{"id":621,"date":"2013-04-02T01:44:56","date_gmt":"2013-04-01T23:44:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/?p=621"},"modified":"2015-12-01T17:39:37","modified_gmt":"2015-12-01T17:39:37","slug":"creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-vedas-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/creation-stories-the-cosmogony-account-from-the-vedas-6\/","title":{"rendered":"Creation Stories: The Cosmogony Account from the Vedas"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d<\/p>\n

Translation Notes (continued and concluded)<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.6a:<\/b> k\u00f3 addha\u0301\u0304 veda k\u00e1 ih\u00e1 pr\u00e1 vocat, \u201cWho really knows? Who here can say?\u201d As listed in Maurice Bloomfield\u2019s Rig-Veda Repetitions<\/i> (p. 482), this verse quarter is also found in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 3.54.5a. Verse 3.54.5 is, as translated by Griffith: \u201cWhat pathway leadeth to the Gods? Who knoweth this of a truth, and who will now declare it? Seen are their lowest dwelling-places only, but they are in remote and secret regions.\u201d Other verses ask the same two questions, using mostly the same words, but with small variations. For example, \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164.18, as translated by Vasudeva S. Agrawala (Vision in Long Darkness<\/i>, p. 68): \u201cBeneath the Upper Realm and above the Lower One, who knows the father of this Calf? Who as a Sage putting his thoughts into verses has been able to declare whence hath the godlike Mind originated.\u201d<\/p>\n

The exact sense of indeclinables such as addh\u0101, here translated as \u201creally,\u201d is sometimes hard to determine. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses it nicely as p\u0101ram\u0101rthyena, \u201cultimately.\u201d<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.6b:<\/b> k\u00fata a\u0301\u0304j\u0101t\u0101 k\u00fata iy\u00e1\u1e43 v\u00eds\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di\u1e25, \u201cFrom where has [it] been born? From where [has come] this manifestation?\u201d The word vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di is often translated as \u201ccreation.\u201d I think this is a good translation as long as one sees it as creation out of something, like creating a pot out of clay. Because \u201ccreation\u201d is often associated in Western culture as the creation of the world out of nothing, a number of translators have preferred other words, such as the more literal \u201cemanation.\u201d I have used \u201cmanifestation\u201d for vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di.<\/p>\n

The usual form of the word for creation or manifestation is s\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di, without the prefix vi-. Gonda apparently came to regard vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di in this verse as referring not to just \u201ccreation,\u201d but rather to \u201csecondary creation,\u201d as he translated it in his 1983 article, \u201cThe Creator and his Spirit\u201d (p. 33, fn. 138): \u201cAccording to \u1e5aV 10, 121, 9 he [Praj\u0101pati] created earth, sky and waters, the \u2018secondary creation\u2019 (vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di<\/i>) of 10, 129, 6.\u201d In his 1966 translation of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129 (p. 696), Gonda had translated vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di as \u201ccreation-in-differentiation\u201d and \u201ccreation (emanation)-in-differentiation.\u201d Primary and secondary creation are distinguished in the pur\u0101\u1e47as.<\/p>\n

