Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation Notes (continued)<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.2a:<\/b> n\u00e1 m\u1e5bty\u00far \u0101s\u012bd amr\u0301\u0323ta\u1e43 n\u00e1 t\u00e1rhi, \u201cThere was not death nor life (\u201cnon-death\u201d) then.\u201d The word am\u1e5bta commonly means \u201cimmortality,\u201d and most translators have translated it as such; for example: \u201cThere was not death nor immortality then.\u201d Coomaraswamy (1933), however, translates this verse quarter as: \u201cThen was neither death (m\u1e5btyu<\/i>) nor life (am\u1e5bta<\/i>).\u201d He points out that (pp. 56-57), \u201cAm\u1e5bta<\/i>, in the second stanza, is not \u2018immortality,\u2019 but simply life, continued existence, as in \u1e5ag Veda<\/i>, VII, 57, 6, and equivalent to d\u012brgham\u0101yu\u1e25<\/i> in X, 85, 19; the sense is \u2018neither birth nor death as yet were.\u2019\u201d Gonda (1966) apparently agrees, translating this as: \u201cThere was not death (nor continuation of life) then.\u201d I, too, agree, seeing am\u1e5bta here not as \u201cimmortality,\u201d but merely as \u201cnon-death,\u201d i.e., \u201clife,\u201d in a contrasting pair with m\u1e5btyu, \u201cdeath.\u201d<\/p>\n
The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary says this clearly, glossing am\u1e5btam with j\u012bvanam, \u201clife\u201d (in the sense of the condition of being alive). The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses am\u1e5btam much less clearly with amara\u1e47am, literally \u201cnon-death,\u201d which can signify either \u201clife\u201d or \u201cimmortality.\u201d When choosing between two meanings that are equally possible grammatically, reason must be a criterion. I can see little reason why immortality would be spoken of here, especially when life and death form a more natural contrasting pair. Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava in his brief commentary does not gloss am\u1e5btam.<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.2b:<\/b> n\u00e1 ra\u0301\u0304try\u0101 \u00e1hna \u0101s\u012bt praket\u00e1\u1e25, \u201cThere was no distinguishing sign of night [or] of day.\u201d The word praketa, here translated as \u201cdistinguishing sign,\u201d is a Vedic word. It is not used in classical Sanskrit, and its meaning is not certain. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses praketa as praj\u00f1\u0101na, which can mean (from V. S. Apte\u2019s dictionary): 1. knowledge, intelligence; 2. sign, mark; 3. discernment. Possibly H. W. Wallis intended this third meaning in his 1887 translation, \u201cthere was no discrimination of night and day.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary glosses praketa as cihna, \u201csign, mark,\u201d probably indicating that this was also the meaning of praj\u00f1\u0101na intended in the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary. The classical Sanskrit word sa\u1e43keta, differing from praketa only in the prefix sam<\/i> rather than pra<\/i>, also means \u201csign.\u201d A majority of the recent English translations use \u201csign.\u201d Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava glosses praketa as vibh\u0101ga, \u201cdistinction.\u201d Although this portion of his commentary was not published until 1965, a majority of the earlier English translations (going all the way back to Colebrooke\u2019s of 1805) use \u201cdistinction,\u201d perhaps based on context. Wendy Doniger O\u2019Flaherty in her 1981 translation has combined the two meanings in \u201cdistinguishing sign,\u201d which I have adopted. A few earlier translations used \u201clight,\u201d a different meaning deduced from the usage of praketa in some other locations (\u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.113.1 and 1.94.5; see the footnote by Wallis, p. 59).<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.2c:<\/b> a\u0301\u0304n\u012bd av\u0101t\u00e1\u1e43 svadh\u00e1y\u0101 t\u00e1d \u00e9ka\u1e43, \u201cThat one breathed without air by [its] inherent power.\u201d As pointed out by others, tad ekam, \u201cthat one,\u201d can also be translated as \u201cthat alone.\u201d The word av\u0101ta is often translated as \u201cwithout wind\u201d; but v\u0101ta, like v\u0101yu, can also mean \u201cair.\u201d Air is more fitting in regard to breath.<\/p>\n
