One of the most famous Suktams in Rig Veda, which is perhaps more famous in western world (I mean, among 'Indologists') than here in India, is NAsadIya sUktam. Most people in India are happy with their PuruSa sUktam (for good reasons). I think freshers to this suktam should go here and update themselves with its meaning.
The part that catches the attention is the last line of the suktam:
The last line in Sanskrit is :
yo asyAdhyashkshah paramE vyOman sO anga vedA yadi vA na vEda
It is generally translated as:
He who surveys it in the highest heavens,
He surely knows, or may be He does not!
The 'it' here is, of course, the urge for creation, or the Creation itself, born in the mind of the Creator. The seer here opens up the possibility that the Creator himself does not know why he created. And since JnAna and Brahm can be equated, If Brahm does not have jnAna about something, that Brahm is no longer Brahm by very definition. And if Brahm is not Brahm (what?) then who else is Brahm?
There are three beautiful opinions in this regard:
1) According to A.K.Coomaraswamy the last line should be translated as:
"He knows and He knows not!"
The idea is that outcome of every act is not really fixed at all till the last second. The grace can act at last minute, there is no exception. The Creator does not need to plan ahead. Thus, both statements 'He knows' and 'He knows not in advance' are true. He does not specify the way of conclusion in advance, since such a specification limits His Own Power and by definition, the Supreme Person has no limitations.
2) According to Swamy Nikhilananda, since the suktam specifies a 'He' instead of 'It', the seer actually means 'SaguNa Brahm' and not 'NirguNa Brahm', and it is not surprising that SaguNa Brahm does not know something since He is a lesser consciousness than NirguNa Brahm. This view came up from Mr.Ramakrishna, another Shishya of my Guru while our little discussion was going on. But my Guru opines that since the entire RigVeda as 'sah' (He) instead of 'tat'(It), this theory has needs some more exploration before complete acceptance.
3) According to SAyana BhAshyam, the last line has a different meaning. The penultimate word 'na' in the verse is usually translated as 'not', but it can also mean 'who else'. My Guru gives several references where 'na' is used as 'who else'. Hence, the translation becomes: "He knows, and [if not] who else knows."
And finally, Guruji sums up after explaining all this: "Jo hai, so hai." (What is, is!). Thats is a quietened mind talking! It will take some time for me to accept the blunt reality in the sentence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What about the possibilities of Quantum Physics? The fundamental particle being capable of existing in both states at once? :D
Aah! Actually I just discovered that is what I feel as well!!
'yes' and 'no' are but two disjoint parts of the bigger whole. It is wrong to restrict and categorise God to concrete definition.
But Guruji feels otherwise. His argument is "Once you are in light, u cannot see darkness at the same time." So his argument is that such disjoint states are not capable of co-existence. Nevertheless, the question that remains is:
Just because we humans are not able to imagine such a state where both 'light' and 'darkness' i.e., 'knowing' and 'not-knowing' can co-exist, does it mean they cannot co-exist in That Higher Being??
By chance I happened to surf for those who like the chinese movie HERO and found your blog. Fantastic. I am hoping to start a sanskrit serial soon. You, I implore ,be our resource person. I will soon post my concept on my blog.
namaskaar Leena tai,
I just hope that I have enough resources to be your resource person.
By the way, on which blog of yours are you going to post your concept?
Perhaps it is just the modesty of the text(Rig Veda)'s author. Perhaps the author is trying to convey that when the author does not even know the One and when Gods themselves came only after the One, how is it possible to tell for sure, what the One knows or does not know.
Perhaps it indicates the limits of saying something in words...
That is correct.
The line exposes limits to what one can achieve even through tapas.
The Rishi may have attained brahmagnyaanam, but is that enough for knowing the limits of The Creator Herself/Himself?
Can you help me out with the second part please?? Not feeling comfortable with the terminology of 'Saguna Brahm' and 'Nirguna Brahm'..
saguna and nirguna are two aspects of that Brahma. Saguna means "with gunas", that is, with attributes. I can give 3 examples:
Ex-1: he is blue in colour, has four hands, he was the first one.
Ex-2: he wears only tiger skin, lives as an ascetic, roams in cremation grounds, he was the first one.
Ex-3: she has eight hands, kills demons, she has nine forms, she was the first one.
Each of these, is a cult or a sub-religion within our sanatana dharma.
Nirguna Brahm on the other hand, is that pure eternal blissful consciousness that "is always". It is ultimate is terms of states of consciousness. It manifests itself above the saguna Brahm, because all the gunas of Saguna Brahm are eschewed, and what remains is nirakara (formless), nirguna (attribute-less) Brahm.
For masses, saguna Brahm is easier to approach.
Hello Kedar,
[First time visitor to your blog. Nice set of thoughts.]
As you know, veda means knowledge. It also means knowing. The concept of knowing needs a subject, object and means of knowledge.
For example: when I see a cat, the cat is the object. I am the subject. "seeing" is the means of knowledge. The "I" in the seeing is independent of seeing and not seeing. Hence it is beyond the concept of seeing.
My eye can see a cat or it can not. It is independent of that perception. The concept of Knowing is much like seeing. It is just a little more abstract. It could be emotional, intellectual or memory-based. It is primarily based on the (5) sense organs.
The seer of this sukta, by using the "whether he knows or does not" -- which may seem mutually contradictory at a superficial level (in fact is using a very old method of teaching) -- is implying that the subject by itself, is beyond the concept of knowledge.
It is I, without any attributes, without any object and objectification, beyond space, beyond time and beyond causality. The only way in which someone can describe that I is by the Upanishadic "Neti Neti".
Just some opinions.
Regards,
Ramakrishna
URK:
Welcome, and thanks for visiting!
I definitely feel honoured that you felt this blog was worth a comment from you.
"My eye can see a cat or it can not. It is independent of that perception."
This is highly interesting. All along, I was caught up in the impression that Brahman (the eye) and Jnaana (the cat) are same. Your comment is now making me think in another direction.
What I am now led to think is that Jnaana is only an attribute, and the ultimate Nirakara Nirguna Brahman exists without any need of Jnaana to validate Him/Her/It.
So, I would like to know if the last line can be translated as "whether He knows or He doesnt, it does not matter."
All along, I was caught up in the impression that Brahman (the eye) and Jnaana (the cat) are same. Your comment is now making me think in another direction.
Please read the first few verses of Drig Drishya Viveka for differences between subject and object. It is available online at the following link http://www.archive.org/details/drgdrsyaviveka030903mbp
What I am now led to think is that Jnaana is only an attribute, and the ultimate Nirakara Nirguna Brahman exists without any need of Jnaana to validate Him/Her/It.
Though I do not completely understand the "Jnana is an attribute" part, I agree with the latter part of the sentence at a level.
The subject is self-revealing. To make the Self an object of knowledge means that there is another subject that reveals it. This is not so. It alone IS. Everything else is revealed by it. (The subject is even beyond the concept of revealing and non-revealing.)
So, I would like to know if the last line can be translated as "whether He knows or He doesnt, it does not matter."
I am not sure if I completely agree to this, either at a local level or cosmic.
Perhaps at one stage of cosmic interpretation, it may be right. Also, at one stage of realization (of the Atma with Brahma), such translation of the last line "it does not matter" of the sukta is perfectly right.
At a more mundane level, such a translation could be incorrect, according to my understanding,
Post a Comment