In this paper, I examine briefly the real situation regarding the religio-philosophical frame of belief in Ancient India and particularly in the Vedic period. While undoubtedly the worship of many different, as it seems, gods was paramount in the Rigvedic hymns, yet some of those hymns reveal a firm faith in the One Absolute of which the many are manifestations. A little deeper enquiry into the hymns and the Upanishads subsequently reveals that a philosophy like that of Adi Shankaraâs VedÄnta was already in full operation beside the worship of the many, the sacrificial rituals and all the other religious practices of that period.
1. In the beginning was That One âŠ
ÄÌnÄ«d avÄtĂĄm svadhĂĄyÄ tĂĄd Ă©kam; tĂĄsmÄd-dhÄnyĂĄn-nĂĄ parĂĄáž„ kĂm canÄÌsa âThat one breathed without air of its own power; there was nothing else beyond, other than Thatâ RV (áčgveda) 10.129.2.
This, say many, is a late hymn from the last of the 10 Books of the RV. So we go to an earlier period, hymn 8.54, where the 2nd stanza says in successive parallel statements about one appearing as many: éka evÄÌgnĂr bahudhÄÌ sĂĄmiddha, Ă©kaáž„ sĆ«Ìryo vĂĆvam ĂĄnu prĂĄbhĆ«tĂĄáž„; Ă©kaivĂłáčŁĂĄáž„ sĂĄrvam idĂĄáč vĂbhaty, ékaáč vÄ idĂĄáč vĂ babhĆ«va sĂĄrvam âAgni being one is kindled variously [in many places]; the sun being one has prevailed over all; Dawn being one, indeed, lights all this [creation]; This One has variously (vi) become all [and everything]â. But this too is somewhat late.
An even earlier hymn from the ViĆvÄmitra family Book 3 says: éjad dhruvĂĄáč patyate vĂĆvam Ă©kaáč cĂĄrat patatáčÌ vĂáčŁuáčaáč vĂjÄtĂĄm âMoving yet firm the One governs all âthis generated multiplicity, what walks and fliesâ, 3.54.8 cd. And I disregard here the syntax with its neuters, which suggests that even this manifold (viáčŁuáča) creation is a unity. But it is a superb statement.
And to dispel any lingering doubts, in RV 1.164.46 DÄ«rghatamas tells us ékaáč sĂĄd vĂprÄ bahudhÄÌ vadanti agnĂáč yamĂĄáč mÄtarĂĆvÄnam ahuង âThough being One, the wise speak of it with many [godly] names â Agni, Yama, MÄtariĆvanâ. And I add, the wise do this because That One has become and appears as all these phenomena, divine and mundane, all worlds, all gods, all creatures that walk and fly.
Long before the Moslem, Christian and Judaic monotheism, long before the philosophical traditions and schools in ancient India and long before the Upanishads declared the absolute Brahman, the áčgveda hymns revealed the Unity from which emerged the multiplicity. And the áčáčŁis did this in an almost off-the-cuff, nonchalant manner, as though, despite the many gods praised and worshipped by the people, the idea of That One was not uncommon. For we find in the hymns no devotional, elaborate, repetitions or pompous descriptions of That One indicating a need to fill gaps in knowledge and to explain its nature and power â as is done in subsequent works like most Upanishads and the GÄ«tÄ.
Let us take another example from the early third ViĆvÄmitra family Book. The 22 stanzas of hymn 55 say mahĂĄd devÄÌnÄm asuratvĂĄm Ă©kam âgreat is the single lordly-power of the godsâ. The power of the asuras/devas is single and at a universal level, beyond each individual god, and they are asuras/gods by partaking of it. The idea is repeated elsewhere, as in 1.68.2: bhĂĄjanta vĂĆve devatvĂĄm nÄÌma âall enjoy/share godhood indeedâ. Again, they are gods by sharing in the universal abstraction âgodhoodâ. And in 2.33.9, Rudra is made lord of this world by the asuryĂĄ, which does not leave him â the mute implication being that the power could leave him!
2. So it is not only late âphilosophicalâ hymns that know of the One [Absolute] from which arise all and everything. Early ones knew of it also.
The primordial unity is differently presented in the (pantheistic) hymn PuruáčŁa SĆ«kta, 10.90. PuruáčŁa is the cosmic being/man who manifests the universe with only one quarter of himself becoming all things, while the other three remain immortal in heaven. (By the way, what is âheavenâ in the RV, and âmidairâ antarikáčŁa and âearthâ páčthivī and the three subdivisions of each making a total of nine worlds or levels?).
Th. McEvilley, an American scholar, finds antecedents for this hymn in the Egyptian Memphite Theology, where various deities are said to be parts of god PtÄh â even though PtÄh does not sacrifice himself, no worlds or creatures arise from his members and the text is not earlier than 1200 BCE. But, he calls the Rigvedic hymn âmacranthropicâ and sees in it influences not only from Egypt, but also Mesopotamia, from the hymns to Inanna/Ishtar and Marduk, even though these again present no sacrificial evolution (2002: 24-27).
The Rigvedic hymn is not âmacranthropicâ, but cosmogonic and theogonic. It presents the evolution of the One into the multiplicity of the creation. Even Hesiodâs theogony, particularly the castration of Ouranos by his son Kronos, does not result in a large scale creation â only the rise of Aphrodite and various nymphs. In the puruáčŁa hymn the cosmogony is explicit. From his head arose the Sky; from his mind the Moon; from his eye the Sun; from his mouth Agni and Indra; from his breath VÄyu; from his navel the midair antarikáčŁa; from his ear the space-quarters. Then, his very mouth became the brÄhmana varáča, his arms the rÄjaáčĂœa âaristocratsâ, his thighs the vĂĄiĆya âproducersâ and his feet the ĆĆ«drĂĄ, the servile varáča.
Why does a scholar ignore the obvious, so blatantly and finds influences and parallels where none exist? Unfortunately pedants do just this.
3. This question brings me to another aspect of deliberate ignorance on the part of highly respectable scholars. This time, it is with regard to the well-known NÄsadÄ«ya SĆ«kta, RV 10.129, which presents a yet different aspect of cosmogonic and anthropogonic creation. In the RV often Dyaus, father Sky, and PáčthivÄ«, mother Earth, are âthe Parentsâ, who engender the gods and the worlds (e.g. 1.159.2, etc.). Elsewhere (5.30.5) Indra does this. Also, Brahmaáčaspati is said to be the deitiesâ father (2.26.3), while in 10.72.6 he fashions the cosmos like a smith. Elsewhere, Soma performs the function of fathering the deities (9.87.2) and in 1.113.9, UáčŁas mothers the gods.
Then, in 10.72, Aditi generates the gods and the martÄáčáža âthe dead eggâ, which is the sun â being born and dying again and again (st 8-9). And there are other creator-gods like TvaáčŁáčáč. Now, behind this apparent confusion and inconsistency lies presumably the idea that it does not matter what deity is given priority or fatherhood at any instance, since each and every one is the expression of That One, the absolute Godhead, that is neither female nor male, beyond gender and guáčas âqualitiesâ.
In 10.129, âthe Creation Hymnâ as it is known in the West, in the beginning, before creation, where there was no existence or life and death, no day and night or space and air, there was only That One breathing airless of its own accord (ÄnÄ«d avÄtĂĄáč svadhĂĄyÄ). It was profound, unfathomable Potency (ĂĄmbhas⊠gahĂĄnaáč gabhÄ«rĂĄáč), the first stanza states; and this was enveloped in darkness tĂĄmas yet had salilĂĄm âfluctuating energyâ without any âdistinct formâ apraketĂĄ; from it arose âwhat becomes/evolves (ÄbhĂș-)â, which was âcovered over by voidâ tuchyĂ©na-ÄbhĂș-ĂĄpihĂtam! From That arose by the âpower of transformationâ tĂĄpas âthat which-becomesâ ÄbhĂș and upon that evolved âdesire/love/willâ kÄÌma; described as âthe first seed/flow of mindâ mĂĄnaso rĂ©taáž„ prathamĂĄm. But, here we should note also the pun involving the dhÄtu âprath âspreading, extending out, being known, proclaimedâ.
