saidevo
03 March 2009, 09:22 AM
nAsadIya sUkta: Unity in Diversity: A study
In all humility, and with due reverence to all the sages and scholars who have interpreted the famous 'nAsadIya sUkta', I have attempted a compilation of some interpretations of the SUkta, adding my own thoughts to the discussions.
Where not stated otherwise, the details under the 'More info' section are from the book RgVeda Samhita based on HH Wilson's translation and Sayana's summary, edited by Ravi Prakash Arya and K.L.Joshi and published in four volumes by Parimal Publications, Delhi.
******************
nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIm | nAsIdrajo no vyomA paro yat |
kimAvarIvaH kuhakasya sharmann | aMbhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram || 1 ||
na mRutyurAsIdamRutaM na tarhi | na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH |
AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM | tasmAddhAnyannaparaH ki~jchanAsa || 2 ||
tama AsIttamasA gUhLamagre praketaM | salilaM sarvamAidam |
tuchChenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIt | tamasastanmahinA jAyataikam || 3 ||
kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi | manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt |
sato bandhumasati niravindanna | hRudi pratIShyA kavayo manIShA || 4 ||
tirashchIno vitato rashmireShAmadhaH | svidAsI duparisvidAsI |
retodhA AsanmahimAn Asanna | svadho avastAt prayatiH parastAt || 5 ||
ko addhA veda ka iha pravochat | kut AjAtA kut iyaM visRuShTiH |
arvAgdevA asya visarjanAya | athA ko veda yata AbabhUva || 6 ||
iyaM visRuShTiryata AbabhUva | yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na |
yo asyAdhyakShaH parame vyomann | so aMga veda yadi vA na veda || 7 ||
--Rig Veda, 10.129
******************
Text Interpretations
nAsadAsInno sadAsIttadAnIm | nAsIdrajo no vyomA paro yat |
kimAvarIvaH kuhakasya sharmann | aMbhaH kimAsIdgahanaM gabhIram || 1 ||
Vivekananda:
Existence was not then, nor non-existence,
The world was not, the sky beyond was neither.
What covered the mist? Of whom was that?
What was in the depths of darkness thick?
Krishnananda:
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Wilson, HH:
The non-existent was not, the existence was not;
then the world was not, not the firmament, nor that which is above (the firmament).
How could there be any investing envelope, and where?
Of what (could there be) felicity? How (could there be) the deep unfathomable water?
Max Mueller:
There was then neither what is nor what is not,
there was no sky, nor the heaven which is beyond.
What covered? Where was it, and in whose shelter?
Was the water the deep abyss (in which it lay)?
nAsad = na + asat - non-existence; AsIn - sitting; tadAnIm - then, at that time.
nAsI drajo = na + AsId + rajas; rajas - atmosphere, air, firmament; vyoman - sky, air, ether, heaven.
AvaraNa - cover; kuha - where? (MVD), a rogue, cheat; kuhA - fog, mist, kuhAvRuta - foggy; sharman - shelter, refuge; happiness, comfort, joy;
ambhas - celestial waters; gahana - an abyss, depth, impenetrable darkness; gabhIram - not to be penetrated or investigated or explored; uninterrupted (time); deepsounding, hollow-toned.
My thoughts
The translations are essentially the same, though 'asat' is 'nothingness' for Krishnananda (and perhaps Max Mueller).
The Vedic meaning of 'rajas' is 'one of the divisions of the world and distinguished from 'div' or 'svar'. Hence Vivekananda translates it as 'the world'; the translations are essentially the same.
While the other three don't specify what is covered and takes the meaning 'where' for the term 'kuha', Vivekananda says it was 'kUhA' or mist or fog. And then the term 'sharman' means 'shelter, refuge'. Though the Vedic text line explicitly uses this word, Vivekanda only implies it.
Usually, it is the mist or fog that covers up things but here Vivekananda asks who covered the mist (itself). With this interpretation he implies that Creation is 'anAdi' (having no beginning, existing from eternity) and when it exists between 'kalpas', it is only mist, 'mAyA' arising due to the vibration of the 'prANa' of Brahman.
