In the last article we have gonethrough the fine elements of approaching nāsadīya sūkta and we touche dupon the first stanza. In the present article let us proceed further.
Stanza-2:
na mṛtyur āsīd amṛtaṃ na tarhi /
na rātrayā ahna āsīt prakētaḥ //
ānīdavātaṃ svadhayā tadēkaṃ /
tasmāddhānyanna paraḥ kiṃcanāsa //
Word to Word Meaning:
na = Not; mṛtyur = Death; āsīd = existeth; amṛtaṃ = un-death; na = not; tarhi = at that time; na = not; rātrayā = Night; ahna = Daytime; āsīt = existeth; prakētaḥ = sight; ānīd = To breath; avātṃ = No wind; svadhayā = Selfsustained; tadēkaṃ = That/It alone; tasmād = therefore; dhā = existing (wearing); anyan = other than that/it; na = No ; paraḥ = Beyond; kiṃ = What; ca = and; nĀsa = not seated!
Import:
Neither death nor life existeth nor night nor day light, at that moment. That alone breathed windless, having self sustaining capabilty. Therefore, what else existed beyond and above? (meaning nothing else was there beyond “THAT”).
Explanation:
Just to recap a bit, what was “The Moment” that is being spoken? It was the moment of birth of creation. So, the moment when the ONE apparently seperates as many, by the unfathomable layer of illusion. Now, What are the characteristics of this moment? 1st stanza described that this moment, being moment of creation, is still ONE and hence no dual exists to it. DO you know when in an egg, a chick is formed out of the soft matter? We do not. But before the formation and after the formation, being a continuous process, there must be a MOMENT when the seemingly life-less matter turns into LIFE of chick. This moment, when enlarged to creation being created from the deep abyss, is nothing but poetically expressed Nāsadīya.
Important terms to be first understoor:
- Mṛta and Amṛta: General meaning of Mṛta is death and Amṛta is its antonym, Life. But I have an interesting point to make here. In vēdas we have a conceot of RITAM. Ritam means TRUTH beyond material perception. Take seasons for example. They are called Ritus because, they follow RITAM i.e., the periodicity is never intefered by any material aspect. The cicliciyty of seasons exist as TRUTH beyond material perception, hence RITU/RITAM. Now, Amṛtaṃ and Mṛtaṃ are closely connected to this word Ritam. Try to utter Ritam cyclically (because periodicity means ritam and vice versa)–RitamRitamRitamRitamRitamRitam…… In this cyclical utterance of Ritam exist both Amritam and Mritam. So, the first emergence from RITAM is “Amritam“. This acts as LIFE principle for creation lateron. The moment there is life, its polar opposite, by law of dual nature of creation, emerges which is “Mṛtaṃ”. These both are sustain by and exist in Ritam as you can see above cyclical utterance.
- Rātri and Ahnah: A day and night combined is called “Ahōrātraṃ” in Sanskrit. It is a circle of day made of basic units “Hōra or Hours”. “Rā” means an utterance or emergence (of LIGHT). “tra” means to protect. Rātri then means the protecteor of LIGHT i.e., it shields it from being absorbed by the observer and hence NIGHT/DARK. “Ahas” means awakenness, which occurs due to sunrise and retains until sunset and hence implies a DAY/LIGHT. Mahabharata says “The creation is a cloth woven with the threads of light and darkness (days and nights)”. As implied by the root meanings, Day and night or light and darkness can be also taken as “Awakenness” and “Slumber” of consciousness.
- Swadha: Swa+Dha = That which has a capacity to wear itself or sustain itself. Our Earth is called “Dhṛti” from which hindi word “Dharti” originated. So, “Dha” implies that which supports or sustains. Swadha then will become a self-sustaining property. We are sustained by the body, body by the blood and life, life by the elements, elements by the time and space, time and space by the “parō vyōma/deep abyss” (ref. stanza 1) and that deep abyss by who ever permeates it. What about that pre-permeating agent? (loop it infinitely and we must end somewhere and that somewhere is what we call Paramātma). That pre-permeating ever existing _____(for now blank, we dont know what to call) is self-sustained. From it everything emerges and into it everything goes and hence “Swadha”.
- Tat: Tat = THAT or IT. Because we did not know what to call the blank _______ above, the seers called it “TAT”. Why? If it is alone and One existing, does it has a gender? or a name or a form? WHo can say if they themselves are not awake to utter anything? That is why a neuter word “TAT” is used in Vēdās to suggest the ONE ever existing ________.
With these concepts in backgroung of the intuitive mind, we can explore the hymn in its magnified glory. It seems that at the moment of creation, the moment just before hatching of the Egg of cosmos (brahmāṇḍa), there was no life or death. Infact that line meant there was no manifestation of the principle of “RITAM” (because RITAM = AMRITAM + MRITAM combined) i.e, the cycles have not yet begun. It seems that to see what is going on there, neither there is day nor night (i.e., neither sunlight nor starlight). That means, there is nothing awaken nor asleep to affirmatively suggest, for, there was no dual to the ONE.