The implication is that this seed will expand and be known as the creative process and its creation. Indeed, in stanzas 5 and 6 other forces appear and the gods and the âoutpoured creationâ iyĂĄáč vĂsáčáčŁáčiáž„. However, the rishi, who envisioned (or âheardâ) this evolution is humble enough to acknowledge that he does not really know âwhence arose this ray of creationâ kĂșta ÄÌjÄtÄ iyĂĄáč vĂsáčáčŁáčiáž„. The gods would not know either, since they arose afterwards arvÄÌk. Even âthe supervisor of this creation who is in highest heavenâ asyĂĄ-ĂĄdhyakáčŁaáž„ paramĂ© vĂœoman probably does not know the beginning and the exact procedure!
This hymn contains also an esoteric message. The divinities may not know precisely the beginning in its totality, even the highest among them. But stanza 4 says unequivocally that âthe wise poets seeking in their heart, with understanding, discovered the bond/connection of the existent in the non-existentâsatĂł bĂĄndhum ĂĄsati nĂravindan, háčdĂ pratÄ«ÌáčŁya kavĂĄyo manÄ«áčŁÄÌ. Here, the implication is that man (puruáčŁa), being a reflection of the One primordial PuruáčŁa, who, in that other description, becomes the multiplicity of the universe, can look into the heart of his mind and there, by returning to the beginning, discover the truth of the primordial being.
This hymn does not elaborate and explain the method and practices required for this internal investigation, this self-examination. But, other hymns refer to it sporadically. Some describe the realisation of the truth quite explicitly, if briefly. This is clearly evidenced by seer Kaáčvaâs second birth in 8.6.10: âHaving received from my father, the essential knowledge medhÄÌ of the Cosmic Order áčtĂĄ, I was [re-]born like the sungod SĆ«ryaâ. Elsewhere, this brilliant effulgence was discovered through âmeditation/reflectionâ: the sages âfound the expansive light while intensely meditatingâ urĂș jyĂłtir vividur dĂdhyÄnÄáž„.
Undoubtedly, the larger part of the hymns in the RV offers devotional praises, worship and invocations for help to the various gods. Many hymns or parts of them, too, concern the sacrificial ritual. In those days, the vast majority of the people was absorbed in these religious practices, as in our days the common interest is with similar concerns though many more would be irreligious and atheists. But, obviously, on the evidence of many hymns and parts of others, like the ones we examined, some circles or families or sages followed philosophical or esoteric teachings and practices that later came to be formulated in the Upanishads, the YogasĆ«tras, the VedÄnta etc.
4. In our days this aspect of the RV is almost wholly ignored by scholars, who prefer to interpret everything in relation to the sacrificial ritual and âprimitiveâ religion â whatever they understand by this term. Notable exceptions to the general academic rule are Jeanine Miller, D. Frawley and K. Werner in the West. There may be a few more, whom I do not know, but these scholars have certainly explored the themes I adumbrated in §§1-3. Otherwise, modern scholars are still by and large under the spell of SÄyana, the medieval scholiast, whose tradition saw the RV as a text for liturgy and ritual.
Since the early 1800âs, Western scholarship and most of Indian academia, which has been heavily influenced by the West, imported to the study of the RV and even the subsequent wider Indic culture, often unconsciously, the political, ethnic, religious and scientific notions prevalent in different periods: European supremacy, the Christian missionary zeal, British colonial political and economic concerns, the theory of evolution, psychology in various new-fangled forms, anthropological views formed from superficial studies (equally prejudiced) of so-called âprimitiveâ peoples, materialism, communism, etc. Thus, one comes across polytheism, of course, fetishism, evolving religious ideas and forms, deities and demons representing forces of nature, theriomorphism and anthropomorphism and âarrestedâ or âopportunist anthropomorphismâ (Hiriyanna 33,39) animism, pantheism and the like.
