Rig Veda and the Big Bang Theory: Part 2

Click here for Part 1

It is interesting to note that the culture wars often happen based on specific deities in Hinduism. A section of our people say Vishnu is the greatest, some say Brahma is the most powerful, and there is a segment that believe Shiva is the one. How do we resolve these differences in beliefs? Is it even possible to resolve this?

There is a reason why the answer has been a little hard to find. The question itself is incorrectly framed, and the answer is like a gem hidden in plain sight among the rocks. The supreme power, by its very definition, is limitless and hence not bound by any known names. These names are creations of Vedas, other scriptures, Rishis, and common folks like ourselves. Take for instance, the name Vishnu. Among its myraid meanings, the most popular one being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. So, whichever power is all this — omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient — can be called Vishnu. If the god, or the power, you believe in, is all this — omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient — then the power can be called Vishnu. It seems unlikely that multiple such super powers exist — at least in my opinion. So, there can be only one power that can be called Vishnu. So, it is not that Vishnu is the greatest. It is that the greatest power can be called Vishnu. Here, there is a distinction, and a difference!

Then, we digressed again. We set out to explore the Nasadiya Sukta, and we have covered the first shloka in Part 1. The second shloka goes to some length to describe what did not exist prior to creation. Our minds are currently trapped in Newtonian laws of Physics that are very deterministic and where there is a clear separation between the observer and the observed. At least, it is so in my case. As we try and focus on smaller dimensions of matter, thinking through to subatomic levels, classical physics gives way to probabilistic nature of laws of atomic physics. This is where I see a convergence concepts of modern physics with the ideas that our Rishis interpreted from the Vedas. Some examples of this convergence, although I have to admit it will take several lifetimes to understand the Vedas even a little.

• Modern concepts of physics emphasize probabilistic thinking, as opposed to being deterministic. Nowhere else I have seen this very simply explained, as simply as in the great book “The Tao of Physics”, by author Fritjof Capra (I wish Mr. Capra had written his interpretation of the Nasadiya Sukta, I would have loved to read it and learn from it). Most of our scriptures emphasize the same — debate, dissent, doubt and a clash of ideas. Even Nasadiya Sukta leaves much open for interpretation, and the greatest of Rishis have toiled to derive new meanings. Vedic literature has a rich tradition of bhashyas (explanation, commentary) by our Acharyas like Madhwa, Shankara and Ramanuja, where explanatory works are written to simplify and demystify Vedic literature. The tradition does not stop with these Acharyas. Generations of Rishis who have come after these Acharyas have written their own bhashyas to those written the revered Acharyas. One can extrapolate this logic and assert that this blog post itself is in continuation of that tradition, however imperfect and minuscule in its impact.
• Quoting Mr. Capra directly from his book — At the subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty at definite places but rather shows “tendencies to exist,” and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways but rather show “tendencies to occur.” In simple terms, this means that the solid matter we see around us is just a result of subatomic particles being confined in small enough regions that they are forced to move around in this confined space at great velocities. One can further extrapolate and simply understand the solid state of matter as just an appearance, one of the infinite possible states the same matter can be in. This has profound implications as we try to interpret the second Shloka of Nasadiya Sukta. Before creation of the Universe in its current form, it is now logical to assume that matter did exist, but not in its current solid form that we are able to see but as an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite density and heat. See my first blog post to link this back to the first Shloka.

With this backdrop, which I hope is sufficient, let us look at the second Shloka.

Death didn’t exist, and neither did immortality. Neither night nor day existed. The supreme power as extolled by all the Vedic literature, infused breath and hence life into a lifeless form (body), just by its will. Other than this omnipotent Vishnu, no other entity existed. Of course, the universe that was created later on did not exist either.

Here, life and death should be seen as something more than just opposites. They are different states of being of the same entity, which is stuck in a continuous loop of duality. It is interesting to note that Sanskrit does not really have a word that clearly and directly translates to birth or death — most related words either mean appearance or disappearance. This indicates a permanent state of being of the entity, or the jeeva, which can neither be created nor be destroyed. Note that both the jeeva and the Brahman (or Vishnu) have permanent, and timeless existence. Vishnu wills the jeevas into appearance and disappearance (life and death), and the parallel existence is maintained. This concept is one of the pillars of the Dvaita Vedanta as popularized by Sri Madhwacharya, and as I have understood it.

Two more concepts of physics, perhaps valid in both classical and modern physics (and chemistry), find deep resonance as you try to interpret the Nasadiya Sukta:

• Matter can be neither created nor destroyed in any chemical reaction, per the law of conversation of mass. The notion of creation in Vedic terms is about appearance, rather than being about making something up out of nothing. So, both the law based on chemistry, and Vedic literature seem to allude to the same thing. The process of creation is about bringing together elements that always existed, but needed a force to shake them out of dormancy.
• Modern physics states the equivalence of mass and energy, and Vedic literature is full of stories and anecdotes where Rishis and other enlightened people made things appear (and disappear) out of seemingly thin air (or into it). If the supreme power, as mentioned in this second Shloka, did somehow have access to a source of unlimited energy just moments before creation, it is conceivable that this energy got converted to mass (and hence matter) over the next few moments and into billions of years after the start of creation. I do not see physics and Nasadiya Sukta contradicting each other, do you?

What I am striving to do this is offer one framework to interpret the Nasadiya Sukta, through the lens of Physics. I hope someone takes interest to do the inverse as well — interpret concepts of Physics through the lens of Vedic knowledge.