Now comes an interesting part – “Ānīd+avātaṃ” i.e, the One is breating without air. Many are confused at this line. If no one else is existing and nothing else is existing, why say a trivial thing that “thereis no air” and how come the ONE “breathes” at all and that too with no air? This is a crucial line of this stanza-2. Avātaṃ is wrongly translated as “not air/not wind”. Actually, remove air from the wind, what exists? Remove water from waves, what exists? The oscillatory principle of air/water molecules exists. On this principle, when the physical air molecules superimpose, they too osscilate. So “Avātaṃ” means that which remains when you remove the vātaṃ/wind – The PULSATION. Infact, pulsation is called “Spandana” in Sanskrit and according to “Spanda Kārikās” of Śaivism, SPANDANA or the first pulsation is the primary cause of creation.
Now, the moment of consideration is not a dormant slumber (praḷaya) but the fine moments just before creation. So, if it were Praḷaya (dissolution), there would be nothing to describe as nothing exists except the ONE. But just before the creation, something emerges from nothing. It seems that something is not nothingness nor somthingness nor rajas nor waters nor awakeneing of consciousness nor its dormant sleep ….. etc., but it is PULSATION. So, this pulsation starts in the ONE-THAT which is ever existing. This pulsation causes the first stir of RAJAS which we spoke in stanza-1. That stur causes all the rest of dualities that are being mentioned to manifest. Even the tiniest of the atom vobrates (rajō guṇa) due to this first PULSATION that continues to exist in creation as eternal LAW DHARMA, and so does a new born baby in the form of a periodical CRY. So it is said that “THAT is breathing without wind” symbolically.
Because these pulsations occurs “in IT” rather than “by it”, the IT is called as “SWADHĀ” – self sustaining. Generally swadha means food offered for the pitṛ dēvās in death rituals. The food that we offer for reproductory angels in actuality is nothing but the progeny or the BODIES. Hence swadha means a body. So, the IT that we are speaking of, has these PULSATIONS as its body at the time of creation. These pulsations express as the whirl of rajas and thereby the movements of waters of life (stanza-1). All this happens “in” the body of IT which is the ONE (Ēkaṃ). That is the true meaning. But the moment is before creation and hence, nothing as such yet manifested, except for the birth of pulsations in IT (as the waves in ocean or thoughts in our mind).
At last it is being said that “There is nothing dual to it” which is easy to grasp once everything studeid above is understood properly. And hence, the rhetorical question as to “What else exists beyond this?” was asked- meaning nothing else exists beyond IT, as this alone is the starting point of creation.
Thank You!
9 Comments
Excellent. You have explained the cause-effect concept very simply by the berg example. Truth is indeed an individual perception which is relative. I have nothing to add now. But enjoyed the dialogue.
Indeed me too! Thanks 🙂
1. Yes, that was my argument based on the minuscule nature of our existence. It does matter to me because I got to relate it to pragmatics while being non-empiric.
2. About the ‘whole,’ my viewpoint is we’re not a ‘part.’ Atma, a single soul, is a manifestation of Supreme-Atma. The latter is the cause, and the former is the effect. It is the cause and effect association. The effect can’t be less than the cause. The cause changes to effect but continues to remain cause also.
3. Yes, I fully agree to the point regarding duality between self and ‘that.’
4. Underneath difference, sometimes there is a harmony of opinion. “Vivid expression of the same tat.” I like the expression.
Thanks for your quick responses. My other multi-interests distract me often.
All points are cool and sound. Thumbs up.
But the cause effect point needs more shaping. One cause, can cause causes and effects and chain of cause-effects. Yes, there is no difference between Atma and Paramatma, yet there is. When ice forms from water as a berg, there is in actuality no difference, but in reality (perceived reality) there is. There can me many ice bergs, but only asuch as ocean can be. So, lot of iceberg depends on magnitude of ocean. In our case, supreme atma being infinite, there are infinite atma/ice bergs. But then, these atmas have a duration. When they exist as bergs, they are realized as atmas. When they dissolve, they “become” supreme ocean/atma. Thus, the atmas are limited by time constraints. But supreme atma, being source for time aswell, stays beyond time and atmas. In that sense supreme atma is always “higher”. Just because a glass of water from ocean is same in all respects can not flood us. It takes whole ocean to flood us. Same is case with atma. Just because it is same in all its essence with supreme, does not allow it to be same and hence less. That is why Brahmajnana is put after Atmajnana. If not, why speak of supreme at all? We could have just ended all scriptures with Atman itself, why speak of Brahman? Because the expression is not complete unless this “seeming separation” as atma unseems and becomes Brahman.
Hehe true. Harmony exists as the expression of relative truth we all perceive. You have your truth and I have mine. But both put together form one truth. That is why rigveda says “what you call day and night is put together day for us, what you call truth and untruth, put together is truth for us …..”.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Sorry, it took me some time to reply. However, continuing the debate further this is how I understand.
“That existence does not hold in analytical thought,” I can agree to that. And my agreement is based upon the fact that we human beings are too small, like a small tiny bug or even smaller, in this universe and beyond, to comprehend God’s enormity.
