Nasadiya Suktam : The Creation Hymn - A tale before time, exploring the "Nasadiya Suktam" through a modern lens

Even though I am not qualified to discuss deeper cosmological and philosophical questions, I am always fascinated by these topics. For example, ever since I heard about the big bang in school, I have always wonderd that what was there before big bang?! I am sure all the great minds in cosmology are working hard to find an answer to this question. But my mind was blown when I learned that there is a Hymn from Rigveda that precisely asks these questions. That proved two things, first, this question, how everything started is unanswered for millenia. And secondly, the people who asked it at least 4500 years ago were not primitive by any measure. 

Asking questions like this shows a certain level of advanced thinking. Excusing myself for a little detour I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this has been a theme in the ancient vedic texts. The vedic texts are a treasure trove for philosophical discussions. Moving back to the topic, this hymn from Rigveda is in the 10th book and is the 129th hymn in that book. All this background compelled me to explore this hymn through a modern day lens. 

Let's deepdive into this hymn verse by verse. Each of its verses have a theme. Let's explore them together.

1. The Fundamental Question:-

Sanskrit:
नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत्।
किमा‍वरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभी‍रम्॥१॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
nā sad āsīn no sad āsīt tadānīṁ
nāsīd rajo no vyomā paro yat
kim āvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmann
ambhaḥ kim āsīd gahanaṁ gabhīram

Translation:
Then, there was neither existence nor non-existence.
There was no sky, no space, no realm beyond.
What covered it? Where was it? Who protected it?
Was there cosmic water—deep, unfathomable?

The hymn does not beat around the bush, it opens with a paradox. It starts by giving a background that there was something before everything started. But since it was before everything else it was beyond the definitions of existence and non existence. Even the modern science fails (at least till today) to reasonably fathom what was before the big bang or the moment of creation. In parallel to the modern thogughts it states that there was no sky, no time, no space, nothing. It was an absolute nothingness, an initial singularity. This sets the stage for a primordial nothingness, where even language fails. (To be honest I couldn't interpret the last line.)

This segues into the second verse, if there was nothing then what was there? How it can be described?

2. The Cosmic Seed:-

Sanskrit:
न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः।
आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किञ्चनास॥२॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
na mṛtyur āsīd amṛtaṁ na tarhi
na rātryā ahna āsīt praketaḥ
ānīd avātaṁ svadhayā tad ekaṁ
tasmād dhānyan na paraḥ kiñcanāsa

Translation:
There was no death then, nor immortality.
No sign of night or day was there.
That One breathed, windless, by its own power—
Beyond it, nothing else existed.

In my opinion, this verse explicitly describes the cosmic seed or the initial singularity, especially the last two lines. "That one breathed, windless, by its own power", I couldn't help but think that this describes an initial seed infinitely dense and hot. Nothing existed apart from that. But where this seed was? I think that's where the last line of the first verse comes to help,"Was there cosmic water,deep, unfathomable?. It doesn't answer the question, but I think it indicates something which is beyond my measly capability of understanding.  The next verse takes this suspense to a crescendo. 

3. The Chaos of Creation:-

Sanskrit:
तम आसीत्तमसा गूळमग्रेऽप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमािदम्।
तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम्॥३॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
tama āsīt tamasā gūḷham agre
apraketaṁ salilaṁ sarvam ā idam
tuchyenābhvapihitaṁ yad āsīt
tapasas tan mahinājāyataikam

Translation:
Darkness there was, hidden in deeper darkness.
All this was an unlit, undifferentiated flood.
Covered by the void, born of the unknown—
From intense heat, the One emerged in power.

Talk about the time / moment / event right after the so called "big bang". In this verse, the sages are describing immense heat or in other words a blast originating from  a dense fluid (perhaps a superdense, primordial soup of particles?). The words undifferentiated flood point towards a primordial soup. Especially a time when nothing could be differentiated from one another, a state of almost (!) infinte gravity and mass. Here the sages make first definitive statement that from this state of initial chaos "the one" was born. For me, this seems to be the vedic precursor to the big bang. Also, on a sidenote, does the increasing heat indicate increasing entropy? Now who is "the one" is an eternal question! 

