\u1e47a in both his \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries glosses gabh\u012bram with the word ag\u0101dham, \u201cnot shallow, deep, bottomless.\u201d So I have translated gabh\u012bram as \u201cdeep.\u201d<\/p>\n The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary says that this water, dense and deep, is not the water known to us. It is not the water that remains during an intermediate pralaya or period of dissolution, when the earth remains in status quo and only its life-forms disappear. In the great pralaya, the earth itself disappears, along with everything on it including water. The water that the verse asks about is something different.<\/p>\n (Translation Notes to be continued)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d There are, I think, at least six important points in \u1e5ag-veda 10.129 on which there is disagreement among translators. Despite collecting more than thirty English translations of this hymn, I was unable to find any one translation that understood all six of these the way […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=496"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1451,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/496\/revisions\/1451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}