This has reference to shrI Sarma's post #33 in the
Atheism for Beginners thread here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/8259-atheism-beginners-4.html#post122753
nAsadIya sUktam: Rgveda 10.129
The last two lines of this
sUktam are most intriguing. They read as follows:
iyaM visRuShTiryata AbabhUva | yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na |
yo asyAdhyakShaH parame vyomann | so aMga veda yadi vA na veda || 7 ||
The
usual interepretations of these lines run as follows:
Vivekananda:
This projection whence arose,
Whether held or whether not,
He the ruler in the supreme sky, of this
He, O Sharman! knows, or knows not He perchance!
Krishnananda:
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Wilson, HH:
He from whom this creation arose,
he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can);
he who is superintendent in the highest heaven,
he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does).
Max Mueller:
He from whom this creation arose,
whether he made it or did not make it,
the highest seer in the highest heaven,
he forsooth knows, or does even he not know?
dadha - preserve, maintain, uphold; adhyakSha - exercising supervision, superintendent; vyoman - space, sky, ether, heaven; aMga/anga - well, indeed! veda - knows
The paradox of the Creator not knowing about his own Creation is explained as follows:
Notice that in this verse, the Creator is not only separted from the Creation, but addressed to as a person, 'He'. He is also spoken of as supervising His Creation from the highest heaven.
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."
Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 offers a similar proposition:
"In which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is infinite. But that in which one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, is the finite. That which is infinite, is alone immortal, and that which is finite, is mortal". "Revered sir, in what is that infinite established?" "On its own greatness or not even on its own greatness".
The interesting question is:
Does this
nAsadIya sUktam have the seeds for all the three Kali Yuga Darshanas: advaita, dvaita, vishiShTAdvaita?