I don’t know how the “triangle of the subject, object, and the process” can be obliterated in this reality to feel the ‘tatt.’ (The latter word has a significant meaning in the Gayatri mantra.) It is indeed a fine thread of realization. The story of sage Narada is interesting but can only be accepted from a metaphysical angle.
🙂 No probs …. we all have our “free times” 😉
1) “And my agreement is based upon the fact that we human beings are too small, like a small tiny bug or even smaller, in this universe and beyond, to comprehend God’s enormity.” – you mean this is your argument or is this what you understand from mine? If it is from mine, then I did not say anything in those lines. If it is yours, then, however small human is, or large he is does not matter. Finally HE is same as THAT – “Yat pinde tat brahmande”. So, being human, we have only “being human” as the key to solve what ever doubts we have – including understanding the “whole” – whose “part” we are.
2) “I don’t know how the “triangle of the subject, object, and the process” can be obliterated in this reality to feel the ‘tatt’ ” — Not to “feel”, but to “be”. Feel, analyze, know, etc., are all to the dually existing self. But to be as TAT is different from those. As long as this dualness of self exists, ‘TAT’ does not exist to that self. As long as triangle exists, point of unity does not exist. Thats the whole point I am trying to make. If you differ, then its fine 😀 The difference makes the world vibrant and only shows the vivid expression of same TAT through vivid understandings 😉
3) Indeed Gayatri’s TAT is the same TAT that I am speaking here.
4) Metaphysics — Ok, if that satisfies your enquiring mind.
Thank you!
Interesting. I must admit the subject matter is hard to comprehend. Perhaps, the reason is there are too many of Sanskrit terminologies which you have to explain with best of your effort. And I must commend you for that. Here I need some help when you say “… there would be nothing to describe as nothing exists except the ONE. And that One, I presume you refer to God. If that is so, can we go beyond the One. Otherwise, it is lot easier to establish a concept about the creation of this universe or beyond. Sorry, if I sound weird.
Hi! Thanks 🙂
Indeed that’s the point of the first and second stanzas. The rhetorical questions which ask “Is there anything/anyone beyond?” Or assertions like “There is naught nor aught”, etc., Should hint the delicate thread of thought that does not hold in an analytical mind. I will give an example from scripture itself. May be it helps.
Say you are in an opera and assuming you like it. Initially, there is Opera going, you observing and the process of observation. Then, slowly as you go deeper into opera, you loose yourself into opera and you become the music. If we can go beyond, which happens but we only know it as blank later, there will be no music nor us (the us to realize that there is music), but just existence itself. When we come out of that state, and see our watch, we think omg how involved was I that I din’t realize…… Sleep and this state seem similar, bit here we are consciously absorbed while in seel , consciousness is absorbed. That is why I said this existence does not hold in analytical thought. The moment thought exists, you and thought are separate and this separation can never help you. When this triangle of subject, object and process of the interlink is broken, only then can you be the ONE, but then, you won’t be you you, bit the ” IT you”.
That existence alone, having no dual is the ONE that I am speaking/the Sukta is speaking. I am not coining term GOD because it has preconceived notions to many. That is why Veda calls it TAT, which means, what ever you show or call as this and that, you actually point to that “tat” which is not perceivable (because we just entered opera. It is perceivable only if we can dissolve into opera but then “we” are no more as “we”) but is hovered by its many modes (body, atoms, color, number, etc.).
So when I say ONE, I mean that fine thread of universal existence.
Am I clear? Did I get your question right at least (am I addressing what you intended? I am open to clarify more on this. May be we can do that in a shared Google doc which gives more freedom for a Q/A form of exchange of ideas.
🙂
Sorry, I thought of giving example of Narada from Bhagawata, but then I thought opera should suit better. So I wrote scripture example. Anyway for completeness I can give narada’s example here.
Once sage Narada was meditating. It took him lot of effort to gain states of dharana and all. One fine day he slowly realized himself dissolving and breath alone existing. Then slowly, breath disappeared as an external object (w.r.t. him) and he became breath. Through the rhythm of breath, he slowly slid into his inner self. There he found VISHNU. For a split second there was a blank (actually he realized this after he came out of the blank). After split second, he started to weep with joy that he found VISHNU. But the moment he started to enjoy, Vishnu disappeared. Then he wept for the absence and loss of this experience. A voice from sky then says that, ” I exist when you are not. But when you exist, I am not” …..” After few lifetimes, you may again reach me”.
This story encapsulates what I told in opera story. See, Narada was in that state of oneness, so time, space, everything collapses into ONE. But, just like a wave of ocean or thought of mind, his innerself germinate(s) himself out of this oneness. That is how he could realize the joy. Only after sleep can you feel relaxed and thankful to a good sleep. So, the moment he, as Narada existed, ViSHNU (all pervasion) collapsed into duality. Thus even though he weeps he can not again go to that state easily. There is more to this, but this suffices for now.
So the ONE, we unable to describe it, and the duality – I guess I have clarified these three in above two comments. Let’s see how you process them and let me know if I have to go simpler and deeper into this thought 🙂
Thanks a lot. Have a good day!!