The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries understand the two occurrences of kuta\u1e25, \u201cfrom where,\u201d as asking from what up\u0101d\u0101na-k\u0101ra\u1e47a, \u201cmaterial cause,\u201d and from what nimitta-k\u0101ra\u1e47a, \u201cinstrumental cause.\u201d These terms are often used in Indian philosophical texts, so their meaning is taken for granted in the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries. Using the analogy of a pot, the material cause is the clay, and the instrumental cause is the potter.<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.6c:<\/b> arva\u0301\u0304g deva\u0301\u0304 asy\u00e1 vis\u00e1rjanena, \u201cThe gods are later than the manifestation of this [cosmos].\u201d The word visarjana is a synonym of vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di, so I have also translated it as \u201cmanifestation.\u201d We here have it in the instrumental case, visarjanena, going with arv\u0101k, \u201cafterwards, later.\u201d Expressions with arv\u0101k normally use the ablative case, but we occasionally see other cases used with it if required by the meter. I have here translated the instrumental visarjanena in the ablative sense, \u201cthan the manifestation.\u201d<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.6d:<\/b> \u00e1th\u0101 k\u00f3 veda y\u00e1ta \u0101babhu\u0301\u0304va, \u201cThen who knows from what [it] has come into being?\u201d We here see a common feature of Vedic verse: the lengthening of final vowels in order to fit the meter. The indeclinable word atha has here become ath\u0101, just like vyoma became vyom\u0101 in 10.129.1b. That this has occurred is confirmed in the pada-p\u0101\u1e6dha, which gives the words without the lengthened final vowel.<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.7ab:<\/b> 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, \u201cFrom what this manifestation has come into being, whether [it] was made or whether not.\u201d The big question in understanding this verse pertains to the verb dadhe, \u201cproduced, made, established, upheld.\u201d No subject is stated, and one must be supplied for it. Moreover, the intended voice of this perfect tense middle voice verb is uncertain, since the middle voice may also be used in a passive voice sense (William Dwight Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar<\/i>, p. 201, paragraph 531, and p. 361, para. 998c-d; A. A. Macdonell, Vedic Grammar<\/i>, p. 312, para. 410.A.a, and A Vedic Grammar for Students<\/i>, p. 117, para. 121; see also Maurice Bloomfield and Franklin Edgerton, Vedic Variants<\/i>, vol. I: The Verb<\/i>, pp. 51-52). If taken in the middle voice sense, an object must also be supplied for this transitive verb. The whole question of the meaning and usage of the middle voice in the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i>, and why it often appears to be used in a passive sense, was studied in detail by Jan Gonda in his 1979 book, The Medium in the<\/i> \u1e5agveda<\/i>. His conclusion that it may best be described as an \u201ceventive\u201d voice will be discussed below, in relation to this verse, after considering the more immediate question of what the subject of dadhe is here.<\/p>\n

Among 36 English translations, a majority (17) supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to the preceding words, iya\u1e43 vis\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6di, \u201cthis creation\/manifestation.\u201d A minority (11) supply \u201che\u201d as the subject, referring to the words adhyak\u1e63a, \u201coverseer,\u201d and sa\u1e25, \u201che,\u201d from the next line. A few (5) supply a generic \u201cany one,\u201d or \u201cany,\u201d or \u201cone\u201d as the subject, not referring either to the preceding \u201cthis\u201d or the following \u201che.\u201d A few (3) supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to the preceding \u201cthat from which this creation came into being.\u201d The German translation by Karl Geldner (1951) supplies \u201che\u201d as the subject and takes the verb dadhe in its middle voice sense. The German translation by Paul Thieme (1964) and the French translation by Louis Renou (1956, 1967) supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject and take the verb dadhe in a passive voice sense. Among the three extant Sanskrit commentaries, Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava and the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary supply \u201che\u201d (sa\u1e25) as the subject. The former explains \u201che\u201d as the sra\u1e63\u1e6d\u1e5b, the \u201ccreator,\u201d and the latter explains \u201che\u201d as param\u0101tman, the \u201csupreme self,\u201d and then as \u012b\u015bvara, \u201cGod.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary supplies \u201cthat\u201d (tat) as the subject, referring to the preceding \u201cthat from which this manifestation has come into being,\u201d explained as the up\u0101d\u0101na-k\u0101ra\u1e47a, the \u201cmaterial cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

I have accepted the impersonal pronoun \u201cit\u201d rather than the personal pronoun \u201che\u201d as the unstated subject of the verb dadhe here. This is because 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. I see no reason to believe that this early hymn had God under consideration as the maker of the cosmos (see my article: \u201cGod’s Arrival in India<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u201d). If the adhyak\u1e63a, \u201coverseer,\u201d from the next line was the creator, one would have expected him to appear at the beginning of this hymn, not at the end. This is to say nothing of the question posed in this last verse as to whether or not even he knows from what this manifestation has come into being.<\/p>\n

Those who supply \u201che\u201d as the subject take the verb dadhe in its middle voice sense, \u201che produced, made, established, upheld,\u201d and also supply an object, \u201cit\u201d (this creation); saying, \u201cwhether he made it or whether not.\u201d Those who supply \u201cany one\u201d as the subject do the same; saying, \u201cwhether any one made it or whether not.\u201d Those who supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to the preceding \u201cthat from which this creation came into being,\u201d do the same; saying, \u201cwhether it (that from which this creation came into being) made it (this creation) or whether not\u201d (so Bose 1966: \u201cwhether It had held it together or It had not\u201d; verbatim except for the capital letters in de Nicol\u00e1s 1976; nearly the same in Panikkar 1977: \u201cwhether it held it firm or it did not\u201d).<\/p>\n