Most of these views are mentioned by that excellent vedist, A.B. Keith in the first seven chapters of his classic study, The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and the Upanishads (1925). In the mid-twentieth century some new views appeared about the Rigvedic gods: psychosomatic or spiritual forces within man (Shri Aurobindo 1956, Coomaraswami 1942, Frawley 1991, Kak 2002), and more recently forces of Thermonuclear Physics (e.g. Rajaram 1999 and several others).
The translations of the RV are so far all inadequate: in English R. T. Griffith, in French L. Renou, in German K.F. Geldner. There has been one in Russian by (Mrs) T. Elizarenkova based on Geldner. In 2014 came out at last the most recent one in English by Americans (Mrs) S. W. Jamison and J. P. Brereton and, frankly, I would not recommend it; Griffithâs version, despite its Victorian diction and attitude, seems far closer to the original spirit of the RV than this concoction. I shall not deal with all these issues and the translations. It is not worth our time and my effort. I shall deal only with this latest version of American scholarship and briefly at that.
5. For reasons unknown, but easily understood, translators seem to feel the need to provide something original, something âtheir very ownâ often at the cost of a far better past translation. And this is what repeatedly happens here with Jamison and Brereton. I shall take only the first three stanzas and glance at A. A. Macdonellâs almost literal translation from his Vedic Reader (1917) and W.Oâ Flaherty, then Brereton and Jamison. The Vedic text reads: â
1. nÄÌsad ÄsÄ«n nĂł sĂĄd ÄsÄ«t tadÄÌnÄ«m; nÄÌsid rĂĄjo nĂł vĂœomÄ parĂł yĂĄt;
kim ÄÌvarivaáž„, kĂșha, kĂĄsya ĆĂĄrmann; ĂĄmbhaáž„ kĂm ÄsÄ«d gĂĄhanaáč gabhÄ«rĂĄm.
2. nĂĄ máčtyĂșr ÄsÄ«d, amáčÌtaáč nĂĄ tĂĄrhi, na rÄÌtryÄ ĂĄhna ÄsÄ«t prakÄtĂĄáž„ ;
ÄÌnÄ«d avÄtĂĄáč svadhĂĄyÄ tĂĄd Ă©kam; tĂĄsmÄd dhÄnyĂĄn nĂĄ parĂĄáž„ kiáč canÄÌsa.
3. tĂĄma ÄsÄ«t tĂĄmasÄ gƫិhĂĄm ĂĄgre; apraketĂĄáč salilĂĄáč sĂĄrvam Ä idĂĄm;
tuchyĂ©na ÄbhĂș ĂĄpihitaáč yĂĄd ÄÌsÄ«t, tĂĄpasas tĂĄn mahinÄÌjÄyataĂkam.
The first difficulty is tadÄÌnÄ«m in 1a. It is translated by all as âthenâ or âat that timeâ, a temporal adverb. But, it is also spatial and conditional (thereat, at that level), since it is correlative of yĂĄd and yĂĄtra. The same holds for tĂĄrhi in 2a. Again, all translate âthenâ but this too is correlative of yĂĄtra and yĂĄrhi and has also the sense âin that caseâ. The common thinking is past tense. But both adverbs could be referring to a higher level of being/existence/substance, not only past time. So, they could also mean âat that level, in that circumstance/instanceâ.
Then, MacDonell translates 1c âWhat did it contain? Where? In whose protection?â He explains ÄÌ varivaáž„ as 3rd person singular, imperfect intensive of Ä + âváč âcoveringâ, where the prefix Ä expands, intensifies and strengthens the main verb. (Mrs) Wendy Oâ Flaherty translates the same as âWhat stirred? Where? In whose protection?â She explains that the verb often describes breathing (1981: 27-8). Jamison and Brereton translate similarly âWhat moved back and forth? From where and in whose protection?â This last one is very problematic, because there is no existing body to move and, no space in which to move; then, why would it need protection and by what/whom? The preposition Ä also reverses the meaning of the verb as with Ä-gam = come, Ä-dÄ = receive. In this case here, the sense would be ârevealâ, but this would be illogical in the circumstances, since no revelation follows. So we must take it as intensifying the basic meaning.
I assume that sage PrajÄpati ParameáčŁáčhin was inspired and wise, not retarded or irrational. So he says âThereatâ tadÄÌnÄ«m, in the beginning, before space, horizontal time and vertical being, before intelligence and substance, came to be, there was absolutely nothing. âHow come?â ask we, who see all too clearly and solidly and colourfully this world. âWhat veiled, covered and concealed existence and space? Where? In the shelter of what/whom?â This seems to me to be the import. Then, since there was absolutely nothing in existence, it is not likely that the seer would have wondered if in the beginning there was âwater deep and profoundâ or âprofound depthâ. Modern scholars do so (MacDonell, Oâ Flaherty and the recent two), because they cannot go beyond their prejudices.
They assume, probably, that because Mesopotamian, Egyptian and some Greek traditions postulated âwaterâ as the primary source whence all else arose, the Vedic rishis thought so as well. Of course, ĂĄmbhas and its cognates abhrĂĄ âcloud, rainâ, ĂĄmbu âwaterâ, etc. all relate to water. But ĂĄmbhas also means âfecundity, potential powerâ (see also Mayrhofer 1957-96). So, our seer asks âWas it profound, unfathomable Potency (=potential, power)?â And he leaves the reply âYesâ hanging before us as the only probability!
The same difficulty is met in stanza 3 where salilĂĄm is translated by everybody as âwater/oceanâ. But, since, ParameáčŁáčhin was not an imbecile, who grossly contradicts himself, we must assume that it is not âwater/oceanâ. Here, it is the translators who contradict themselves. Because, here the text is apraketĂĄm salilĂĄm âundistinguished/non-distinct/signless oceanâ, which is really a bit nonsensical.
Now, we know that salilĂĄÂ comes from sal-/sar-/ âsáč > sarate, sisarti. In the DhÄtupÄáčha, the meaning for this is given as gatau âmotion, goingâ. It is a thoroughbred Indo-European dhÄtu with cognates in Greek hallomai, Latin salire and Tocharian salate all meaning âleaping, rushing onâ. So, not surprisingly one primary meaning of salilĂĄ is âfluctuating, surgingâ, then âflood, surgeâ. When we say âwaterâ, we cut out the âsurging, rushing, fluctuationâ. Now then, if nothing existed except That One, which breathed and was pure Potency, the only apraketĂĄáč salilĂĄm in st 3b would be imperceptible âfluctuating energyâ, which by the will svadhĂĄyÄ of That One would generate the creation. That it was not water is indicated most clearly by the first pÄda which states â âdarkness was enveloped by darkness in the beginningâ. And the third pÄda reinforces the imperceptibility and non-materiality of salilĂĄ by describing it as ĂĄpihitam âcovered overâ ÄbhĂș âwhat-comes-to-existâ by âvacuity/voidâ tuchyĂ©na. Surely vacuity could not possibly overlie or conceal âocean/waterâ!
Such translations seem to be absurdly unreasonable.
6. However, the contradictions do not end here. Jamison and Brereton accept in their introductory comments that there is âThat Oneâ and that ÄbhĂș is âcoming into beingâ. It has no substance, they say, but âit is beginning to have shape, since there is something that is âcoveredâ by somethingâ. And by a reference to Thieme (1964: 66-67), they agree that âit is the shape of an eggâ and that this âwas bornâ or hatched by the heat. And a little further down commenting on stanza 4, they explain âHere, the key is the revelation that thought is the One, which is the ultimate source of creationâ (2014: 1608).
Please note all the disparate, incompatible and contradictory notions contained in the thinking of the two scholars: that One (st 2c), which could be water (st 1d) and is definitely an ocean (st 3b), but takes the shape of an egg, finally turns out to be thought (st 4ab).
