Pages

Thursday, July 29, 2010

The greatest myth in Human history
Consider the following facts:

A path to to attain realization of the divinity that binds this entire universe based on self retrospection, revealed knowledge that is pure and given to mankind at the dawn of creation encompassing ways for all sorts of people at all times, code of conduct that imbibes truth and non-violence towards all living beings, freedom to interpret scriptures in accordance with one's inward experiences, all aspects of living including food, behaviour, worship leading us towards divinity.

A religion which is spiritually retarded, had to massacre millions of innocent lives for its survival, believes in a 'loving' god who sends his so-called children to eternal hell for a mere non-issue of not accepting a person's words(or authority), has a 'scripture' which was carefully edited out from numerous available books in order to gain mass support, does not talk about healthy food habits for its adherents, has revealed scriptures which is less than 2000 years old(while humans have been living on this planet for millions of years), persecutes anyone holding a slightly different view from supposed authority.

A third religion which has the same characteristics as the above except that its violence is several times larger than this second one. A religion whose founder himself massacred hundreds of innocent people to make others bow down to his authority. A religion whose paradise is nothing but a x-rated parlour, known for the worst disrespect of its women folk.

Another religion which holds the view that all of existence is just an illusion and void is the ultimate truth.

Though the above is a black and white picture of different world faiths, it is obvious for any sane person that give or take a few, that these are NOT the same in many aspects.

I am getting down to the topic of 'Radical universalism' or the statement "All religions are the same" that has plagued India severely for more than 150 years now.

There is a pithy anecdote of a hindu parents' dilemma. The parents had apparently been teaching their child that all religions are the same(similar to all rivers leading to the ocean blah blah..). After a few years at school, the boy came and told his parents that he wanted to be a christian  from then on and not follow the vedic path. They were devastated and asked for the reason. Prompt was the reply "All religions are the same. So i can follow anyone of them and I want to try the others now"

(Note: The word hindu is a very misleading one and has very little meaning in the traditional context. There was no such word or idea in India before a few centuries. I am however using that word to denote a broad umbrella under which we gather the belief systems that trace their way back to vedas, though it might not be a genuine connection many a times. At this point it is good to remember that 'hindu' does not indicate any homogenous group and consists of extremely diverse systems. These also do not qualify for the statement " all paths are the same" )

This is the sort of stupidity that we are leading ourselves into after all these years of wisdom from our ancestors. In the words of a blogger who writes about christian tyranny in India,

"Christian missionaries have spread death and destruction to native non christian peoples and cultures. Christianity is evil, diabolic and the cause of holocaust and god knows what else is to come. If hindus do not wake up.. the genocide Christian religion will carry out its agenda in india also as it has elsewhere with great gusto."

These people have destroyed our culture as much as the muslims have done in the last 1000 years and hindus still think it is wisdom to call every religion and idea same??? Does it have any iota of sense in it.?

The writings of Frank Morales on this myth are a great treasure to analyse this absurd notion prevalent in  Hindu society these days.

The theory of radical universalism that "all the religions are same" is nowhere to be found in any hindu scripture or taught by any acharya until coupe of centuries ago. Also, the theory defeats itself. This neo-hinduism is allegedly the only religion that claims that all religions are same(and no one else accepts this stand). So, Hinduism knows this particular fact that the other religions do not know. So, Hinduism is superior to others!!! This self-defeating logic is the result of ill-informed present day teachers who do not have any formal training in vedic texts whatsoever.

Also, by stating that all religions are the same, we commit the blunder of equating the moral and ethical systems of all these religions. While it is well-known that Hindus are asked to abstain from meat(atleast beef) if they want to live a saatvic life and attain freedom from birth and death, there is no such restraint in the other abrahamic religions. Killing people who do not follow your religion is not immoral in Abrahamic religions. This has directly resulted in world wide massacres.