All the four interpreters agree that there was impenetrable darkness: while the other three wonder if it was the celestial waters (since the text has the word 'aMbhaH'), Vivekananda perhaps derives his translation 'darkness' by treating the word 'aMbhaH' as a derivation from 'ambara' which means 'sky' or 'garment'.
More info
The non-existent, etc.:
'sat' is invisible existence and 'asat' is visible existence; they are the 'puruSha' (spirit) and 'prakRuti' (matter) of the Samkhya philosophy. They have a distinct existence in Samkhya, but in the Vedic system they are blended and lost in the one invisible, immaterial, incomprehensible First Cause, or Brahman, in the intervals of Creation.
The language used in describing is evidently that the First Cause was in the beginning undeveloped in its effects, and existed before either inactive matter or active spirit, considered as distinct. It is not intended to be said that no cause or origin, no Author of the universe, existed before Creation, but that nothing else existed, neither matter nor spirit, and consequently that He created both.
Any investing envelope:
Each element as created or developed is invested by its rudement.
Of what could there be felicity:
That is, of whom or of what living being could enjoyment, or fruition, whether of pain or pleasure, be predicated, there being no life?
How could...water:
Sayana explains away another text, "idam agre salilam AsIt" (Taittiriya-Samhita VII.1.5.1), "this in the beginning by saying that, that refers to another period.
******************
Text Interpretations
na mRutyurAsIdamRutaM na tarhi | na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH |
AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM | tasmAddhAnyannaparaH ki~jchanAsa || 2 ||
Vivekananda:
Death was not then, nor immortality,
The night was neither separate from day,
But motionless did That vibrate
Alone, with Its own glory one-—Beyond That nothing did exist.
Krishnananda:
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
Wilson, HH:
Death was not nor at that period immortality,
there was no indication of day or night;
That One unbreathed upon breathed of his own strength,
other than That there was nothing whatever.
Max Mueller:
There was no death, hence was there nothing immortal.
There was no light (distinction) between night and day.
That One breathed by itself without breath,
other than it there has been nothing.
mRutyu - death; AsIda - come to; tarhi - at that time, then, if then, in that case, if so, because of that, so (therefore);
AnAhaH - binding, swelling; Anila - proceeding from or produced by wind; svadhaya - according to one's habit or pleasure, spontaneously, freely, willingly; tad - that; ekam - one.
tasmAt - therefore, from that, on that account; anya - another, other than that, opposed to; para - supreme, highest, best or worst, previous or following; chanas - delight, satisfaction; to delight in, enjoy, be satisfied with.
My thoughts
The term 'ahan' means 'day' and the term 'praketa' means 'appearance; observation, intelligence; observer, knower.' Perhaps this is used as the term for the separateness, torch, sign or distinction found in the four interpretations?
While others take the meaning of 'breathing, breath and wind' from the term 'AnIdavAtaM' for the root 'Anila', Vivekananda perhaps seeks the root 'AnAhaH' (swelling) for the meaning 'vibration' that he gives. And it was 'motionless vibration' as against 'windless breathing' because of its 'svadhaya', very nature.
The literal meaning of the text "tasmAddhAnyan na paraH kiM chanAsa" is perhaps 'Therefore, another none supreme, (so) why that delight?' The very question about delight implies that It was self-delighting, though there was none other It. Such Ananda born of the Self is the highest form of glory, which is why perhaps Vivekananda takes the meaning 'glory'.
More info
Breathed of his own strength:
Sayana takes 'svadhA' as meaning 'mAyA' or 'prakRuti' (Illusion or Nature), the source of the world of phenomena. He understands 'sa"' breathed along with Maya".