The difficult word in this verse quarter is the feminine noun svadh\u0101, translated by me as \u201cinherent power.\u201d Elsewhere in the Vedic texts svadh\u0101 often means a food or drink offering or oblation, a meaning that is obviously not appropriate here. The majority of the later translators take it here as some kind of power or force, a meaning derived from the context. The prefix sva<\/i>, \u201cself, own,\u201d would indicate that it is an inherent or intrinsic power or force. The majority of the earlier translators take it here as some kind of inherent nature, something that is self-supported or is its own support or is supported by itself, and thus has also been translated in the instrumental case simply as \u201cby itself.\u201d This meaning is derived from the context as well as from the etymology of svadh\u0101, sva-dh\u0101. The verb-root dh\u0101 means \u201cput or place,\u201d \u201cgrant or confer or bestow,\u201d \u201cproduce or make,\u201d \u201cbear or hold or support.\u201d The last of these meanings is apparently the one that is relevant here. This is also how the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary understands svadh\u0101, in its etymological analysis. After analyzing the sva as svasmin, \u201cin or on itself,\u201d it gives the passive verb made from the verb-root dh\u0101, \u201cdh\u012byate,\u201d and glosses this with the passive verb made from the verb-root dh\u1e5b, \u201cdhriyate.\u201d The verb-root dh\u1e5b means, \u201chold, bear, support.\u201d So the dh\u0101 of svadh\u0101, by way of dh\u012byate, is explained as dhriyate, \u201cis held, borne, supported.\u201d In agreement with this etymological meaning, this phrase would say more fully, \u201cThat one breathed without air by [its] inherent or self-sustaining power.\u201d<\/p>\n
The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries gloss svadh\u0101 here as m\u0101y\u0101, \u201cillusion.\u201d Advaita Ved\u0101nta regards m\u0101y\u0101 as a power (\u015bakti) associated with the absolute brahman. However, S\u0101ya\u1e47a is not saying that m\u0101y\u0101 is the power by means of which the \u201cone\u201d (brahman) breathed without air. Rather, he takes this line (as worded in his Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary) as, \u201cThat one along with [its] m\u0101y\u0101 breathed without air.\u201d The instrumental case can mean \u201cby\u201d or \u201cwith\u201d; i.e., \u201cby means of,\u201d or \u201calong with.\u201d S\u0101ya\u1e47a uses saha and sahitam to show that he takes the instrumental svadhay\u0101 in the latter meaning. If svadh\u0101 is m\u0101y\u0101, S\u0101ya\u1e47a is obliged to take the instrumental here as \u201cwith\u201d rather than \u201cby.\u201d This is because, according to the teachings of Advaita Ved\u0101nta, the ultimately unreal m\u0101y\u0101 is not inherent in the real brahman (in the sense of being inseparable from it). Something that is ultimately illusory cannot be the means by which the one brahman breathed without air. In accordance with these teachings, this verse can only be saying that brahman breathed (without air) along with or accompanied by its m\u0101y\u0101.<\/p>\n
Taking it in this way, however, stretches the natural reading of this line to such an extent that only followers of Advaita Ved\u0101nta have accepted it, and not all of these. Of more than thirty English translations, only two of the first ones accepted it, when there was little else to guide the translators besides S\u0101ya\u1e47a\u2019s commentary (these are: the first ever translation, made by Colebrooke in 1805; and the first one made by Muir in 1863, but not in his 1870 revised translation). Not even Wilson (died 1860) followed S\u0101ya\u1e47a here, as he normally did. Nor did the 1987 translation done jointly by an Advaita Ved\u0101nta swami, Svami Satya Prakash Saraswati, and Satyakam Vidyalankar. There were, of course, other schools of Ved\u0101nta, which did not take m\u0101y\u0101 or its synonyms to be ultimately illusory. Then there would be nothing against identifying svadh\u0101 with m\u0101y\u0101 or its synonyms, when reading this verse in its natural manner.<\/p>\n