Rebirth and karma are some of the most profound and beautiful messages of vedas and sanathana dharma. This perfectly explains why there are inequalities at birth among living beings and why bad things happen to good people. Spiritually retarded concepts like one person's death to save whole humanity, eternal hell for not following this person, only one life given to judge a soul(and that too gets a birth in a particular family by random chance?) are all embedded in christianity. Isn't it ridiculous on the part of a vedic person to call all these systems as same?

Let us come to the most common myth taught in schools and by ignorant people. All paths lead to the same goal ultimately. I think this is the climax of the whole absurdity. Frank writes,

"The Christian's sole aim in salvation is to be raised physically from the dead on the eschatological day of judgement and to find himself/herself with jesus in heaven, who is to be found seated at the right hand of the anthropomorphic male father/god of the old and the new testament. Muslims aspire towards a delightfully earthy paradise in which 72 houris(or virgin youth) will be granted to them to enjoy. Jains are seeking kevala or 'aloneness', in which they will enjoy an eternal existence of omniscience and omnipotence  without the unwanted intrusion of a god, a brahman or an allah. Buddhists seek to have all transitory elements that produce a illusion of the self melt away and to have themselves in turn melt away into the nihilism of nirvana. To the buddhist brahman also is an illusion.

Each of these different type of religion has its own categorically unique concept of salvation and of the absolute towards which they aspire. Each concept is irreconcilable with the others. To state the situation unequivocally if a christian, muslim, jain or buddhist upon achieving their distinct notion of salvation were to find themselves instead united with brahman, they would most likely be quite upset and confused indeed. And they would have a right to be! Conversely the yogi would probably be quite bewildered upon finding 72 virgins waiting for him upon achieving moksham rather than realising the eternal bliss of brahman. One person's vision of salvation is another person's idea of hell"

It is quite clear that each one's goal is different. Radical universalism as expressed by modern non-traditional hindus would seek to deny the members of other religions the right to assert their own religions as unique and distinct traditions. Radical universalism would seek to deny non-radical universalists the right to believe in an absolute that is categorically not brahman. Regardless of how radically different the goal of any other religion might be, whether that goal is nirvana, allah or any other, followers of other religions are told that they are all really aiming at the decidedly hindu goal of brahman- whether they know this or not and whether they want brahman or not. This is termed tolerant intolerance. One of the key aspects of right to freedom of speech is the right to be able to disagree. However by imposing one god, one path, one world-view radical universalism denies these religions and their followers their uniqueness and dignity.

When anyone makes this unthinking claim "all religions are the same", they are betraying the grandeur and integrity of our great heritage and dharma that has so many unique contributions to its credit to the world(yoga, ayurveda, karma, rebirth, yagnya, mantras to name a few). To deny the uniqueness and greatness of hinduism leads to a very unhealthy psychological state of self-loathing, a sense of unworthiness and a schizophrenic confusion on the part of anyone who wishes to consider themselves hindu. This muddled up state is often the reason why hindu parents often find their children less interested in hinduism and in some cases embracing other seemingly more rational and self-abnegating faiths. Who after all wants to follow a religion in which it is claimed that the very basis of the religion is to exult the greatness of other religions at its own expense? NO ONE.

If we want this tradition that has survived for millions of years to stay and illuminate the world during this vicious age of kali, we need to really understand the core distinguishing concepts of sanathana dharma and explain to whoever asks us about it instead of repeating the ill informed ad absurdum statement "all religions are the same".

PS: Though there are serious issues with medieval practices like sati, dowry system and uncalled for inclusions in varna system practice, it is well beyond any doubt that the core ideals of vedas are all-encompassing, noble and esoteric. This is quite not true with all religions where politicians and other power-hungry people have often decided the core policies to be followed and dictated the bloody actions that have been witnessed in world history. One good example is Constantine of Eastern Roman Empire.



Thursday, April 22, 2010

 Prithvi- Our Mother

Biologist E O Wilson, among many other scientists, has studied the complex interdependence among various species in the biosphere. He found that every species makes some constructive contribution- small or great - to the ecology of the planet. For eg, if the vegetation- grasses and shrubs- decrease, the herbivores suffer. And if the herbivores decrease, the carnivores are affected but he found that there is one species that does not contribute to the ecology. Yes....you guessed right! It is us, the HUMANs!

