Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation Notes (continued)<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.4:<\/b> This verse is repeated in the Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> at 1.23.1-2 (Bibliotheca Indica edition, 1871-1872, p. 142; \u0100nand\u0101\u015brama edition, vol. 1, 1898, p. 86; both with the commentary by S\u0101ya\u1e47a), or 1.23.90-91 (Mysore edition, vol. 1, 1900, pp. 137-138; with the commentary by Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra).<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.4a:<\/b> ka\u0301\u0304mas t\u00e1d \u00e1gre s\u00e1m avartata\u0301\u0304dhi, \u201cDesire in the beginning came upon that [germ].\u201d The \u201cthat\u201d (tat) that desire came upon 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 \u201cthat\u201d in this verse refers to the \u0101bhu (\u201cgerm\u201d) from the previous verse, in accordance with the natural grammatical sequence. How the commentaries understand the \u0101bhu has been given above under 10.129.3cd, in the second paragraph about \u0101bhu. Here, however, we have a decided advantage over what these late commentaries can tell us. The fact that this verse, 10.129.4, is repeated in the Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> (1.23.1-2) means that we have available a much older understanding of what it refers to. There this verse has been removed from the rest of the verses in hymn 10.129, so it is not preceded by the verse that speaks of the \u0101bhu (\u201cgerm\u201d). In place of the germ, this text in the preceding lines says that Praj\u0101pati is what desire came upon in the beginning. Praj\u0101pati, the \u201cLord of Progeny,\u201d is so called because he produces all creatures. The whole cosmos is his progeny or offspring.<\/p>\n
The Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> (of which we unfortunately do not yet have an English translation) says in the lines preceding the verse 10.129.4 from the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> that [all] this was only water, just like 10.129.3b says (\u201cAll this was water without distinguishing sign\u201d). It then says that the one (eka) Praj\u0101pati came into being (samabhavat), just like 10.129.3cd says that the one (eka) germ (\u0101bhu) was born (aj\u0101yata). It says that desire (k\u0101ma) arose (samavartata) within (antar) in his mind (manas), using the same verb as used in 10.129.4, only without the auxiliary word adhi<\/i>, \u201cover, upon.\u201d So samavartata, \u201cbecame, occurred, arose,\u201d could in this text simply be translated as \u201carose,\u201d while it would be translated as \u201ccame upon\u201d or \u201ccame over\u201d in 10.129.4. The desire that arose in the mind of Praj\u0101pati is put into words in the text as idam s\u1e5bjeyam, \u201cmay I create this [cosmos]\u201d (or more literally, \u201cmay I emanate this [cosmos]\u201d). After relating this to what a person does, the Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> text then gives the whole \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> verse 10.129.4. This directly parallel passage makes it clear that what was called the \u0101bhu in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129 was called Praj\u0101pati in the Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> parallel provides us with another advantage. On this text we have an additional commentary available, by the pre-S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentator Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra. While S\u0101ya\u1e47a glosses Praj\u0101pati here as jagad-\u012b\u015bvara, the \u201cLord of the World,\u201d Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra glosses Praj\u0101pati here much more in keeping with its Vedic context as hira\u1e47ya-garbha, the \u201cgolden germ\u201d (or \u201cgolden embryo\u201d or \u201cgolden womb\u201d). There is a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> hymn addressed to hira\u1e47ya-garbha, 10.121. In its last verse (10.121.10), hira\u1e47ya-garbha is specifically called Praj\u0101pati. (The doubts about this verse being original, on which see Gonda 1983, p. 31, do not change the fact of hira\u1e47ya-garbha\u2019s identification with Praj\u0101pati; e.g., they are again identified with each other at Taittir\u012bya-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 5.5.1.2.) Like hymn 10.129, hymn 10.121 is a cosmogonic hymn. It begins: \u201cThe golden germ arose (samavartata) in the beginning (agre).