M\u0101y\u0101 is regarded in Advaita Ved\u0101nta as the power of projecting (vik\u1e63epa) illusion. By way of this, it is regarded as being the cause (k\u0101ra\u1e47a) of the phenomenal world. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary here glosses: \u201cwith svadh\u0101, i.e., along with m\u0101y\u0101 in the form of the cause of the entire world, based in itself.\u201d \u201cItself\u201d refers to \u201cthat one brahman\u201d; \u201cbased\u201d is \u0101\u015brita. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary here (but not the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary) takes pains to explain that, when svadh\u0101 as m\u0101y\u0101 is said to be based in brahman, this does not mean that it is inherent in brahman in the sense of being inseparable from brahman. It is only superimposed on brahman, like the illusion of silver in certain seashells. It is for this reason that he must read this line as saying that brahman breathed without air with<\/i> svadh\u0101\/m\u0101y\u0101, not by<\/i> svadh\u0101\/m\u0101y\u0101.<\/p>\n
In the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary on verse 5 (see below), svadh\u0101 is glossed as anna, \u201cfood,\u201d thus bringing in the meaning of svadh\u0101 as a food offering or oblation. Advaita Ved\u0101nta also regards m\u0101y\u0101 as prak\u1e5bti, \u201cmatter, substance\u201d; and food, as we know, often stands for matter. (S. Radhakrishnan in his highly accurate translation of the upani\u1e63ads sometimes translates anna as matter rather than food.) Again, prak\u1e5bti is regarded in Advaita Ved\u0101nta as ultimately illusory, not as inseparably inherent in brahman. Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava in his brief commentary does not gloss svadh\u0101.<\/p>\n
Suryakanta in his 1981 Practical Vedic Dictionary<\/i> gives \u201cinclination\u201d for svadh\u0101, citing its occurrence in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5. He also gives two other passages illustrating this meaning: \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.113.13, ajar\u0101m\u1e5bt\u0101 carati svadh\u0101bhi\u1e25, which he translates as \u201cshe the ageless and deathless moves according to her wont or inclination\u201d; and \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164.30, j\u012bvo m\u1e5btasya carati svadh\u0101bhi\u1e25, \u201cthe soul of the dead moves according to his inclination.\u201d We notice in both of these cases that svadh\u0101 is in the instrumental plural, svadh\u0101bhi\u1e25 (not singular, despite the singular translation, \u201cinclination\u201d), and that it is used with the verb carati, \u201cmoves.\u201d If something moves according to its inclination, this could also be by its inherent power, or by its inherent nature.<\/p>\n
As already said, besides as some kind of inherent power, the meaning of svadh\u0101 has also been taken as some kind of inherent nature. It is not very different to say, \u201cThat one breathed without air by [its] inherent nature,\u201d as \u201cby [its] inherent power.\u201d This would make svadh\u0101 practically equivalent to svabh\u0101va, \u201cinherent nature,\u201d something\u2019s \u201cown nature.\u201d Ralph Griffith (1892) translates this phrase as, \u201cbreathed by its own nature.\u201d Jan Gonda (1966) also translates this as: \u201cbreathed . . . by its own nature.\u201d It is unlikely that Gonda would have copied Griffith, because Griffith\u2019s metrical translation is not regarded by scholars as being accurate enough. So I hoped that Gonda would explain his choice of this translation term or idea in his full article in Dutch that his English translation of this hymn accompanies. Ingmar de Boer kindly translated the relevant portion of the Dutch article into English for me.<\/p>\n
Gonda did not, it turns out, explain his translation term for svadh\u0101. But he did give an alternative translation of svadhay\u0101 (in the instrumental) in a footnote, \u201cvan zelf\u201d (not \u201cvanzelf\u201d written together as is usual, says Ingmar), or in English, \u201cby itself\u201d (or automatically, says Ingmar), and he referenced this to Alfred Hillebrandt\u2019s 1913 Lieder des<\/i> \u1e5agveda<\/i>, p. 133. There in his German translation of this hymn, Hillebrandt translates svadhay\u0101 as \u201cvon selbst,\u201d or in English, \u201cby itself,\u201d and he does give references for his translation of this term in a footnote: \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 3.35.10, 4.45.6, 4.58.4 (\u201cIndra created one, Surya one, one they made themselves\u201d), 10.88.1. Here we have textual warrant for translating svadhay\u0101 as \u201cby itself,\u201d or \u201cby its own nature,\u201d or \u201cby its inherent nature,\u201d the same meaning as svabh\u0101va.<\/p>\n