If the human species became extinct, there would hardly be any problems for any other species or for the ecology. In fact, most ecological problems would be solved if humans became or were made extinct. Arguably humans constitute the most intelligent species on the planet. Normally in a classroom, the more intelligent a student, the more potential he has to make positive contribution. Then why is it that the most intelligent species is making, not a positive, but a negative contribution to the planet?

                               (Courtesy: Spiritual Scientist Series)

This question looms large in the modern industrial age when all that we humans do is to infinitely dig away anything that is left as resource of nature and mother earth. Then once in a year to create some news for the media, we all make up banners and posters to celebrate this "Earth Day" . Anyway I liked the Google doodle for this year's Earth Day.


Greenery is something which we can never be tired of. I wonder at times how the world would look if it had all the plants predominantly in red or blue colour.

I believe that i have 2 effective ways of contributing to the cause of earth. One which i follow right from my birth, ie, vegetarianism and another using cloth bags instead of plastic ones.

One might wonder how vegetarianism might save the environment and the ecosystem for we all know the usual reasons for people turning to vegetarianism. Ethical reasons, health, aesthetic, religious (like karmic reasons) and sometimes financial reasons too are cited. However, here is where the unknown advantages lie:
  1. Conservation of Fossil fuel. It takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of beef protein; 35 calories for 1 calorie of pork; 22 calories for 1 calorie of poultry; but just 1 calorie of fossil fuel for 1 calorie of soybeans. By eating plant foods instead of animal foods, I help conserve our non-renewable sources of energy.
  2. Water Conservation. It takes 3 to 15 times as much water to produce animal protein as it does to produce plant protein. As a vegetarian I contribute to water conservation.
  3. Efficient use of grains. It takes up to 16 pounds of soybeans and grains to produce 1 lb. of beef and 3 to 6 lbs. to produce 1 lb of turkey and egg. By eating grain foods directly, I make the food supply more efficient and that contributes to the environment.
  4. Soil conservation. When grains and legumes are used more efficiently, our precious topsoil is automatically made more efficient in its use. We use less agricultural resources to provide for the same number of people.
  5. Saving our forests. Tropical forests in Brazil and other tropic regions are destroyed daily, in part, to create more acreage to raise livestock. By not supporting the meat industry, I directly reduce the demand to pillage these irreplaceable treasures of nature. Since the forest land "filters" our air supply and contains botanical sources for new medicines, saving these needs our immediate attention.
(courtesy:www.britishmeat.com)
 
   Avoiding the use of plastic bags is ofcourse a well known  way of helping the environment. I was using a couple of cloth bags for sometime and for some reason i discontinued the practice halfway. I have decided to resume this practice from my next purchase.


There is absolutely no use in just developing our technological comforts without making a large scale paradigm shift in our ways of lives in order to save the earth from becoming barren in a few decades. The popular but extremely unhealthy practice of malls and other shops using colossal amounts of plastic bags (no need to mention power consumption) should be stopped by rule as opposed to by incentives etc. because general masses are least concerned to consciously stop their usage. I have read elsewhere that if we pile up all the cans thrown out as garbage in America in one year, then they can form a chain that can extend from the earth to the moon (and this was years ago!).

All of these phenomenon seem to increase proportionally with the technological advancement of a country as well as the increase in the purchasing power of the populace. What i observe among many Indians in America is a reckless attitude towards resources. People who used to save (anything from food, electricity, money) spend like bottomless vessels after landing here. Back home, the situation is not drastically different. The so-called 'hip' culture all around the metropolitans have resulted in lots of dumb, non-thinking people without any concern for the country, ecology and environment. This so-called "modernization" is biting at the roots of mother earth and is the situation that led to the initial question of this post above.

However this was not the situation before the machine era. The ancients were far more conscious and appreciative of nature's bounties and devised ways to live in harmony with nature. "Bhumi" or "Prithvi" is the consort of Lord Vishnu and hence is the mother of all living beings. She is extolled in many vedic hymns like the Bhu suktam and Prithvi suktam in vedas.