Those who supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to \u201cthis creation or manifestation,\u201d usually take the verb dadhe in a passive sense, \u201cit was produced, was made, was established, was upheld\u201d; saying, \u201cwhether it was made or whether not.\u201d No object is stated in a passive construction (since the object has become the subject). A few who supply \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to \u201cthis creation or manifestation,\u201d take the verb dadhe in its middle voice sense, and also supply an object, \u201citself\u201d; saying, \u201cwhether it made itself or whether not\u201d (Whitney 1882; Bloomfield 1908; Edgerton 1965 only in a footnote: \u201cperhaps, \u2018established itself\u2019\u201d; O\u2019Flaherty 1981: \u201cwhether it formed itself\u201d). Here the reflexive sense of the middle (\u0101tmane-pada) voice, where the action is directed back on itself, is expressed by the word \u201citself.\u201d In the translations that supply \u201che\u201d as the subject (11), or \u201cany one\u201d as the subject (5), or \u201cit\u201d as the subject, referring to the preceding \u201cthat from which this creation came into being\u201d (3), the reflexive sense of the middle voice is not expressed. The reflexive sense in these cases would be, \u201che made it for himself.\u201d<\/p>\n

When the verb dadhe is taken in a passive sense, \u201cit was produced, made, established, upheld,\u201d no agency is expressed in these translations (even though it could be). The action could be done automatically or by itself (saying, \u201cit was made by itself\u201d), or by some unspecified other (\u201cby it\u201d or \u201cby him\u201d) or a host of others (\u201cby them\u201d). The agentless passive reading, as stated by Maurer (1975, p. 234), \u201cby omitting all mention of the agency, might imply either the kind of evolution which has been the principal subject of the hymn or some cosmic agency, not necessarily the overseer, however.\u201d When the verb dadhe is taken in its middle sense, and accepting \u201cit\u201d rather than \u201che\u201d as the subject, it pretty much has to be understood as \u201cit made itself.\u201d This, as already stated, expresses the reflexive sense of the middle (\u0101tmane-pada) voice. This is apparently how W. Norman Brown took it in his two translations (1941, 1965), \u201cwhether spontaneously or not.\u201d While I find the middle sense as \u201c[it] made [itself]\u201d quite plausible as what the hymn intended, I have opted for translating dadhe in an agentless passive sense, \u201c[it] was made,\u201d as allowing for a wider range of possibilities.<\/p>\n

The need to translate middle voice verbs in many cases as if they were passive voice verbs has long been apparent. This led researchers to try to determine more accurately the precise function of the middle voice in ancient Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit. Jan Gonda concluded that the middle voice is best understood as an \u201ceventive\u201d voice. In his 1960 article, \u201cReflections on the Indo-European Medium,\u201d he explains what he means by this: \u201cThe hypothesis seems to be plausible that a widespread use was already in prehistoric times made of the middle forms to indicate that something comes or happens to a person (or object), befalls him, takes place in the person of the subject so as to affect him etc., without any agens being mentioned, implied, or even known. Very often the subject is a person or other living being and the process may take place even contrary to his wishes, unintentionally, more or less automatically. In the ancient periods of the I.-E. languages this use was very frequent.\u201d (Lingua<\/i>, vol. 9, 1960, p. 49; reprinted in his Selected Studies<\/i>, vol. 1, 1975, p. 126). Gonda relates this definition to the known reflexive sense of the middle voice (p. 66 or p. 143): \u201cOn the strength of the preceding considerations the hypothesis seems therefore justified that the \u2018original\u2019 or \u2018essential\u2019 function of the medial voice was not exactly to signify that the subject \u2018performs a process that is performed in himself\u2019, but to denote that a process is taking place with regard to, or is affecting, happening to, a person or a thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