Coomaraswamy (1933, p. 56) gives three synonyms for svadh\u0101: m\u0101y\u0101, \u015bakti, svabh\u0101va; apparently from the upani\u1e63ads. We have already discussed these three, which pretty much summarize the proposed meanings for svadh\u0101 in this hymn. Coomaraswamy did not give a reference for the equivalence of svadh\u0101 to svabh\u0101va, \u201cinherent nature.\u201d The equivalence of svadh\u0101 to \u015bakti, \u201cpower,\u201d is contextual here in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.2. The equivalence of svadh\u0101 to m\u0101y\u0101, “illusion,” given by S\u0101ya\u1e47a, requires us to read this line in a somewhat unnatural manner and take svadh\u0101 as merely accompanying the \u201cone.\u201d In the natural reading of this line, svadh\u0101 is something by which the one breathed without air. For m\u0101y\u0101 or its synonyms to be this, it would have to be understood as something inseparable from brahman, an inherent power or an inherent nature. It could not be something that is ultimately unreal and is only superimposed on brahman, as m\u0101y\u0101 has been understood to be in Advaita Ved\u0101nta for the last 1,200 years. There were other schools of Ved\u0101nta prior to this, such as Bhed\u0101bheda, that did not make this ultimate distinction between the synonyms of m\u0101y\u0101 and brahman. For them, the equivalence of svadh\u0101 to m\u0101y\u0101 or its synonyms could work, following the natural reading of this line. The same inherent power or inherent nature by which the one breathed without breath could also bring about the manifested cosmos, as m\u0101y\u0101 is understood in Advaita Ved\u0101nta to do. Something like this must have been intended in this hymn, because in its verse 5, svadh\u0101 is described as being below (avast\u0101t).<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.2d:<\/b> t\u00e1sm\u0101d dh\u0101ny\u00e1n n\u00e1 par\u00e1\u1e25 k\u00ed\u1e43 cana\u0301\u0304sa, \u201cOther than just that, there was not anything else.\u201d This simple translation requires no comment other than to note that \u201cjust\u201d translates the particle ha<\/i>, and that para\u1e25, \u201celse,\u201d could also mean \u201cbeyond.\u201d<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.3ab:<\/b> t\u00e1ma \u0101s\u012bt t\u00e1mas\u0101 g\u016b\u1e37h\u00e1m \u00e1gre \u2019praket\u00e1\u1e43 salil\u00e1\u1e43 s\u00e1rvam \u0101 id\u00e1m, \u201cDarkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was water without distinguishing sign.\u201d It is a general rule in Vedic Sanskrit verse that a unit of meter is a unit of sense (a rule that Irach Taraporewala applied with good results to his translation of the related Avesta G\u0101th\u0101s). For this reason, most translators have taken the first verse quarter as a unit, and translated it like I have, \u201cDarkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning.\u201d Interestingly, the three extant commentaries take the first two words as a sentence, and then construe the rest of that verse quarter with the second verse quarter; in general like this: \u201cThere was darkness. All this [the cosmos], [like] water without distinguishing sign, was hidden by [this] darkness in the beginning.\u201d Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava says that tamas, \u201cdarkness,\u201d intends prak\u1e5bti, \u201cmatter, substance.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary gives three words for tamas: avidy\u0101, \u201cignorance\u201d; m\u0101y\u0101, \u201cillusion\u201d; and \u015bakti, \u201cpower.\u201d It explains this as the material cause (up\u0101d\u0101na) of the world, and glosses this as m\u016bla-aj\u00f1\u0101na, \u201croot unknowing.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary says that another name for tamas is m\u0101y\u0101, and it describes this as bh\u0101va-r\u016bpa-aj\u00f1\u0101na, \u201cunknowing in the form of an existing thing.\u201d That is, darkness is equated with unknowing as a positive entity, a something, not unknowing as an absence of knowledge. It adds that this is the m\u016bla-k\u0101ra\u1e47a, the \u201croot cause\u201d (of the cosmos).<\/p>\n