Raimundo Panikkar writes in "The Vedic experience.."

"The Vedic attitude toward the earth springs from mankind's primordial experience of being on the one hand a guest, and on the other an offspring, of Earth. The earth is undoubtedly mother, is close to Man, but at the same time she is also alien, other and aloof. The earth is the foundation, the basis out of which emerges all that exists and on which everything rests. The earth is the basis of life and, when considered as a divine being, she always occupies a special place among the Gods.

Investigation of the Earth is of the same nature as personal introspection. To harm the Earth is a masochistic vice. Man is from the Earth and part of the Earth, yet he surmises more and more that he is not only of the Earth, not just an earthly thing."

The Rig Veda, 5th Mandala, 84th suktam extols prithvi as follows:

1. The mighty burden of the mountains bulk
rests, Earth, upon your shoulders; rich in torrents,
you germinate the seed with quickening power.

2. Our hymns of praise resounding now invoke you,
O far-flung Earth, the bright one.
Like a neighing steed you drive abroad your storm clouds.

3. You in your sturdy strength hold fast the forests,
clamping the trees all firmly to the ground,
when rains and lightning issue from your clouds.

Ancient Rishis symbolised the Earth as Mother cow, a treasure house of all bounties and gave her supreme respect. We need to understand from them how to respect her. We also have something to learn from Mother Earth also directly. One is perseverance by observing her enduring nature and the other is the path to liberation from this world, namely surrender to Sriman Narayana. The latter can be learnt by understanding Tiruppaavai , a beautiful hymn to Krishna by Andal, incarnation of Bhumi devi.

Ancient greeks had similar conceptualization of Mother Earth and called her Gaia. The same concept of a living Earth has re emerged in the 20th century due to the findings of modern science. Gaia superorganism theory has gained adherents in recent times. For a general idea of the same- http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/gaia_theory


                                   different conceptualisations of gaia

The Atharva Veda has a large and beautiful suktam on prithvi with 63 verses, some of which i present below:
2. Untrammeled in the midst of men, the Earth,
adorned with heights and gentle slopes and plains,
bears plants and herbs of various healing powers.
May she spread wide for us, afford us joy!
3. On whom are ocean, river, and all waters,
on whom have sprung up food and ploughman's crops,
on whom moves all that breathes and stirs abroad--
Earth, may she grant to us the long first draught!
12. Impart to us those vitalizing forces that come,
O Earth, from deep within your body,
your central point, your navel; purify us wholly.
The Earth is mother; I am son of Earth.
The Rain-giver is my father; may he shower on us blessings!
13. The Earth on which they circumscribe the altar,
on which a band of workmen prepare the oblation,
on which the tall bright sacrificial posts
are fixed before the start of the oblation--
may Earth, herself increasing, grant us increase!
Note the 4th line in the above verse.
34. Whether, when I repose on you, O Earth,
I turn upon my right side or my left,
or whether, extended flat upon my back,
I meet your pressure from head to foot,
be gentle, Earth! You are the couch of all!
35. Whatever I dig up of you, O Earth,
may you of that have quick replenishment!
O purifying One, may my thrust never
reach right unto your vital points, your heart!
We absolutely do not care for whatever the ancients pray in these two verses above. What we find often is miles of dug earth for all sorts of cables and underground transportation. This has indeed gone to the level of "reaching her vital points" and has created havoc.

"While most earthquakes are caused by movement of the Earth's tectonic plates, human activity can also produce earthquakes. Four main activities contribute to this phenomenon: constructing large dams and buildings, drilling and injecting liquid into wells, and by coal mining and oil drilling. Perhaps the best known example is the 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China's Sichuan Province in May; this tremor resulted in 69,227 fatalities and is the 19th deadliest earthquake of all time."   (courtesy: wikipedia)




 Soil pollution has reached its heights and exponentially etches our planet's capacity as a resource base. I have personally seen quite a few places like the one in the picture above in the outskirts of major cities. A literal 'alert' sign has been issued by concerned organisations like WHO and sustainability establishments regarding the whole issue of pollution of all kinds.
Great Pacific garbage patch, oil spills and the list is endless. My emphasis in this essay is more on the general feeling and the importance accorded by ancients to mother earth and our recklessness rather than discussing the nuances of environmental pollution. Actually, most of us have enough knowledge about the environmental degradation (all kinds of environmental damages including water, soil, air) but refuse to see the big picture for fear of losing small comforts. We should keep in mind that all these ecosystems are fragile and hence balanced only until left alone. As observed in the opening quote, we meddle with all of these ecosystems and rapidly moving towards self-destruction.

A new movie, called HOME is a high quality presentation on our atrocities on this planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

Each one has to give a thought about these serious environmental issues especially when our Earth is so special in our vicinity at least considering the fact that we might not spot liquid water for atleast another 500 million km from Earth and habitable planet for atleast  41,325 billion km from us.


May bhumi devi as well as the mighty Lord save us!





Friday, March 05, 2010

On the Nasadiya suktam and the Big-bang(not a comparitive evaluation)
                                  Is this representation of creation correct?

I have always wondered why there was something at all called "existence" instead of nothing. Though it became clear to me as time went by, that I would not be able to fully understand the answer(if i get one) due to our own inherent human limitations, I still wanted one. Thoughts flashed across my mind about the vedic "ekameva adviteeyam"(One only without a second) and how it had spawned a chain of interpretations and polemics in the ocean of Indian philosophy. Adi Shankara's advaitam and one of the Buddhist schools' absolute shunyavaadam and  visishtadvaita were important currents in this ocean. I thought about the reason why vedanta deshika(a visishtadvaitin and one of the greatest acharyas of India) and others had accused Shankara to be a prachanna-bauddha( a buddhist in disguise) while Buddhism was precisely one of the many schools he was trying to win over during his lifetime. Did Shankara and Buddha tell the one and the same thing? Then one day i came across this one. "To me, nothingness is philosophically indistinguishable from undifferentiated oneness". This is a quote of a physicist.(Same as what our poorvacharyas were teaching us).

In my quest to find an answer to the question "Why not nothing?" and hence the related ones, why and how the universe came into being, I decided to look into two sources, employing two entirely different methods of inquiry. One of those was the vedic lore and the other, modern physics. While the Vedas are the eternal texts which codify eternal truth, science is an equally interesting field which is  essentially a self-modifying field(based on its trials and travails). One must at the outset, however remember that science is in its infancy now and even if developed cannot lead to god consciousness because there is no way science transcends space and time due to its inherent limited premises.

The vedam is the 'pramana', the fountainhead of all knowledge in India from time immemorial. It is both anadi(without beginning) as well as apauresheya (not created by any human). It is often asserted(though a modern trend) that the vedas, in a cryptic manner contain some extremely advanced scientific truths, including those yet to be discovered by science. I was looking into the Rig veda to see if i could get an answer to my questions. While I was turning the pages of the 10th mandala of Rig veda Samhita, I landed  on this specific suktam nicknamed by scholars as the Nasadiya suktam, because it begins as "Naasadaasi..". This is the 129th suktam of the 10th(and the last ) mandala. The reason why it has attracted considerable attention is that it talks about the moment of creation and what was there prior to it.

There are some parallels that can be recognised between this suktam and Big-bang theory(and this is to be taken with a pich of salt as there are vast differences as well and in no way one validates the other. There is obviously nothing 'Scientific' about Vedas in the sense that Science is limited by sensory perceptions.)
It begins in a very interesting way. (In another type of division of Rig veda this suktam belongs to the vargam 17 in 7th dhyayam in 8th ashtakam.)
परमेष्ठी प्रजापतिर्ऋषिः  ,  त्रिष्टुप् छन्दः,  भाववृत्तं देवता

1. नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् |
किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ||

Neither there was non-existent, nor the existent; nor there was any realm or region.What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection? Was water there, unfathomable deep?

