RV 10.129 also known as Nasadiya Suktam is vedic hymn which explain's act of creation of the universe.

What is Purva Mimansa Sutra commentary on this hymn specifically 10.129.7 which is used by Nastikas(Atheists) to point out that Shruti's reject omnipotence of Bramhan because the verse 10.129.7 is

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥

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.

Rishi and Devta of this Hymn are Parameshti Prajapati and Bhavvruttam respectively, so most probably the context of this hymn is from the experience of Bramha or Prajpati.

Is there any Advaita/Vishitadvaita commentary(Vedanta Bramhasutra Bhasyakars preferably) or any Sri Vaishnava commentary on RV 10.129.

  • 1
    "which is used by Nastikas(Atheists) to point out that Shruti's reject omnipotence of Bramhan"... First of all if someone uses this verse then he is not Nastika because he is using this verse regarding Vedas are authority... In Hinduism Atheist is not one who doesn't believe in God but is that who doesn't believe in Vedas😁😁... and regarding Purvamimsa they think these all verses are just for purpose of Glorifying Yajna... Regarding 'Vedantaacharya' I don't think any have commented in RV 10.129... but maybe someone might have commented...
    – Tezz
    Oct 6, 2016 at 7:41
  • @Tezz Nastikas say that Vedas don't know for themselves, weather bramhan is all knowing or not. They certainly ignore vedas but pointing out flaws in opponent's scriptures is fundamental style of debate. Obviously Jains believe in Indra and other GODs who rule heaven, but they reject notion of supreme ruler bramhan. I know what is Nastika according to Vedas
    – Yogi
    Oct 6, 2016 at 9:16
  • 1
    What can be appreciated is - the humility of the Sages' inquiry and the open-endedness, which ultimately resulted in not-knowing: "Who then knows whence it has arisen? Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not-or perhaps even the One who looks down does not know”. Reminds one about Socrates and his methods of inquiry. Oct 6, 2016 at 21:19
  • 1
    @UdayKrishna I agree that Rishi's were extremely straight forward and honest (because that is required Dharma for every dwija), and yeah that is why sages say they don't know because from their perspective they were fully honest because they did not know the origin of bramhan and this universe. Btw Thanks for showing me this aspect(from context of seers) of the verse.
    – Yogi
    Oct 7, 2016 at 3:40
  • 1
    @TriyugiNarayanMani Obviously I will consider him. I have a PDF version of his commentary but it's very hard to navigate. so if you can do that for me then I am grateful for that and thank-you in advance
    – Yogi
    Oct 12, 2016 at 13:33

1 Answer 1


Sayana has commented on it.

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत |

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||

10.129.01 The non-existent was not, the existent was not; then the world was not, not the firmament, nor thatwhich is above (the firmament). How could there by any investing envelope, and where? Of what (could there be)felicity? How (could there be) the deep unfathomable water?

[The non-existent: sat, asat: visible and invisibleexistence (asat s'as'avis.a_n.avatrirupa_khyam na_si_t: Taittiri_ya Sam.hita_; matter and spirit, prakr.tiand purus.a; the First Cause or Brahma_ was in the beginning undeveloped in its effects, and existed beforeboth; investing envelope: each element as created or developed is invested by its rudiment; of what could therebe felicity: i.e., of whom or of what living being could enjoyment, or fruition, whether of pain or pleasure, bepredicated, there being no life?]

न मर्त्युरासीदम्र्तं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |

आनीदवातं सवधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन न परः किं चनास ||

10.129.02 Death was not nor at that period immortality, there was no indication of day, of night; That Oneunbreathed upon breathed of his own strength, other than That there was nothing else whatever.

[Breathed:svadha_ = ma_ya_, or prakr.ti (illusion or nature), the source of the world of phenomena; s'a = breathed alongwith ma_ya_].

तम आसीत तमसा गूळमग्रे.अप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमािदम |

तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम ||

10.129.03 There was darkness covered by darkness in the beginning, all this (world) was undistinguishablewater; that empty united (world) which was covered by a mere nothing, was produced through the power ofausterity.

[Austerity: tapas = not penance, but the contemplation of things which were to be created: yahsarvajn~ah sarvavit yasya jn~a_namayam tapah: Mund.a.ka Upanis.ad 1.1.9].

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत |

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा ||

10.129.04 In the beginning there was desire, which was the first seed of mind; sages having meditated in theirhearts have discovered by their wisdom the connexion of the existent with te non-existent.

[Desire: i.e., in themind of the Supreme Being].

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासी.अ.अ.अत | रेतोधाासन महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात ||

10.129.05 Their ray was stretched out, whether across, or below, or above; (some) were shedders of seed,(others) were mighty; food was inferior; the eater was superior.

[Their ray was stretched out: a reference to thesuddenness of creation, which was developed in the twinkling of an eye, like the flash of the sun's ray. It was soquick that it was doubtful whether the things in the central space (across) were created first, or those above orthose below; i.e., creation took place simultaneously in all three portions of the universe. This was the order inwhich things were created, but the development of the world was like a flash of lightning, so that the series couldnot be distinguished (tatsr.s.t.va_ tadeva_nupra_vis.at: Taittiri_ya A_ran.yaka 8.6). Thus the notion of a series,viz., from a_tma_ came the a_ka_s'a, from the a_ka_s'a the wind, from the wind fire etc., is reconciled: a_tmanaa_ka_s'ah sambhu_ta a_ka_s'a_dva_yurva_yoragnih: Taittiri_ya A_ran.yaka 8.1; whether across, or below, orabove: tiras'cinah = across, tiryaksrotas, that in which the stream of life is horizontal, i.e., the animal world;among the created objects some were living creatures, others were great, as the sky etc., the former being theenjoyers (bhokta_rah), the latter the things to be enjoyed (bhojyah), so the creation was distinguished as thefood and the feeder].

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः |

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ||

10.129.06 Who really knows? Who in this world may declare it! whence was this creation, whence was itengendered? The gods (were) subsequent to the (world's) creation; so who knows whence it arose?

[Whencewas it engendered: i.e., from what material cause, and from what creative cause, did it arise?]

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न |

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||

10.129.07 He from whom this creation arose, he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can); he who is itssuperintendent in the highest heaven, he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does).

[sa bhagavahkasmin pratis.t.hita: Cha_ndogya Upanis.ad 7.24.1].

Commentary and translation is taken from here and Original Sanskrit from here.

I think it's not actual commentary but it is H. H. Wilson translation based on Sayana commentary.

  • Yeah I think it is not actual commentary, because it still doubts Omniscience of Bramhan.
    – Yogi
    Oct 13, 2016 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .