Talk:Nasadiya Sukta

"Hypothesis of Nasadiya Sukta" needs to be removed or changed substantially. Editors should abide by the policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY as required by Wikipedia. The quality of the section is currently poor owing to content that do not agree with either/all of the three policies. Nasadiya sukta has been interpreted spiritually for centuries. This content could be replaced with such content, with necessary citations. Scientific interpretations of the sukta do not have any credible references. This is an encyclopedia. Let's not showcase our personal reflections and ideas here.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Any one has details on the origin of this hymn? approx years? --N2271 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@N2271 this is complete kind of foolish and arrogant to say so that this verse comes before that and this ved came first or last. Just tell me even if Rig ved came first, it mentions about other 2 ved. Why? and How exactly can this happen? They predicted future??? Ahambrahmasmiiti (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - a date is crucial - even if it acknowledges uncertainty (like the poem itself!) Jack Nunn 02:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknunn (talk • contribs)

error in translation

English and Hindi translation does not match for last shloka.In English it is "he knows - or maybe even he does not know." While in Hindi it is "वह आनंद स्वरुप परमात्मा ही इस विषय को जानता है उस के अतिरिक्त (इस सृष्टि उत्पत्ति तत्व को) कोई नहीं जानता है।" which means "He(god) only knows this,nobody else."Both has completely different meaning.Please anybody correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.98.2 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Hindi translation does not agree with most translations of the text I can find online. For instance, take a look at this rather authoritative source , which links to this English translation. The Hindi translation the same source also links to has been scanned badly and is hard to read but as far as I can tell it does not match your translation. Chillpadde (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The final line in the original text is syntactically incomplete, but according to what I have read, it implies the completion of the line as "he who is its superintendent in the highest heaven, he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does)" according to the translation I linked in the previous comment. The part in the parantheses is not in the original text, but is supposedly implied.

Jamison & Brereton (2014) make this claim too and end their translation like this: "This creation—from where it came to be, if it was produced or if not—he who is the overseer of this (world) in the furthest heaven, he surely knows. Or if he does not know...?"

I highly recommend reading Brereton (1999) for an in-depth anlaysis. Chillpadde (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@14.139.98.2 nah, I think it's appropriate translation and have seen in more than a dozen of translations and bhashya. Like it says So Anga Ved yadi va na ved. means even he knows or not. Ahambrahmasmiiti (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nasadiya Sukta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Qh9396tk?url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a22.htm to http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

translation

This is the Griffith translation which is totally bogus and just made up. For instance the last verse translated says really: -or if-or suppose- - so much legal or is it suppose legal component - paramezvara god — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Is this The first time the big theory has been mentioned? 950CMR (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Brahmand ki utpatti ?

Padhkar lagta h ki brahmand prakartik hain.or bhagavan ho sakta h brahmand ke pahle prani ho. Or unne khud na pta ho utpatti ka.

Ya fir bhagavan brahmand or brahamand bhagavan ho or tribhuvan ki trha aapas main guthe ho. 2401:4900:5457:7B5B:0:0:E32:2233 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Brahmand ki utpatti ?

Padhkar lagta h ki brahmand prakartik hain.or bhagavan ho sakta h brahmand ke pahle prani ho. Or unne khud na pta ho utpatti ka.

Ya fir bhagavan brahmand or brahamand bhagavan ho or tribhuvan ki trha aapas main guthe ho. 2401:4900:5457:7B5B:0:0:E32:2233 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)