Cardmaister, thanks for a start on this, and if you get to more later on, it will be informative to see what comes out here. I noticed you used the term 'Big Bang' in a reference to the word you translated as before, but 'before' just means precedent to whatever the 'before' is referencing, and if it does not state what that is, filling in with ideas generated from our own time, culture, and science might give a misleading slant.
--- In [email protected], cardemaister <no_reply@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > There is that cryptic creation hymn from the Rig Veda which seems to be > > permeated with this kind of ambiguity: > > > > [Translation by Ralph T.H. Griffith in 1896 - perhaps cardmaister would > > have a shot at this verse] > > > > Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky > > beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water > > there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught > > immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, > > breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing > > whatsoever. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was > > indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the > > great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the > > beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched > > with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the > > non-existent. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above > > it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, > > free action here and energy up yonder Who verily knows and who can here > > declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are > > later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came > > into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all > > or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he > > verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. > > > > I think that's called the naasadiiya-suukta, by its first > two words (naasad... < na + asat) + an adjectival suffix, > or whatever (iiya). It's one of my absolute favourites > in the Rgveda. I believe it belongs to the youngest parts > of Rk. > > Here's the whole suukta in ITRANS transliteration, with > accents indicated, thus "a bit" hard to read: > > > nAsa\'dAsI\`nno sadA\'sItta\`dAnI\`M nAsI\`drajo\` no vyo\'mA pa\`ro yat | > kimAva\'rIva\`H kuha\` kasya\` sharma\`nnambha\`H kimA\'sI\`dgaha\'naM > gabhI\`ram || 10\.129\.01 > na mR^i\`tyurA\'sIda\`mR^ita\`M na tarhi\` na rAtryA\` ahna\' AsItprake\`taH | > AnI\'davA\`taM sva\`dhayA\` tadeka\`M tasmA\'ddhA\`nyanna pa\`raH kiM > cha\`nAsa\' || 10\.129\.02 > tama\' AsI\`ttama\'sA gU\`Lhamagre\'.aprake\`taM sa\'li\`laM sarva\'mA i\`dam > | > tu\`chChyenA\`bhvapi\'hita\`M > yadAsI\`ttapa\'sa\`stanma\'hi\`nAjA\'ya\`taika\'m || 10\.129\.03 > kAma\`stadagre\` sama\'varta\`tAdhi\` mana\'so\` reta\'H pratha\`maM > yadAsI\'t | > sa\`to bandhu\`masa\'ti\` nira\'vindanhR^i\`di pra\`tIShyA\' ka\`vayo\' > manI\`ShA || 10\.129\.04 > ti\`ra\`shchIno\` vita\'to ra\`shmire\'ShAma\`dhaH svi\'dA\`sI3du\`pari\' > svidAsI3t | > re\`to\`dhA A\'sanmahi\`mAna\' Asansva\`dhA a\`vastA\`tpraya\'tiH > pa\`rastA\'t || 10\.129\.05 > ko a\`ddhA ve\'da\` ka i\`ha pra vo\'cha\`tkuta\` AjA\'tA\` kuta\' i\`yaM > visR^i\'ShTiH | > a\`rvAgde\`vA a\`sya vi\`sarja\'ne\`nAthA\` ko ve\'da\` yata\' Aba\`bhUva\' > || 10\.129\.06 > i\`yaM visR^i\'ShTi\`ryata\' Aba\`bhUva\` yadi\' vA da\`dhe yadi\' vA\` na | > yo a\`syAdhya\'kShaH para\`me vyo\'ma\`nso a\`~Nga ve\'da\` yadi\' vA\` na > veda\' || 10\.129\.07 > > The same without accents: > > nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIM nAsIdrajo no vyomA paro yat | > kimAvarIvaH kuha kasya sharmannambhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram || 10.129.01 > na mR^ityurAsIdamR^itaM na tarhi na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH | > AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM tasmAddhAnyanna paraH kiM chanAsa || 10.129.02 > tama AsIttamasA gULhamagre.apraketaM salilaM sarvamA idam | > tuchChyenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIttapasastanmahinAjAyataikam || 10.129.03 > kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt | > sato bandhumasati niravindanhR^idi pratIShyA kavayo manIShA || 10.129.04 > tirashchIno vitato rashmireShAmadhaH svidAsI3dupari svidAsI3t | > retodhA AsanmahimAna AsansvadhA avastAtprayatiH parastAt || 10.129.05 > ko addhA veda ka iha pra vochatkuta AjAtA kuta iyaM visR^iShTiH | > arvAgdevA asya visarjanenAthA ko veda yata AbabhUva || 10.129.06 > iyaM visR^iShTiryata AbabhUva yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na | > yo asyAdhyakShaH parame vyomanso a~Nga veda yadi vA na veda || 10.129.07 > > > The chandas (meter) is triSTup (triSTubh), 4 times eleven > syllables: > > The first line in "HK-ish" transliteration goes like this: > > naasadaasiinno sadaasiittadaaniiM > > The pada-paaTha (word reading without sandhis): > > na + asat; aasiit na + u sat; aasiit tadaaniiM > > Word-for-word that might be for instance: > > not non-existent (a-sat) not, "er", existent (sat) > was (aasiit) then (tadaaniim: "before" the > Big Bang??). > > Perhaps some more later... >
