A Coommentory On The Hymn Of Veda.

The first vese of the Hymn is often translated as follow: Verse 01 :Neither was Beingness nor was Nonbeingness [Beinglesness] In this translation The word Sat is translated as Beingness or Being, and the word Asat is translated as Non beinness or Beinglessness. But this is in correct to translatate them even if there are some literal evedenses in support of them. Proof 1 :If there was No Beingness then the Beingness of GOD is also denied which is in correct sinse the Beingness of GOD is the prerequisit of the hymn. Hence one is compelled to make an ecception for GOD. In the case where other meanings are possible it becomes imperative to select a meaning which does not require aby exception.. Proo f2. The concept of beyond being is not Vedic.It is highly Sceptical to ascribe to vedas that GOD is neither Beingness nor Beinglessness therefore Vedas advocate Beyond Beingness. Vedas do no go beyond beingness and beinglessness. The following meanings are suitable alternatives of the word SAT: 1)righteousness 2)correctness /Accuracy. 3)concreteness. 4)substanceness.5]proof /proof. 66]Good. /Goodness.7]causuality /causeness. 8]Creation.9)ACTIVITY. 10)confirmation /affirm,ation 11]Reason. 12]Order. For Asat the following meaning are candidates. 1)Corruption. 2)Errornes/ Inaccuracy3)conctretelessness.wrongness.4)Accidentness5] disproved /disproof.^)bad badness8)causelessness.9)Annhiliation.10)Passiveness110unconformation /dis affirmation.11)reasonlessness 120cheos. Other suitable meaning of the hymn are: neither cheos nor order neither reason nor reasonlessness. NEITHER ANNHILIATION NOR CREATION. NEITHER CORRECTNESS NOR WRONGNESS. Neither Goodacts nor bad acts , neither good nor bad. Neither activity nor passivity (passiveness) 2] Verse 21 ]Below was the Power [ to act ] above was the ACT. SCommmentory ; Some translate it as follow. Below was thw energy and above was the impulse.Invedic time the differrence b/w Power ,Enerfy and force was not sharp and they could be used alternatively. Similarly the diifference b/w impules4 and and Act was not sharp.To day Impulse is a kind of act but in vedic time it was just an act. . This verse means that G-D is the Agent, Actor,Controller of every act,and mover of every move,motion,movement. which does occur..He is the inner controolor of every act or below every act in the sense He id Behind every act, and Every act is based upon Him. The acts of G-d are out side Godhead.Yet Godhead is Not Exclusively Empty.It has Qualitiies at least the Quality to do an act which may be termed as Force or Capablity to do a doing. 3]Verse 10 With out distinctive marks all was water: a]Water can not exist at that time.Rather it is a metaphor for darkness.Meaning sea /water of Darkness.For if there was water at that time then it must exist in Godhead, if so then it is a Quality and hence not that water which we know. b]If water had existed at taht thime then the inner portion of water would be concieled by the outer portion of the water. This contaradicts the verse What was concealed and where in.

or '' Which thing was cocealed. An obvious answer ti this verse is that there was nothing which was concealed.A peotic interrogatve way for an assertion. Thus water or ocean is a metaphor for Darkness [lightlessness] 3.1]Verse 11 ]Mocdonell translates as follow:''That whch becoming ,by void was covered. This translation neither makes a good expression nor a good impression.An other tranlation is to replace the word becoming by the word Beong.This is some what better since becoming does shew the concepts of mutation,transubstantialization ,temporality etc. An other translation is One Being which was covered by nothing.This is in the sense ''''NO THING COVERED THAT BEING''''.It me be translated as ''One which (who) was coverd by nothing'''.There is a slight difference b/w the senses of followings: a)One which was covered by nothing . b)One which no thing covered.The former makes a false impression that nothing is some thing which covereth that Being in Eteernity.This is in correct.A similar type of fallacy which is made when it is incoorectly argued.''''If some thing came from nothing then the nothing is some thing from which the former nothing came''''. If this is not implied then this meaning is correct. 4 Verse12 One that by the Force of Heat came into Menifestation. This versre is some time translated as' that one by the force of heat came into Being(ness) . But if so then GOD is a temporal being.Madonell translated it as follow. ''That one by force of heat came in to being. But the Hymn mensions GOD before before this mensioned evcent,when He was Aspiring [in GODHEAD]. THIS SHEWS THAT G-D did not came in Beingness, rather in Menifestation.That is G-D appeared by the [Quality of] FORCE OF HEAT.An other tranlation is formed by substituting the word BEING by the word Calmination or Appearence or Manifestation.This only means ''That One which Commeth by the force of Heat in to Manifestation or Calmination.Force is a Dvine Quality and Heat is a Dvivne Doing (An A ct). HOW EVER IF THE MEANING OF COMMING IN Beingness is taken instead of Menifestation then it is not about Godhead of God but about the Quality of Idea /Will /Reason which IS EMPORAL AND IS CALLED THE FIRST SEED. 5] Verse 08 NO [OTHER ] THING WAS THERE. Commentary. There was nothing except the Godhead of God. There fore the word OTHER is understood.If the demand of context is required then the context Presupposes the existrence of GOD and hence hence the word other is neccessory in meaning yet miising in text for peotical reasons. The text have mensioned the GOD Aspiring IN GODHEAD before this verse which is a textual evidence that the word Other is under stood. 6a]Verse14 Macdonell translates it as follow. It was the earliest seed of thoutht the product. .An other translation .It was the FIRST seed of Thought /Idea /Reason. Or It was the First Seed Product of Thought /Idea /Reason.Some thing analogous to Logos of Athanasius Christology .But Vedic Reason is temporal while Anathesius Christology suggests Logos [Reason] to be Eternal. Some what different from Arian Christology as well since it advocates some thing comming in Beingness in GODHEAD. Reason may not be a good translation on literal grounds yet a very good alternative of the sense.Desire is a lower grade translation ,Will is more appropiate. Vedas does not distincts b/w Desire and Will as it is done now a days. Verse 16

Ray of light extended across darkness. Commentory: It appears that the Divine Will (Idea /Reason) originated in Godhead and then a Ray (Beam?) of light was made which ended the Lightlessness to an extent.As the Ray of light appears to be minimum in breath anf maximum in length it ended lightlessness (darkness) in its path but beyond the ray (beam) there was darkness [lightlessness.]But whether the GOD above the light or below it.This verse shews that GOD was the root cause of the light,a basis which held the light. 7] Verse 24 Even the GODS were not born yet. Commentory: No name is Given to GOD at that time ,not even God. How ever He may be called Aspiring Being but even this nane or epithet is not Purely Vedic. There are two translation possible. a] GODS only means SUPERMUNDALES OR CHERUBS.These Supermundales are Vedic analogues of Biblical Angels who have Superhuman powers but subordinate to Gods. Not subordinate Gods as suggested by Latter Hindunism. b]The word GOD IS USED for Divine names and epithets.If so then these are not even Persons [neither created Hypostases nor Uncreated Hypostases] Thus each name of GOD is called a GOD,Thus each name is an Impersonal GOD in the sense it is a name or a epithet and not a Sustance or an Essence or a Person Or a Hypostasis. This shews that no name of GOD was chosen by GOD for Himself. 8]Verse 26. The lord who is above knows or even He may not know. This is a poetic doubt.This does not mean GOD is ignorent ,but shews a poetic doubt.But if taken literally means '''' It is Not Certain whether the Divine Knowliges is either Eternal or Temporal'''' Those who have not read the Hymn may read it by Professor Strange before reading this commentory.