\u201d Since some translators (including myself) have already arrived at a meaning such as \u201cgerm\u201d or \u201cpotential\u201d for \u0101bhu by other means (see above under 10.129.3cd), there will be no difficulty in identifying the \u0101bhu of 10.129 with hira\u1e47ya-garbha, the \u201cgolden germ.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another cosmogonic hymn, \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.82, includes two verses describing the garbha, \u201cgerm.\u201d This hymn is addressed to vi\u015bva-karman, \u201cbuilder of all,\u201d who is also identified with Praj\u0101pati (for references, see Gonda 1983, p. 20). These verses, 5-6, are (as translated by Ralph Griffith, 1892): \u201cThat which is earlier than this earth and heaven, before the Asuras and Gods had being,\u2014What was the germ primeval [garbham prathamam] which the waters received where all the Gods were seen together? The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathered all together. It rested set upon the Unborn\u2019s navel, that One [i.e., the germ primeval] wherein abide all things existing.\u201d The parallels to what is said in 10.129 are obvious.<\/p>\n
The germ (garbha) is also said to be wind or air in a hymn addressed to v\u0101ta (\u201cwind\u201d), \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.168. Its verses 3cd-4ab say about wind (as translated by F. Max M\u00fcller, 1891, p. 449): \u201c. . . the friend of the waters, the first-born, the holy, where was he born, whence did he spring? The breath of the gods, the germ [garbha] of the world, that god moves wherever he listeth; . . .\u201d Wind or air is here described as the \u201cfirst-born\u201d (prathama-j\u0101), the \u201choly\u201d (\u1e5bt\u0101van; more literally, \u201cin accord with the cosmic order,\u201d \u1e5bta), like Praj\u0101pati is described as the \u201cfirst-born of the cosmic order\u201d (prathama-j\u0101 \u1e5btasya) in Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> 1.23.9. Praj\u0101pati is directly identified with wind or air in a related passage involving the waters in Taittir\u012bya-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 5.6.4.2 and 7.1.5.1. The phrase that M\u00fcller translates as the \u201cbreath of the gods\u201d is \u0101tm\u0101 dev\u0101n\u0101m. It has long been known that breath is an early meaning of the word \u0101tman, as found in the Vedas. A verse from the hymn to hira\u1e47ya-garbha, the \u201cgolden germ,\u201d also speaks of the breath of the gods. It is 10.121.7 (as translated by F. Max M\u00fcller, 1891, p. 2): \u201cWhen the great waters went everywhere, holding the germ (Hiran<\/i>ya-garbha), and generating light, then there arose from them the (sole) breath of the gods: . . .\u201d Here the phrase \u201cbreath of the gods\u201d is dev\u0101n\u0101m . . . asu\u1e25. So wind or air as the breath of the gods is also the first-born or first to arise, and is described as the germ of the world.<\/p>\n
In summary, just like the germ (\u0101bhu) is the first thing born in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, so the golden germ (hira\u1e47ya-garbha) arose in the beginning in 10.121.1. The golden germ is identified with the Lord of Progeny (praj\u0101pati) in 10.121.10, who also arose from the waters in Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> 1.23.1 and is there described as the first-born. Wind or air (v\u0101ta) is the first-born in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.168, and is the germ (garbha) of the world. Desire came upon \u201cthat\u201d in 10.129.4a, \u201cthat one germ\u201d (\u0101bhu) from 10.129.3cd, just like desire came upon the one Lord of Progeny (praj\u0101pati) in Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> 1.23.1-2, where \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.4 is repeated.<\/p>\n
For the word k\u0101ma, \u201cdesire,\u201d a few translators have used \u201clove,\u201d and a few have used \u201cwill.\u201d It is easy to see how desire as the attraction between the two sexes can come to mean love, and it is not hard to see how desire as wish can be a meaning of will (e.g., \u201cdo as you wish,\u201d or \u201cdo as you will\u201d). These translations help to show the range of meanings that k\u0101ma might have, especially as a cosmic principle. We know from Hesiod\u2019s Theogony<\/i> that the comparable eros (\u201cdesire\u201d) is also a cosmic principle in ancient Greek cosmogony. Like with tapas (10.129.3d), I have preferred to use the basic meaning (\u201cdesire\u201d), rather than a derivative meaning, and let the interpretations come later.<\/p>\n