Swami Vivekananda is highly critical of the (chiefly Western) literal interpretation of the One Thing 'breathing without breath' in this verse. In a letter dated 20th Dec 1895 he says:
In translating the Suktas, pay particular attention to the BhAshyakAras (commentators), and pay no attention whatever to the orientalists. They do not understand a single thing about our ShAstras (scriptures). It is not given to dry philologists to understand philosophy or religion. ...For instance the word Ânid-avAtam in the Rig-Veda was translated—"He lived without breathing". Now, here the reference is really to the chief Prana, and Avatam has the root-meaning for unmoved, that is, without vibration. It describes the state in which the universal cosmic energy, or Prana, remains before the Kalpa (cycle of creation) begins: vide—the BhAshyakAras. Explain according to our sages and not according to the so-called European scholars. What do they know?
He explains this Chief Prana 'Anid-avAtam', which is the first manifestation of Brahman, in his 'Practical Vedanta and other lectures/Cosmology' thus:
There is in the Rig-Veda, the oldest human writing in existence, a beautiful passage describing creation, and it is most poetical — "When there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness was rolling over darkness, what existed?" and the answer is given, "It then existed without vibration". This Prana existed then, but there was no motion in it; Ânidavâtam means "existed without vibration". Vibration had stopped. Then when the Kalpa begins, after an immense interval, the Anidavatam (unvibrating atom) commences to vibrate, and blow after blow is given by Prana to Akasha. The atoms become condensed, and as they are condensed different elements are formed. We generally find these things very curiously translated; people do not go to the philosophers or the commentators for their translation, and have not the brains to understand them themselves. A silly man reads three letters of Sanskrit and translates a whole book. They translate the, elements as air, fire, and so on; if they would go to the commentators, they would find they do not mean air or anything of the sort.
The Akasha, acted upon by the repeated blows of Prana, produces Vâyu or vibrations. This Vayu vibrates, and the vibrations growing more and more rapid result in friction giving rise to heat, Tejas. Then this heat ends in liquefaction, Âpah. Then that liquid becomes solid. ... and it goes back in exactly the reverse way.
Prana cannot work alone without the help of Akasha. All that we know in the form of motion, vibration, or thought is a modification of the Prana, and everything that we know in the shape of matter, either as form or as resistance, is a modification of the Akasha. The Prana cannot live alone, or act without a medium; when it is pure Prana, it has the Akasha itself to live in, and when it changes into forces of nature, say gravitation, or centrifugal force, it must have matter...
What are the organs made of? We see that the instruments — eyes, nose, and ears — are made of gross materials. The organs are also made of matter. Just as the body is composed of gross materials, and manufactures Prana into different gross forces, so the organs are composed of the fine elements, Akasha, Vayu, Tejas, etc., and manufacture Prana into the finer forces of perception. The organs, the Prana functions, the mind and the Buddhi combined, are called the finer body of man — the Linga or Sukshma Sharira. The Linga Sharira has a real form because everything material must have a form.
******************
Text Interpretations
tama AsIttamasA gUhLamagre praketaM | salilaM sarvamAidam |
tuchChenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIt | tamasastanmahinA jAyataikam || 3 ||
Vivekananda:
At first in darkness hidden darkness lay,
Undistinguished as one mass of water,
Then That which lay in void thus covered
A glory did put forth by Tapah!
Krishnananda:
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.
Wilson, HH:
There was darkness covered by darkness in the beginning,
all this (world) undistinguishable water;
that empty united (world) which was covered by a mere nothing,
was produced through the power of austerity.
Max Mueller:
Darkness there was, in the beginning;
all this was a sea without light;
the germ that lay covered by the husk,
that One was born by the power of heat (tapas).
My thoughts
The literal meaning is perhsps 'Darkness (tama) lay in darkness (tamasa) hidden (guha) at first (agre), (or so) it appeared (praketa).' All the four interpretations covey same meaning.
'salilaM' means 'water', 'sarvamAidam' is 'all, everywhere'. The interpretations correspond to each other.
tuchCha=void, empty, abhva=immense, monstrous, pihita=covered, concealed; Max Mueller takes 'tuch' for 'germ, offspring, children' and 'tuchCha' for 'husk'.