They translate 4ab kÄmas tĂĄd ĂĄgre sĂĄmavartatÄdhi, mĂĄnaso rĂ©taáž„ prathamĂĄáč yĂĄd ÄÌsÄ«t âThen, in the beginning, from thought there evolved desire, which existed as the primal semenâ. And, hereafter, in stanza 5, we have sexual notions about male and female and the mahimÄnaáž„, which is rendered as âgreatnessâ (in the introduction) is turned into âpregnanciesâ. I do agree that stanza 5 retodhÄÄsan mahimÄna Äsan svadhÄ avastÄt prayatiáž„ parastÄt introduces active forces (=retodhÄáž„ âseed-givingâ) and passive powers (mahimÄnaáž„) and thereafter follow the results of creation. But, to have âthoughtâ one needs the organ or means, which produces it and this appears only in stanza 4 as mĂĄnas âmindâ. And it is desire that breeds thinking and thought, not the other way round.
Certainly rĂ©tas means âsemen/spermâ and so it should be translated in reto-dhÄÌ in stanza 5. But semen is too gross to apply (except as a metaphor) at the level indicated in stanza 4. The svadhÄÌ of st 2 âaccord, self-power, natureâ appears in st 4 as kÄÌmas âdesire, love, willâ and this generates the rest, again through tĂĄpas (st 3d).
This word tĂĄpas which is translated as âheatâ deserves a note too. Heat also could not have existed before ÄbhĂș: it is too gross. But the dhÄtu âtap has also the meaning aiĆvarye âsupreme power/willâ, the power of īĆvara which rules, commands and makes changes. When yogis or people practise tapas or, as is said âausterityâ, religious or spiritual, they bring about transformations in their inner nature, desires, habits, powers, thinking. So, tĂĄpas is really âthe power of transformationâ, which may be some kind of heat/warmth, but not of our common material world. Inner change is effected not only with mortification and suffering, but also with happiness and joy.
7. This hymn 10.129 describes the different stages and levels of creation. It could well have formed the basis, the first sperm, for the later development of the SÄáč khya system, as MacDonell says (1917: 207). Here, we have That One which alone is, without form or other quality. It breathes (metaphorically) of its own accord, with self-power; and, presumably, its exhalation is the emergence of creation at all its different levels with all its different phenomena, and its inhalation is the re-absorption of all that.
There is absolutely nothing in the first three stanzas with which we are accustomed in our existence in the gross world we know. There is darkness and void and only the Potency to generate the creation â immense, unfathomable. By its own power of transformation arises that-which-evolves out of undifferentiated energy. And then desire arises and mind and all the other forces and elements.
This process naturally could not be observed in the evolution of the world outside and around us. It could only be observed in the world within oneâs consciousness. But, the poet warns us that the absolute beginning is not really seen or known, not even by the Overseer in the uppermost heaven!
Bibliography
Aurobindo Shri   1956 On the Veda and The Secret of the Veda (both originally articles 1914-20 in the Journal Arya), Pondicherry.
Coomaraswamy A. K. 1942 âAtmayajna: Selfsacrificeâ Harvard Journal of Asian Studies.
Frawley D.   1992 Wisdom of the Ancient Seers Salt Lake City, Passage Press.
Hiriyanna M.   1932 Outlines of Indian Philosophy (1944) Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass.
Jamison Stephanie & Brereton J. P. 2014 The Rigveda Oxford, OUP.
Kak S.   2002 The Gods Within Delhi, M. Manoharlal.
Keith A. B.   1925 The Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas and Upanishads (1989) Delhi, MB
Mac Donell A.J.   1917 A Vedic Reader for Students (1972) Oxford, OUP.
Mac Eviley T.   2002 The Shape of Ancient Thought New York, Allworth Press.
Mayrhofer M.   1957-1996 Kurtgefastes (KEWA) and Etymologisches Wörterbuches Altindischen (EWA) Heidelberg, C. Winter.
Miller Jeanine   1985 The Vision of Cosmic Order London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
1974 The Vedas : Harmony, Meditation and Fulfilment London, Rider.
Oâ Flaherty Wendy   1981 The RigVeda London, Penguin Classics.
Rajaram M. R.   1999 Vedic Physics⊠Toronto, Golden Egg Publishers.
ThiĂ©me P.   1964 Gedichte aus dem Rigveda aus dem Sanskrit ĂŒbertragen und erlĂ€utert, Stuttgart.
Featured Image Credit: istockphoto.com
(This article was published by IndiaFacts in 2016)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.