4. Desire/will as the Primal Mover:-

Sanskrit:
कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत्।
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा॥४॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
kāmas tad agre samavartatādhi
manaso retaḥ prathamaṁ yad āsīt
sato bandhum asati niravindan
hṛdi pratīṣyā kavayo manīṣā

Translation:
Desire arose in the beginning—that was the first seed of the mind.
Wise ones, seeking with their hearts,
Found the connection between the existent and the non-existent.

In my humble opinion, this is, without exaggeration, one of the most profound and layered verses in any ancient scripture and across any culture.On a philosophical plane, what can be the first creative impule in this whole process? The sages identify it as "kāma (desire/will)". Speaking logically, this fits perfectly. Without a will or desire to create, creation could not have been possible in the first place! Everything started with this desire/will to "create". But this “kāma” is not mere sensual desire. It’s the cosmic will, the urge to become, the spark of intent in the void. It’s not an entity. It’s an impulse, an energy, a precognitive will, you could say consciousness desiring form.

This is revolutionary because it suggests that the first cause of existence is not an entity but a state of being the desire itself. Not a god. Not a person. Just the will to be. Compare this to a concept in Quantum physics.  A wave function collapses only when observed or interacted with. There's a “need” or “intent” that defines manifestation. Or compare it to another ancient philosophy of Sāṅkhya philosophy: Prakṛti (nature) is in equilibrium until puruṣa (pure consciousness) “desires” or “glances” at it, triggering creation.

Lastly, this verse radically shakes the core thinking of us mortal human beings. It provokes us to think not just how everything started but also why it even wanted it to be?

5. The Emergence of Form from the Formless:-

Sanskrit:
तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत्।
रेतोधा आसन् महिमान आसन् स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रयतिः परस्तात्॥५॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
tiraścīno vitato raśmir eṣām
adhaḥ svid āsīd upari svid āsīt
retodhā āsan mahimāna āsan
svadhā avastāt prayatiḥ parastāt

Translation:
The ray of creation was stretched slantwise—
Was there a below? Was there an above?
There were seed-givers and powers of force—
Self-force below, and drive above.

From here onwards, This is a verse that quietly shifts the hymn from intuitive metaphysics (desire, will) into a proto-structural cosmology. It begins to describe the mechanism of creation. It talks about the initial expansion. In my mind I have always pictured the diagrams of the big bang as a conical expansion. My mind is stuck at the slantness of the cone of expansion after reading the first line.Because “slanting” is such a non-religious, almost scientific description.

Then this verse challenges the reader about spatial logic and fallacy of directions in such an uncertain universe. It doesn't literally ask if there was an above or below but it provokes to think that if these terms carry any meaning in such an environment. In the later half it talks about the creative fluid. In my opinion this indicates the initial fundamental building blocks from which all other particles started forming. Some interpret “retas” as a creative fluid, like cosmic semen, linking it to later Purāṇic myths. But in the philosophical context of this hymn, it's symbolic of potential energy or causation. But I disagree with this interpretation. For me they are describing the initial building blocks of all the fundamental particles. Perhaps, strings? 

Lastly, it speaks about the duality of forces. It describes to forces acting simultaneously, svadhā = self-impelled power, innate energy (literally: “one's own nature/essence”) and prayatiḥ = propulsion, driving energy, impeller, motivator. One more subtle thing to notice is that in the earlier verse the sages talk about the fallacy of the directions but in this verse, the yspecifically describe the position of the to forces. Self-force below (svadhā avastāt) and the driving force above (prayatiḥ parastāt). It may look contradictory but in my opinon, this is the moment of differentiation. The act of naming or assigning directionality is itself a sign that form has emerged from formlessness. Spatial metaphor becomes possible because something like a coordinate system has just come into being.