For apraketa, \u201cwithout distinguishing sign,\u201d see my comment on praketa in 10.129.2b. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary here on 10.129.3 takes apraketam as apraj\u00f1\u0101yam\u0101nam, \u201cnot being known.\u201d<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.3cd:<\/b> tucchy\u00e9n\u0101bhv \u00e1pihita\u1e43 y\u00e1d a\u0301\u0304s\u012bt t\u00e1pasas t\u00e1n mahina\u0301\u0304j\u0101yat\u00e1ikam, \u201cThat one germ which was covered by the void was born through the power of heat.\u201d Because of the yat-tat pronoun correlative, something not used in English, the word order of these two verse quarters had to be rearranged in translation. It is, more literally, \u201cWhich germ was covered by the void, that one was born through the power of heat.\u201d So it is only in the English translation that words from one verse quarter were put in the other verse quarter. These units of meter remain units of sense in the original. This half verse includes three words whose meaning is not precisely known (tucchya, \u0101bhu, mahiman), and a fourth whose applicable meaning here is debated (tapas).<\/p>\n
The word tuccha means \u201cempty,\u201d like the synonymous but more widely used word \u015b\u016bnya. The word tucchya used here, with the added \u201cy,\u201d is the same as tuccha. As a noun, which we have here, it would mean a void, something that is empty. This is how I have translated it (in the instrumental case), \u201cby the void.\u201d But we do not know exactly what it signifies as a technical term. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses it as bh\u0101va-r\u016bpa-aj\u00f1\u0101nam, \u201cunknowing in the form of an existing thing.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary glosses it as m\u016bla-aj\u00f1\u0101na, \u201croot unknowing.\u201d So S\u0101ya\u1e47a glosses tucchya like he glossed tamas, \u201cdarkness,\u201d in the first part of this verse. Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava glosses tucchyena rather differently, as m\u1e5btyun\u0101, \u201cby death,\u201d and as udakena, \u201cby water.\u201d His commentary is very brief, and he assumes that his readers are already familiar with the Vedic literature. For \u201cdeath\u201d here, they would probably recall B\u1e5bhad-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka-upani\u1e63ad<\/i> 1.2.1, which begins: \u201cThere was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. By death indeed was this covered\u201d (translated by S. Radhakrishnan). For \u201cwater\u201d here, the previous line of this verse had just said, \u201cAll this was water.\u201d So the commentators say that tucchya, \u201cthe void,\u201d is \u201cunknowing,\u201d i.e., \u201cdarkness,\u201d or else \u201cdeath,\u201d or \u201cwater.\u201d<\/p>\n
The noun \u0101bhu, taken by me and some others in the general sense of a \u201cgerm\u201d or \u201cpotential,\u201d more literally something that \u201ccomes into existence,\u201d is one of the least understood words in the hymn. It is etymologically simple, being derived from the prefix \u0101 and the verb-root bh\u016b, \u201cbe.\u201d The verb in the past tense made from this prefix and root, \u0101babh\u016bva, \u201chas come into being,\u201d occurs in verses 6 and 7. But the neuter noun \u0101bhu is practically unknown elsewhere in Sanskrit texts, so we do not know what it may mean as a technical term. It is not found in the ancient Nirukta<\/i> by Yaska. From its etymological meaning, \u201cthat which comes into being, that which becomes,\u201d Maurer said (p. 225) he \u201csomewhat freely translated\u201d it as \u201cthe germ (of all things).\u201d I have adopted \u201cgerm\u201d from him. \u201cGerm\u201d had also been used earlier in the anonymous translation of 1859 and Max M\u00fcller\u2019s comments thereon, and in his own translation of 1899. Some other translators have used similar translations: \u201cgenerative principle\u201d (Edgerton, 1965), \u201cthe virtual\u201d (Gonda, 1966), \u201cthe pregnant point\u201d (Le Mee, 1975), \u201cprimordial potency\u201d (Panikkar, 1977, only in his notes), \u201clife force\u201d (O\u2019Flaherty, 1981), \u201cthe thing coming into being\u201d (Brereton, 1999).<\/p>\n
Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava glosses \u0101bhu as maho brahma, \u201cgreat brahman.\u201d He does not elaborate. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses \u0101bhu as \u0101 samant\u0101d bhavati, \u201c[it] becomes from all sides.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary refers to \u0101bhu as \u0101 samant\u0101d bhavaty utpadyata ity \u0101bh\u016bj jagat, \u201c[as something that] becomes, arises, from all sides, thus the world existed [\u0101bh\u016bt].\u201d A few lines later S\u0101ya\u1e47a speaks of this kind of world as avyakta, \u201cunmanifest,\u201d distinguishing this from the abhivyakta-jagat, the \u201cmanifest world.\u201d So S\u0101ya\u1e47a, too, understands \u0101bhu as kind of a \u201cgerm\u201d or \u201cpotential\u201d world. There is a direct parallel to this verse in Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> 1.23.1-2, where Praj\u0101pati, \u201cLord of Progeny,\u201d is found in place of \u0101bhu. On that text we have, besides another S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary, also a pre-S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary by Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra. The latter there glosses Praj\u0101pati as hira\u1e47ya-garbha, the \u201cgolden germ.\u201d See below under 10.129.4a.<\/p>\n
In the word apihita, \u201ccovered,\u201d we see the same archaic prefix \u201capi\u201d that is also seen in the word apyaya, found in the compound prabhav\u0101pyaya from the original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i>. (see the post, \u201cThe One Form of Existence\u201d: prabhav\u0101pyaya in the Original Pur\u0101\u1e47a-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i>).<\/p>\n
The basic meaning of the word tapas is \u201cheat.\u201d Derived from this is the common meaning \u201causterity, penance,\u201d related to the heat or intensity of such practices undertaken by yogis, etc. This can be applied not only physically but also mentally. Thus, there can be a mental tapas related to intense meditation. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary quotes a passage from the Mu\u1e47\u1e0daka-upani\u1e63ad<\/i> (1.1.9) speaking of tapas consisting of knowledge\/wisdom, j\u00f1\u0101na-mayam. S\u0101ya\u1e47a here glosses: \u201cof tapas in the form of reflection on [what is] about to be emanated.\u201d While this meaning may well apply here, as S\u0101ya\u1e47a says it does, I think it is better to give its basic meaning rather than its derivative meaning. This was proven on a large scale in the literally accurate Tibetan translations of the entire canon of Sanskrit Buddhist texts. The literal translations allowed for various interpretations to be made later. They did not pre-judge the issue and thereby limit it from the beginning to only one interpretation. So I have translated tapas as \u201cheat.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tapas is not glossed by Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava, nor in the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary, where the variant reading tamas is found in the Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> text instead of tapas. John Muir in his 1870 translation gives a long footnote (fn. 541, pp. 361-362) reviewing the evidence for taking tapas as \u201crigorous and intense abstraction.\u201d This includes \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.167.1, which \u201csays that Indra gained heaven by tapas<\/i>, where the word can only mean rigorous abstraction.\u201d A little later (p. 365) Muir gives a passage on cosmogony from Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 2.2.9.1, where through tapas is produced smoke, fire, light, flame, rays, blazes, etc., one after the other. He there notes: \u201cIt may perhaps be considered that the manner in which the word tapas<\/i> is used in this passage is favourable to the idea that in R.V. x. 129, 3, it signifies heat rather than rigorous abstraction.\u201d Chauncey Blair in his 1961 book, Heat in the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda<\/i>, cites \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.3 under the section, \u201cTapas as a Creative Power\u201d (pp. 67-68). He introduces it with: \u201cIn the two following verses, tapas<\/i> has become not only a completely abstract entity, but also a great creative, primeval power.\u201d The second verse is \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.190.1, which he translates as: \u201cBoth Universal Order and Truth were produced from incandescent heat. From that (heat) night was born. And from that (heat) the billowing ocean (was born).\u201d<\/p>\n
The word mahin\u0101, or mahimn\u0101 as Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava has it in his brief commentary, is regarded as the instrumental singular of mahiman, or of mahin. These are, in any case, synonyms. Mahiman commonly means \u201cgreatness,\u201d but also \u201cmight, power,\u201d as the context seems to require here. I have translated it (in the instrumental case) as, \u201cthrough the power\u201d (of heat). The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses mahin\u0101 as m\u0101h\u0101tmyena, simply \u201cby greatness.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary, however, glosses mahin\u0101 quite differently. It takes mahiman (or mahin) as mahat, the \u201cgreat\u201d principle of the S\u0101\u1e43khya system. Mahat is another name for buddhi, the principle of intelligence from which the entire cosmos evolves. This quite different interpretation is due in part to the fact that this commentary accepts and uses some S\u0101\u1e43khya ideas, and due in part to the fact that the Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> reading of this verse has tamasas instead of tapasas. So rather than saying, \u201cthat one [germ or potential world] was born through the power of heat,\u201d it says, \u201cthat one [germ or potential world] was born from darkness by way of mahat (the \u201cgreat\u201d principle).\u201d It glosses: \u201cby way of mahiman\/mahin as mahat in the form of the manifest world.\u201d It had spoken of the principle of mahat (mahat-tattva) earlier here, in its commentary on verse 1. The word mahiman occurs in the plural in verse 5, where the meaning \u201cpowers\u201d is more fitting than \u201cgreatnesses.\u201d<\/p>\n
The \u201cone\u201d (ekam) that was born (aj\u0101yata) is taken by almost all the translators to be \u201cthat one\u201d (tad ekam) that breathed without air from verse 2. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries do not take it as this, and neither do I. The verse clearly says that the \u0101bhu (\u201cgerm\u201d) is what was born, however we understand that term. How the commentaries understand the \u0101bhu has been given above in the second paragraph about \u0101bhu. There is a distinction to be made between \u201cthat one germ\u201d and \u201cthat one\u201d itself that breathed without air. This hymn says in verse 2d that other than just that one, there was not anything else. If just that \u201cone\u201d is really and truly only \u201cone,\u201d then it cannot be born except metaphorically. The upani\u1e63ads and br\u0101hma\u1e47as are quite willing to speak metaphorically, and even have the \u201cone\u201d thinking and creating. For example, Aitareya Upani\u1e63ad<\/i> 1.1.1: \u201cThe self, verily, was (all) this, one only, in the beginning. Nothing else whatsoever winked. He thought, \u2018let me now create the worlds.\u2019\u201d (translated by S. Radhakrishnan). \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, however, does not appear to do so, preserving at least a verbal distinction between \u201cthat one\u201d itself and the \u201cone germ\u201d (\u0101bhu). Unless and until there is clear evidence that the \u0101bhu is completely identical with \u201cthat one\u201d that breathed without air, I think we must keep this distinction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d Translation Notes (continued) RV 10.129.2a: n\u00e1 m\u1e5bty\u00far \u0101s\u012bd amr\u0301\u0323ta\u1e43 n\u00e1 t\u00e1rhi, \u201cThere was not death nor life (\u201cnon-death\u201d) then.\u201d The word am\u1e5bta commonly means \u201cimmortality,\u201d and most translators have translated it as such; for example: \u201cThere was not death nor immortality then.\u201d Coomaraswamy (1933), however, […]<\/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-502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502","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=502"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1307,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502\/revisions\/1307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}