Regarding the verb (samavartata, \u201cbecame, occurred, arose\u201d) and its auxiliary adhi, as noted by Macdonell in his Vedic Reader<\/i> (1917, p. 209): \u201c\u00e1dhi upon<\/i> makes the verb transitive = come upon<\/i>, take possession of<\/i>.\u201d That is, it then takes an object. In agreement with this, most translators have taken its object as tat, \u201cthat.\u201d A few (e.g., Edgerton 1965; Brereton 1999) have taken tat here as an indeclinable rather than a pronoun, and have translated tat as \u201cthen.\u201d The Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary and the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentary also take tat as \u201cthen\u201d (tad\u0101n\u012bm). The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentaries do not take adhi as making samavartata transitive, but instead take it as \u0101dhikyena, \u201cin a high degree.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentaries gloss the sam of samavartata as samyak, \u201ccompletely.\u201d So the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries take this verb to mean that desire fully arose.<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.4b:<\/b> m\u00e1naso r\u00e9ta\u1e25 pratham\u00e1\u1e43 y\u00e1d a\u0301\u0304s\u012bt, \u201cwhich was the first seed of mind.\u201d None of the words in verse 4 are mystery words, like some words in other verses of this hymn. Yet there are more possible ways to construe this verse than any of the other verses. The common interpretation of it as saying that desire was the first seed of mind is far less certain than the consensus of translations would lead the unsuspecting reader to believe. So one cannot say with confidence that \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129 teaches that desire precedes mind in the cosmogonic process, and then proceed to make comparisons with other cosmogonies. Reliable conclusions cannot be built on unstable ground.<\/p>\n
In this verse the referents for the pronouns are uncertain, if they are pronouns at all. Does the auxiliary word adhi make the verb take an object or merely intensify it? On this depends whether tat is taken as the pronoun \u201cthat\u201d or the adverb \u201cthen,\u201d and therefore whether or not it correlates with the following yat as the pronoun \u201cwhich.\u201d Does the word retas here mean seed as a cause or seed as a product? That is, is desire the cause of mind or the product of mind? Related to this is the question of whether the word manasa\u1e25 is to be taken as the genitive \u201cof the mind\u201d or the ablative \u201cfrom the mind.\u201d Then, does manas here mean mind or thought? More crucially, does manas here refer to an unmanifested ultimate mind or a manifested conventional mind (both of which are fully attested in the Vedic writings)?<\/p>\n
Most of the English (and German and French) translations understand this line to say that desire was the first seed of mind, while the Sanskrit commentaries agree that mind or thought preceded desire. In these translations the verb takes an object, \u201cthat\u201d (tat), which is then correlated with the following \u201cwhich\u201d (yat). So they understand this line as: \u201cDesire in the beginning came upon that [one], which [desire] was the first seed of mind.\u201d That is, they take the \u201cwhich\u201d to refer to \u201cdesire\u201d from the first part of the line. However, as a standard yat-tat pronoun correlative construction, the \u201cwhich\u201d (yat) goes with the \u201cthat\u201d (tat) that desire came upon, not with desire. What is the \u201cthat\u201d that desire came upon? According to most translators, the \u201cthat\u201d here is \u201cthat one\u201d that breathed without air from verse 2. Perhaps they did not want to say that \u201cthat one\u201d was the first seed of mind, and therefore took the corresponding \u201cwhich\u201d to refer to \u201cdesire\u201d instead. But the \u201cthat\u201d that desire came upon may not be \u201cthat one\u201d that breathed without air from verse 2.<\/p>\n
For reasons given above, I understand the \u201cthat\u201d that desire came upon to be the germ (\u0101bhu) from verse 3. Then, taking this line as a standard yat-tat pronoun correlative construction, it would be understood as: \u201cDesire in the beginning came upon that [germ], which [germ] was the first seed of mind.\u201d That is, the \u201cwhich\u201d (yat) refers to \u201cthat\u201d (tat) [germ] from the first part of the line. It is not unreasonable to say that the germ was the first seed of mind. What the germ (\u0101bhu) would refer to as the first seed of mind is either the first product of an ultimate mind, or the first cause of the conventional mind about to be manifested, or both. In the second case, mind would be equivalent to mahat, the \u201cgreat\u201d principle of intelligence from which the entire cosmos evolves. This is much like in the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary on 10.129.3d where the germ as the unmanifest world comes into manifestation by means of mahat. In the first case, mind would be a synonym of or associated with the ultimate, like brahman or para-brahman or \u012b\u015bvara or parame\u015bvara in the commentaries. As both, mind would be what is personified as Praj\u0101pati in the commentaries: the first-born from the ultimate brahman, and the \u201cLord of Progeny\u201d from which the cosmos is produced.<\/p>\n
Regarding the ideological question of whether desire precedes mind or mind precedes desire, the available Sanskrit commentaries take for granted that mind or thought precedes desire. Leaving aside the Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary, which is so brief that it gives us nothing to judge this by, we have four other commentaries on this verse. These four agree that desire arose in some mind or thought, whether this mind or thought is connected to (para)brahman through tamas, \u201cdarkness\u201d (so the S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary), whether it is of (parama)\u012b\u015bvara (so the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary), or whether it is of Praj\u0101pati (so the Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra and S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentaries). Desire is the first thing that arises in mind or thought. So for them, mind or thought precedes desire. They explain the phrase, \u201cthe first seed of mind,\u201d in relation to this taken for granted fact.<\/p>\n
The word retas, usually translated here in this verse as \u201cseed,\u201d commonly means \u201csemen.\u201d It can also mean \u201crain,\u201d which is how Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava takes it in the next verse. It is not the word \u201cseed\u201d as the seed of a plant, which word is b\u012bja. However, the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses retas here as b\u012bja. It is understood as the seed consisting of the karmic residues made by living beings in the previous period of manifestation that will bring about their manifestation in the upcoming period of manifestation. It is a cause in relation to the future period of manifestation, but an effect in relation to the previous period of manifestation. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentaries and the Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentary all gloss retas here as k\u0101rya, an effect in contradistinction to a cause; it is a product, being a manifestation from the cause. It is understood as being the first product or result of mind or thought. It is the desire to create. So this verse quarter is understood as speaking of \u201cthe first seed (as a product) of mind\u201d rather than \u201cthe first seed (as a cause) of mind.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the above it will be noticed that I did not give the whole phrase, \u201cwhich was the first seed of mind.\u201d This is because the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentaries do not take yat as the pronoun \u201cwhich\u201d here. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary takes yat as the indeclinable yata\u1e25, \u201cfrom which, due to which, since, because,\u201d further glossing it as yata\u1e25 k\u0101ra\u1e47\u0101t, \u201cfrom which cause, for what reason.\u201d It correlates this with the preceding tat, again not taking this as the pronoun \u201cthat,\u201d but rather as the indeclinable tata\u1e25, \u201cfrom that, therefore,\u201d further glossing it as tata\u1e25 heto\u1e25, \u201cfrom that cause, for that reason.\u201d So it takes this line to say: \u201cBecause a retas (\u201cseed\u201d) of such kind, being the first seed (b\u012bja) of the future manifestation (prapa\u00f1ca), the karma consisting of the merit made by living beings in the past period of manifestation (kalpa), at the time of creation (s\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di) was (\u0101s\u012bt), i.e., came into being (abhavat), . . . therefore the desire to create was born in the mind of parame\u015bvara (highest God), the giver of the fruits [of karma], the witness of all, the overseer of karma.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentary similarly takes yat as yad\u0101, \u201cwhen,\u201d and the corresponding tat as tad\u0101, \u201cthen,\u201d saying: \u201cWhen the first seed (retas), i.e., product (k\u0101rya), of mind was (\u0101s\u012bt), then, at the time of creation, from Praj\u0101pati in the beginning, at first, a desire (k\u0101ma), the desire (abhil\u0101\u1e63a), \u2018may I create all,\u2019 arose fully, in a high degree, was completely arisen.\u201d<\/p>\n