6. Adi Shakti: The Initial Creator?:-

Sanskrit:
को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः।
अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथ को वेद यत आबभूव॥६॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
ko addhā veda ka iha pr vocat
kuta ājātā kuta iyaṁ visṛṣṭiḥ
arvāg devā asya visarjanenā
tha ko veda yata ābabhūva

Translation:
Who truly knows? Who can declare it here?
From where was this creation born—how did it emerge?
The gods came after this world's birth—
So who can really know where it all came from?

This is where the thinking juggernaut slams the breaks. It goes into a deep self exploration and a humble self questioning mode. Even though we are asking these questions, who are we to talk about it with any authority? Is there anyone who can do so? In fact it clearly says that "all" gods came into being after the creation. Isn't this mind boggling? A vedic text, fundamental to Hindu philosophy and culture clearly stating that the gods came into existence after the creation? This is not just radical but also a profound view of the cosmological creation. As a devout Hindu, I cannot help but think about the "Śākta" philosophy. It clearly says that the Shakti is the primordial power, and the emergence of the Trimurti (Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśa) after creation had already been set into motion. So this can absolutely be interpreted as a cryptic nod to the idea that the Trimūrti and other gods are not the first causes, but manifested later, after some deeper, mysterious force (which the Śākta tradition calls Ādi Śakti) had already initiated creation. 

This verse finally ends with a humble admission of We may never know, and perhaps no one ever did that how everything came into being. It does not say that just for dharmic effect but it lays the facts as final truth. 

7. Simulation and the Sacred Uncertainty:-

Sanskrit:
इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न।
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद॥७॥

Phonetic Transliteration:
iyaṁ visṛṣṭir yata ābabhūva
yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na
yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman
so aṅga veda yadi vā na veda

Translation:
This creation—from where it came—perhaps it was made, or perhaps not.
He who surveys it from the highest heaven,

He surely knows—or maybe even He does not.    

The suktam ends with the final twist. It leaves the reader with no answer but more questions to ponder on. It categorically states that even the original being may not be fully aware of the creation. It does not promote athesim but rather it is rather ultimate mysticism! This is not a rejection of divinity, it is the elevation of mystery above doctrine. As a creature of habit, I could not help but relate this to the simulation hypothesis. What if the creater has encoded this uncertainty in the initial simulaiton? What if the simulation is autonomous after the launch? What if the base reality is forever hidden? or ultimately, What if it is encoded into the simulation that the simulation cannot be discovered from within? It reflects a meta-principle: The simulation’s realism depends on the inability of its agents to detect it.Likewise, in simulation theory, even the Creator may not have access to the emergent behavior of his own creation.

Conclusion:-

And so, the hymn ends with cosmic humility, a level of comfort with the ultimate uncertainty. It does not provide a readymade, spoonfed answer to the reader but it compells the reader to think deep and explore the unknown depths of one'es consciousness. It leaves the reader with a distinct possibility of "perhaps no one will ever know". It is akin to facing one's greates fear to become fearless. To face the ultimate uncertainty to be comfortable or at peace with it. 

This is where the Nāsaḍīya Sūktam becomes more than just a creation myth. It becomes a mirror for the modern mind,scientific, spiritual, and philosophical all at once.

Even today, with all the cutting edge technology and our advances in astrophyscs, quantum theory, and cosmology, we are still asking the same questions about the origin of the universe. The sages thousands of years ago may not have had modern instruments like particle aaccelartors or cosmic microwave background radiation maps but they had the intellect and courage to ask the same questions. 

As a devout Hindu and a curious thinker, I am moved not just by what this hymn says, but by how it dares to say it. It invites us to be seekers, not explainers. To replace pride in knowledge with awe before the infinite. And that, in my view, is a deeply spiritual place to be.

So I leave you with this: What if the greatest truths are not meant to be answered, but eternally wondered about?