'tapasa' is 'heat' and 'stan' as 'crackle (as of fire)' corroborates it; 'mahina' means 'sovereignty, dominion' and 'mahIna' is 'earth-ruler'; 'jAyate' is 'born of' and 'aikam' is 'the One'. Thus, the personal god, the 'earth-ruler' was born of It by its own heat of 'tapas' caused by the earlier 'vibration' in verse 2.
More info
Through the power of austerity:
'tapas' is said to mean not penance, but the contemplation of the things which were to be created. ("yah sarva-jnah sa sarva-vid yasya jnAna-mayam tapah" Mundaka Upanishad (1.1.9))
******************
Text Interpretations
kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi | manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt |
sato bandhumasati niravindanna | hRudi pratIShyA kavayo manIShA || 4 ||
Vivekananda:
First desire rose, the primal seed of mind,
(The sages have seen all this in their hearts
Sifting existence from non-existence.)
Its rays above, below and sideways spread.
Krishnananda:
In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not
Wilson, HH:
In the beginning there was desire,
which was the first seed of mind;
sages having meditated in their hearts have discovered by their wisdom,
the connexion of the existent with the non-existent.
Max Mueller:
Love overcame it in the beginning,
which was the seed springing from mind,
poets having searched in their heart found by wisdom,
the bond of what is in and what is not.
My thoughts
Sarabhanga once said in HDF that the first karma (of Brahman) was 'kAmA'. Thus we see in this line that Creation was initiated first by desire. The usage 'samavarta' is full of meanings: 'vartana' implies that desire was 'set in motion' within Itself and 'abided in it' (without getting projected into matter as yet), and thereafter became Its 'subsistence'.
'reta' means 'semen, virility', thus the primal seed that gives birth to mind. Swami Vivekananda explains in his article quoted above, that mind is nothing but vibrations caused in the 'chitta' (by desire). "The mind carries the impression farther in, and presents it to the determinative faculty, Buddhi, which reacts. Behind Buddhi is AhamkAra, egoism. Behind Ahamkara is Mahat, intelligence, the highest form of nature's existence. Each one is the effect of the succeeding one."
'bandhumasati' is (perhaps) 'related existence'; 'vindu' is synonymous with 'bindu', 'drop, globule' of the 'primal seed'; 'vinda/vindu' also means 'finding, acquiring'. Thus, sifting the existence that depended on no relationship from the non-existence which is only an appearance of relationship, the sages found the Truth as the next part of the line indicates.
This is a beautiful line. A 'kavi' is a 'sage, wise man, one who is gifted with intelligence and insight, one who is enlightened', so it stands for the Vedic Rishis. 'manIShA' is a lovely word that means 'thought, reflection, consideration, wisdom, intelligence, conception, idea'. 'hRudi pratIShyA' means 'standing firmly in the heart'. Thus, the Kavi with his wisdom, looked inside his heart, reflected on and found the conception of Unity with Brahman standing firmly and shining in his heart.
More info
There was desire:
That is, in the mind of the Supreme Being.
******************
Text Interpretations
tirashchIno vitato rashmireShAmadhaH | svidAsI duparisvidAsI |
retodhA AsanmahimAn Asanna | svadho avastAt prayatiH parastAt || 5 ||
Vivekananda:
Creative then became the glory,
With self-sustaining principle below.
And Creative Energy above.
Krishnananda:
And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.
Wilson, HH:
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.
Max Mueller:
Their ray which was stretched across,
was it below or was it above?
There were seed bearers,
there were powers, self-power below, and will above.
tiras - across, apart; vitata - spreading, extending; rashmi - a string or cord, a beam or ray of light; and 'reSha' is 'to howl, yell'; adhas - there, in that (remote) place'; svid - whether, or; upari - upward; AsIt - it was'.