The above-quoted study by Gonda covered middle voice verbs in the whole range of Indo-European languages, and included many examples from ancient Greek, etc., besides Sanskrit. Gonda then went on to study all the occurrences of middle voice verbs in just the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i>. Gonda opens his 1979 book, The Medium in the<\/i> \u1e5agveda<\/i>, by re-stating his definition of the \u201ceventive\u201d middle voice (pp. 1-2): \u201cthis diathesis primarily or essentially served to indicate that a process is taking place with regard to a person who, or thing which, is the subject; that it happens to a person or an object, befalls him (it), is at work in the person or thing which is subject of the sentence so as to affect (it); that that person etc. is in a definite physical or mental condition or in a certain set of circumstances etc., without any agens being mentioned, implied, or even known. Very often the subject is a person or other living being and the process may take place spontaneously, unintentionally, more or less automatically, even contrary to the subject\u2019s wishes.\u201d This voice is not easy for us to understand, or to express in English. This is because, as noted by Gonda partially quoting another writer (p. 3, fn. 10): \u201cthe fact that \u2018the mode of thought and expression\u2019 that is characteristic of modern English \u2018which has no distinction of voices as Sanskrit and Greek possess\u2019 often precludes \u2018the possibility of thinking from the standpoint of the (ancient) Indians\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the many examples of the \u201ceventive\u201d character of the middle voice, Gonda gives the passage here under discussion from \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.7. This illustrates a way to translate the middle voice verb dadhe as an eventive. He quotes this (p. 19) from his 1966 translation: \u201cthis creation (emanation)-in-differentiation . . . , whether it is the result of an act of founding (establishing: y\u00e1di v\u0101 dadh\u00e9<\/i>) or not . . .\u201d The case that Gonda has made for the middle voice being an eventive voice is thorough and, I think, conclusive. While I fully accept Gonda\u2019s explanation of the middle voice as an eventive voice, I have chosen to translate this phrase using an agentless English passive, \u201cwas made\u201d (\u201cwhether [it] was made or whether not\u201d), in order to avoid a rather lengthy paraphrase of the verb as \u201cis the result of an act of founding.\u201d Like the eventive, which is used without any agent being mentioned, implied, or even known, a passive can also be used without an agent. This, it seems to me, is the main point here in this verse.<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.7c: <\/b>y\u00f3 asya\u0301\u0304dhyak\u1e63a\u1e25 param\u00e9 v\u00fdoman, \u201cits overseer who is in the highest heaven.\u201d The noun adhyak\u1e63a is most often translated fairly literally as \u201coverseer.\u201d Here the prefix adhi (adhy) means \u201cover,\u201d and ak\u1e63a, \u201ceye,\u201d means \u201cseer.\u201d Like the English word overseer, the Sanskrit word adhyak\u1e63a has the meanings \u201ccontroller,\u201d \u201csupervisor,\u201d \u201cthe one in charge,\u201d etc. However, it may be intended here simply as \u201csurveyor,\u201d \u201cone who surveys,\u201d as some have translated it. Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava glosses it quite literally as adhidra\u1e63\u1e6d\u1e5b, \u201coverseer.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses it as \u012b\u015bvara, \u201cGod.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary glosses it as sv\u0101m\u012b, \u201cmaster.\u201d<\/p>\n

The word vyoman has been taken as a locative, as if vyomani, \u201cin the heaven,\u201d agreeing with the locative parame, \u201cin the highest.\u201d The apparently elided final \u201ci\u201d of vyoman as a locative is not uncommon in Vedic verse. For example, in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.5.7, we see the same phrase, parame vyoman, \u201cin the highest heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n

RV 10.129.7d: <\/b>s\u00f3 a\u1e45g\u00e1 veda y\u00e1di v\u0101 n\u00e1 v\u00e9da, \u201che surely knows; or else [he] knows not.\u201d The particle a\u1e45ga can mean \u201cjust, only,\u201d or \u201cindeed, surely,\u201d and translators have to choose one or the other. Either one could be intended. It is taken as \u201cjust, only,\u201d in S\u0101ya\u1e47a\u2019s Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary, where it is glossed as eva, while it is taken as \u201cindeed, surely,\u201d in S\u0101ya\u1e47a\u2019s \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary, where it is defined as prasiddhau, and glossed as api n\u0101ma. Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava does not gloss it. It can also be a vocative, sometimes translated as \u201csir\u201d (Kunhan Raja takes it this way here), \u201cdear one,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d Translation Notes (continued and concluded) RV 10.129.6a: k\u00f3 addha\u0301\u0304 veda k\u00e1 ih\u00e1 pr\u00e1 vocat, \u201cWho really knows? Who here can say?\u201d As listed in Maurice Bloomfield\u2019s Rig-Veda Repetitions (p. 482), this verse quarter is also found in \u1e5ag-veda 3.54.5a. Verse 3.54.5 is, as translated by […]<\/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-621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/621","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=621"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/621\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1421,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/621\/revisions\/1421"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}