As we see, these two commentaries did not take yat and tat in this line as pronouns in a yat-tat pronoun correlative construction, as did most translations. The Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary also took tat as an adverb (tad\u0101n\u012bm, \u201cthen\u201d) rather than as a pronoun. He did not gloss yat. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary did take yat and tat here as pronouns. In order to correlate them it said: which (yat) seed (retas), i.e., product (k\u0101ryam), that (tat) product (k\u0101ryam), having become desire (k\u0101mo bh\u016btv\u0101), arose. That is, it took the yat-tat pronoun correlative as all neuter words, and then used \u201chaving become\u201d (bh\u016btv\u0101) to bring in the masculine k\u0101ma. In full: \u201cWhat was the first seed (retas), the initial product (k\u0101rya), of the mind connected with para-brahman, that product in the beginning, at the start of creation, having become desire, fully arose, in a high degree became manifest.\u201d The Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra Taittir\u012bya-\u0101ra\u1e47yaka<\/i> commentary did not gloss either yat or tat, so we do not know how he understood them. What is common to these commentaries that provide glosses is taking the text in such a way as to get the required gender agreement.<\/p>\n
The pronoun yat (\u201cwhich\u201d) is neuter in gender, while the noun k\u0101ma (\u201cdesire\u201d) is masculine in gender. So the \u201cwhich\u201d cannot stand for \u201cdesire,\u201d grammatically speaking, because of the difference in gender. The translation of this verse quarter that we usually see, \u201cwhich [desire] was the first seed of mind,\u201d does not show how this gender disagreement was accounted for. This is a separate problem from the one spoken of above about the \u201cwhich\u201d (yat) going with the \u201cthat\u201d (tat) that desire came upon (not with \u201cdesire\u201d) in a yat-tat pronoun correlative construction. So it applies even if this line is not taken as a yat-tat pronoun correlative construction, but instead the tat is taken as the adverb \u201cthen.\u201d I have seen only one comment on this. Macdonell in his 1917 Vedic Reader<\/i> says (p. 209), \u201cyad: referring to k\u0101mas is attracted in gender to the predicate n. retas.\u201d That is, according to Macdonell it is due to this attraction that yat (yad) agrees with the neuter word retas (\u201cseed\u201d) in the predicate rather than with the subject, desire, as would be expected.<\/p>\n
As far as I can tell from the English translations, only Coomaraswamy (1933) attempted to account for this gender disagreement in his translation. He did so by taking the yat (\u201cwhich,\u201d but \u201cthat\u201d in his translation) with the neuter retas (\u201cseed\u201d) rather than with masculine k\u0101ma (\u201cdesire,\u201d translated by him as \u201cwill\u201d). He translates: \u201cIn the beginning, Will (k\u0101ma<\/i>) arose (samavartat<\/i>) therein, the primal seed (retas<\/i>) of Intellect (manas<\/i>), that was the first.\u201d Coomaraswamy here appears to have understood an implied \u201cis\u201d between k\u0101ma and retas, and then he took prathama\u1e43 yad \u0101s\u012bt, \u201cthat was the first,\u201d as a separate phrase. Although it is not altogether clear from his punctuation, he seems to have ended up with the same meaning as is given by most of the other translators, that k\u0101ma is the primal seed of mind. But he did so without taking \u201cwhich\u201d (yat) as k\u0101ma (\u201cdesire\u201d). Kashyap (2007) copied Coomaraswamy almost verbatim here, even including the typo samavartat<\/i> for samavartata<\/i>. But the punctuation was changed, and this changed the meaning. He has: \u201cIn the beginning, desire (k\u0101ma<\/i>) arose (samavartat<\/i>) therein. The primal seed (retas<\/i>) of mind (manas<\/i>), that was the first.\u201d<\/p>\n