My thoughts: 'tiras' is 'across, apart', 'vitata' is 'spreading, extending', 'rashmi' is 'a string or cord, a beam or ray of light' and 'reSha' is 'to howl, yell'. As the rays of 'kAma' spread in all directions, further creation happened by insemination, signifying the advent of duality.
More info
Their ray was stretched out:
[This, according to Sayana, refers to the suddenness of Creation, which was developed in the twinking of an eye, like the flash of the sun's ray. It was so quick, he continues, that it was doubtful whether the things in the central space (understood by the word "across") were created first, or those above or those below; in other words, Creation took place simultaneously in all three portions of the universe. Sayana tries to reconcile this with the received notion of Creation in a series (viz. that from AtmA came AkAsha, and from the AkAsha the wind, from the wind fire etc. ("Atmana AkAshaH saMbhUta AkAshAdvAyurvAyoragniH"--Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.1.1) by saying that this was the order in which things were created, but the development of the world was like a flash of lightning, so that the series could not be distinguished. ("tatsRuShTvA tadevAnuprAvishat"--Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.6)
Whether across, or below, or above:
The word 'tirashchIno', 'across' perhaps refers to the 'triyaksrotas', "that in which the stream of life is horizontal", i.e. the animal world. The epithets in the second line of the verse are unusual and obscure; according to Sayana, the meaning is that among the created objects some were living creatures, others were great, as the sky, etc., the former being the enjoyers ('bhoktAraH'), the latter the things to be enjoyed ('bhojayaH'), so the creation was distinguished as the food and the feeder. The verse occurs in Yajus, 33.74, where MahIradha gives it several different interpretations, none more intelligible than those of Sayana.
(From the book Time, Being, and Soul in the Oldest Sanskrit Sources by William H. Snyder
hosted at http://books.google.com/books?id=hoI4dvN_f0kC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=%22retodhA+Asan%22&source=bl&ots=wXAWvhi8jX&sig=okxu8MmsboqRIzqueEJZytXf2-0&hl=en&ei=Wt-sScmlHY-1kAXf8qC3Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA55,M1)
retodhAs - (those) inseminating (from 'retas' - semen and 'dha' - put, place); Asan - they were; mahimAnas - great, powerful beings; Asan - were; svadhA - (its) own home ground; avastAt - below; parastAt - above; prayatis - presentation (of the 'retas' - semen).
The translation into sowers of seeds does harm to the intended insemination and alters the meaning. "Great beings inseminating, from above the presentation downward'. The image is an ancient one common to many cultures: above the heavens, Sanskrit 'diva(s)', masculine, and below the earth, Sanskrit 'prithvi', feminine, 'earth' in the act of procreation. The concept here appears to be rather of copulation between the male sky and the female earth which produces all life forms on earth. From above the semen--liquid rain, which inseminates the earth below.
******************
Text Interpretations
ko addhA veda ka iha pravochat | kut AjAtA kut iyaM visRuShTiH |
arvAgdevA asya visarjanAya | athA ko veda yata AbabhUva || 6 ||
Vivekananda:
Who knew the way? Who there declared
Whence this arose? Projection whence?
For after this projection came the gods.
Who therefore knew indeed, came out this whence?
Krishnananda:
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Wilson, HH:
Who really knows? Who in this world may declare it!
whence was this creation, whence was it engendered?
The gods (were) subsequent to the (world's) creation;
so who knows whence it arose?
Max Mueller:
Who then knows, who has declared it here,
from whence was born this Creation?
The gods came later than this creation,
who then knows whence it arose?
addhA - certainly, truly, manifestly; pravacha - declare, announce, expose; AjAta - born; visRuShTi - creation, production (secondary creation in Puranas); arvAk - behind in time or space; devaH - gods, the Devas; visarjana - creating (RV), sending forth, dismissal;
More info
Whence was... engendered:
That is, from what material cause, and from what creative cause, did it arise?
******************
Text Interpretations
iyaM visRuShTiryata AbabhUva | yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na |
yo asyAdhyakShaH parame vyomann | so aMga veda yadi vA na veda || 7 ||
Vivekananda:
This projection whence arose,
Whether held or whether not,
He the ruler in the supreme sky, of this
He, O Sharman! knows, or knows not He perchance!
Krishnananda:
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.
Wilson, HH:
He from whom this creation arose,
he may uphold it, or he may not (no one else can);
he who is superintendent in the highest heaven,
he assuredly knows, or if he knows not (no one else does).
Max Mueller:
He from whom this creation arose,
whether he made it or did not make it,
the highest seer in the highest heaven,
he forsooth knows, or does even he not know?
dadha - preserve, maintain, uphold; adhyakSha - exercising supervision, superintendent; vyoman - space, sky, ether, heaven; aMga/anga - well, indeed! veda - knows.
My thoughts
This is perhaps the most talked about (and puzzling) verse in the SUkta. How can it be that Brahman does not know about his own Creation? If it is so, how does it/he qualify to the name?
If Brahman does not know (so no one else can), does it mean that between the time cycles of Creation, Brahman goes into deep sleep with no awareness which is the third state and not the fourth--'turIya'? And only when Brahman 'wakes up' for the next cycle, the knowledge of an impending Creation 'dawns on him/it'?
Notice that in this verse, the Creator is not only separted from the Creation, but addressed to as a person, 'He'. He is also spoken of as supervising His Creation from the highest heaven.
This paradox is explained as follows:
(From 'The Kavi' blog at http://thekavi.blogspot.com/)
1) According to A.K.Coomaraswamy:
the last line should be translated as: "He knows AND He knows not!"
The idea is that outcome of every act is not really fixed at all till the last second. The grace can act at last minute, there is no exception. The Creator does not need to plan ahead. Thus, both statements 'He knows' and 'He knows not in advance' are true. He does not specify the way of conclusion in advance, since such a specification limits His Own Power and by definition, the Supreme Person has no limitations.
2) According to Swamy Nikhilananda:
since the suktam specifies a 'He' instead of 'It', the seer actually means 'SaguNa Brahm' and not 'NirguNa Brahm', and it is not surprising that SaguNa Brahm does not know something since He is a lesser consciousness than NirguNa Brahm. This view came up from Mr.Ramakrishna, another Shishya of my Guru while our little discussion was going on. But my Guru opines that since the entire RigVeda as 'sah' (He) instead of 'tat'(It), this theory has needs some more exploration before complete acceptance.
3) According to SAyana BhAshyam:
the last line has a different meaning. The penultimate word 'na' in the verse is usually translated as 'not', but it can also mean 'who else'. My Guru gives several references where 'na' is used as 'who else'. Hence, the translation becomes: "He knows, and [if not] who else knows."
More info
Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1 offers a similar proposition:
"In which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is infinite. But that in which one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, is the finite. That which is infinite, is alone immortal, and that which is finite, is mortal". "Revered sir, in what is that infinite established?" "On its own greatness or not even on its own greatness".
Sayana's commentary on this SUkta is very elaborate, but it is evidently influenced by the Vedantism of a later period. Although, no doubt, of high antiquity, the hymn appears to be less of a primary than of secondary origin, being in fact a controversial composition, levelled especially against the Samkhya theory.
******************
atanu
03 March 2009, 01:22 PM
My thoughts
This is perhaps the most talked about (and puzzling) verse in the SUkta. How can it be that Brahman does not know about his own Creation? If it is so, how does it/he qualify to the name?
If Brahman does not know (so no one else can), does it mean that between the time cycles of Creation, Brahman goes into deep sleep with no awareness which is the third state and not the fourth--'turIya'? And only when Brahman 'wakes up' for the next cycle, the knowledge of an impending Creation 'dawns on him/it'?
Notice that in this verse, the Creator is not only separted from the Creation, but addressed to as a person, 'He'. He is also spoken of as supervising His Creation from the highest heaven.
******************
Thank you saidevoji for the compilation,
Regarding the last paragraph, I may have something to add from Guru Ramana, who does not attribute the function of knowing as fundamental to Turya Atman, which remains as the unchanged substratum. Note that it is not Brahman that is being taught in the sukta but it is about the Self. It is function of Sarvesvara (Pragnya Ghana -- the revealed unbroken intelligence of Turya) to know or not know. The difference in "It" and "He" is thus explainable. When per chance He 'knows' (on account of some kAma impelled by its heat), that itself is the creation, Universe, Jiva and Lord kAla-Death. One moment becomes a full cycle and He knows it since it is His thought that is the world and its happenings.
When in dissolution mode (samadhi), He knows not, since there is nothing else to know-- no second sound, no second smell, no second color and no second self. Turya remains as it is -- neither a being nor a non being and there is no Death herein. The Chanogya verse is clear on this aspect.
Chandogya Upanishad 7.24.1
"In which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is infinite. But that in which one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, is the finite. That which is infinite, is alone immortal, and that which is finite, is mortal". "Revered sir, in what is that infinite established?" "On its own greatness or not even on its own greatness".
----------------------
The portion with bold fonts is significant. Greatness is effortless creation but the Self is independent of its revealed greatness. The Self knows when it functions as Ego. When the Ego resolves into the Self, there is only the Self. This unknowing is however the ultimate knowing. The following verses from the Mandukya Upanishad may clarify as to how the unknowing Self is Omniscient.
Mandukya Upanishad
5. Where the sleeper desires not a thing of enjoyment and sees not any dream, that state is deep sleep. (The Self) seated in the state of deep sleep and called Prajna, in whom everything is unified, who is dense with consciousness, who is full of bliss, who is certainly the enjoyer of bliss, and who is the door to the knowledge (of the preceding two states), is the third quarter.
6. This is the Lord of all; this is omniscient; this is the in-dwelling controller (of all); this is the source and indeed the origin and dissolution of all beings.
7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
Mandukya Karikas
II-13. The Lord imagined in diverse forms the worldly objects existing in the mind. With the mind turned outward, He imagines diversely permanent objects (as also impermanent things). Thus the Lord imagines.
II-14. Things that exist within as long as the thought lasts and things that are external and conform to two points of time, are all imaginations alone. The distinction (between them) is caused by nothing else.
II-15. The objects that seem to be unmanifested within the mind, and those that seem to be manifested without, are all mere imaginations, their distinction being the difference in the sense-organs.
II-16. First of all, He imagines the Jiva (individual soul) and then (He imagines) various objects, external and internal. As is (a man’s) knowledge, so is (his) memory of it.
-----------------------
III-15. The creation which is differently set forth by means of (the illustrations of) earth, gold, sparks etc., is (just) a means to reveal the idea (of identity). But multiplicity does not exist in any manner.
---------------------
III-32. When the mind ceases to imagine consequent on the realisation of the Truth which is the Self, then it attains the state of not being the mind and becomes a non-perceiver, owing to the absence of objects to be perceived.
------------------------
III-38. Where there is no thought whatever, there is no acceptance or rejection. Then knowledge, rooted in the Self, attains the state of birthlessness and sameness.
-----------------
III-47. That highest Bliss exists in one’s own Self. It is calm, identical with liberation, indescribable, and unborn. Since It is one with the unborn knowable (Brahman), the knowers of Brahman speak of It as the Omniscient (Brahman).
-------------
IV-80. Then, there follows a state of stillness, when the Consciousness has become free from attachment and does not engage Itself (in unreal things). That is the object of vision to the wise. That is the (supreme) state on non-distinction, and that is birthless and non-dual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This state of stillness is of not knowing, yet it is omniscience by virtue of being one with unborn knowable Brahman.
III-47. That highest Bliss exists in one’s own Self. It is calm, identical with liberation, indescribable, and unborn. Since It is one with the unborn knowable (Brahman), the knowers of Brahman speak of It as the Omniscient (Brahman).
Om Namah Shivaya
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.