This is the earliest idea revealed to humanity about creation and can be called the first cosmological insight. It is sad that most of us are not even aware of such a literature with us. The profundity of their meaning strikes a chord with us. Before the Big-bang there was the singularity, which cannot be explained by current level of scientific knowledge. Since the singularity was there, we cannot say that there was non-existence(asat). On the other hand, there was no existence (sat) either, because the measurements of singularity (which is a point) were zero. There was no air, nor any sky or space(alternatively any realm or region).
Moreover, the singularity was not  covered or surrounded by anything like space or water. Water, here is not the liquid water as we know but a plasma kind of substance that came after the big-bang.

In short, the first verse precisely talks about the singularity or rather more generally a pre-big bang state. I also think that vatapatrasayi or aalilai krishna was a deep symbolism of this singularity.

 Though we see water in the painting, i feel it signifies the unfathomable indescribable darkness before creation.

Vatapatrasayi is often thought of as the final stage of pralayam(or when all of existence merges with Lord Krishna). In the bhagavatham, we find that there is a beautiful description of the moment of creation from the anantashayana Narayana. To me it seems to be logically following the previous state of pralayam. We will take a look at it later in this post.

[ Indian philosophy of subsequent yugas represented in the itihasas and puranas are quite at home with this fact of existence and non-existence. We find that in the Vishnu sahasranamam and Bhagavatham, Sriman Narayana is addressed as both sat and asat, ie, both existence and non-existence]

2. न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः |
   आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किं चनास ||

Neither was there death nor immortality then. There was no indication of day or night. That breathless one breathed upon by its own impulse/nature. Apart from that one, there was nothing else whatsoever.

(In sanatana dharma this verse indicates that paramatma,jivatma and acit(insentient matter) were together before creation. That is, though they were distinct, they seemed to be indistinguishable). There were no stars, planets or sun to demarcate night from day. Time also did not exist. This verse further emphsises the very different nature of singularity. The common misconception is that Big bang occured at a point in space which is false. The singularity contained space and time and it was present everywhere. Hence here we see that the verse stresses on the fact that nothing else whatsoever was there apart from it. Also, it introduces consciousness clearly into the picture of creation. Unlike being dry and indicating that we are here by chance, this verse indicates an intelligent being behind creation.

The next 2 verses are also equally interesting.

3.  तम आसीत्तमसा गूळ्हमग्रेऽप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमा इदम् |
तुच्छ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम् ||

Darkness was there;enveloped by darkness, a plasmic continuum, in which there was nothing distinguishable. And then, an empty(world), united under a causal covering came out on account of the austere penance(of that supreme one).

From the big bang theory we have a postulate: 

Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

There is a striking similarity between this statement and the above verse of our suktam.

4. कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् |
सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ||

In the beginning, there was the divine desire, which was the first seed of the cosmic mind. The sages seeking in their hearts, have discovered by their wisdom the bond that operates between the existent(the manifested) and the non-existent(the unmanifested).

The 'sankalpa sakti' of paramatma as the cause for creation of the universe is pointed out in these two verses. It would be appropriate to look at the following bhagavatham verses 
In the beginning(of creation), with the desire of evolving the different worlds, the Lord assumed the form of purusha consisting of sixteen component principles and constituted of the cosmic intellect. (1.3.1)
While he was in yoga nidhra reposing on the causal waters, there appeared from the lake of his navel a lotus wherefrom sprang up brahma, the lord of the progenitors of the world. (1.3.2)

This form of the lord is the imperishable seed of various avataras and the abode to which they all return. It is by a ray of his ray that gods, human beings and the lower forms of life are created. (1.3.5)

Here, the "knowledge of connection between existence and non-existence" is very significant.
The question is how could something as big as our universe have come from a point that was smaller than even a proton. We struggle to imagine how all of existence can be packed into a dimensionless point. Science is yet to explain this. Atheists argue that the fact that we do not know how it happened does not necessarily prove that there is a creator. However, according to me it neither disproves a creator. More precisely, the easiest, most understandable and at the same time satisfying answer is 'intelligent design'

The simple explanation offered in religion to this question is, since brahmam is 'sarvashakta' or 'one capable of everything' , he can shrink his size arbitrarily as well as expand to any extent. Science plays with its usual ways of building a 'jargon mountain' and explaining around this problem in some way using obscure quantum effects which are equally unproven anywhere till now.

5. तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत् |
रेतोधा आसन्महिमान
आसन् स्वधा अवस्तात् प्रयतिः परस्तात् ||

Their controls(rays or reins) were stretched out, some transverse, some below and others above. Some of these were shedders of seed and the others strong and superb- the inferior, the causal matter here and the superior, the creator's effort there. 

I think this rk might have also been an inspiration for sankhya philosophy (which deals with prakriti and purusha)  propagated later on by kapila.

It also explains the process of expansion as well as simultaneous creation of matter from condensing energy. It is said that the young universe was a hot place with a huge soup of sub-atomic particles, which later on condensed and bonded to form all the variety of elements and objects that we observe today. This view is also corroborated in vedic literature where prior to creating brahma, 24 tattvas were created by parabrahmam sriman narayana. These all started from moola prakriti, which was nothing but the primordial matter forming the body of paramatma before expansion. Based on some latest scientific speculations such as string theory(which is discussed later), we are inclined to accept the fundamental unity of all matter.
 6. को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत  इयं विसृष्टिः |
अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत आबभूव ||

Who really knows, who in this world can declare it, whence came out this creation? When was it engendered? When will it end? Nature's bounty came much later and hence who knows whence this creation was manifested?

This has a huge philosophical import as well as scientific dilemma about the age of our universe. Though vedic scriptures describe in detail the time scales of manvantara, kalpa and hence are aware of when the creation came about, this cryptic verse conveys the meaning of an eternal cycle of creation and absorption. Also it gives a voice to the human awe at the gigantic timescales involved in this existence(so huge that it is as good as unkown beginning and end). 

Science , after revising its estimate for the age of the universe several times has now come up with a value of 13.7 billion years(and now there are few members of the scientific community who have proposed that the Universe might be much older than 13.7 billion years). To explain any further, we need to grasp the fundamentals of a current theory about the universe. 

In a quest for a unified theory of the universe, scientists came upon what is called the string theory.It states that the fundamental building block of the whole universe including all the forces observed in nature, are infact ‘strings’ which are nothing but tiny threads of energy oscillating/vibrating at various frequencies. The mathematics of the theory predicts(and also requires) that there are tiny curled up extra dimensions(upto 6) at every point of space and we are unable to see them because they are billions of times smaller than even an atom. These dimensions gain prime importance because according to string theorists the actual nature of vibration of strings would depend on the precise shapes and curls of these extra dimensions. Hence, we could even stumble upon an explanation of why we have the exact scientific constants that we have in the universe if we can know more about these dimensions.[ An interesting comparative study here is that while string theory explains the universe as a symphony of strings, vedic idea is that  the whole existence is made of vibrations, a part of which is the Vedas that we have inherited. The idea of shabda brahmam is a notable one. Vedas are given the ultimate authority and importance in Indian culture because it represents the cosmic vibration in a fundamental way. Om, infact encompasses the whole of existence.]

The “M-theory”, an extension of the string theory is the latest development in this field. It is yet to be verified by observation from experiments but has striking resemblances to what we already know from ancient Indian cosmology and science. M-theory, among others could stand for Membrane theory, which talks about 3 dimensional membrane universes floating on a 11 dimensional space. Bhagavatha mahapuranam praises the lord as the infinite power who just breathes out countless universes as he wishes. One theorist describes the possibility of our universe as a tiny bubble floating in higher dimension multiverse that contains infinite other universes! (Note: Here again there is a fundamental difference between science and religion. While bhagavatam talks about all these universes having separate brahmas creating life in each of these, M-theory just speculates on random universes sprung up by chance where we happen to be in a universe supporting life)

This gives a twist to the big-bang theory, that it was not a unique beginning. The big-bang, according to M-theorists is nothing but a collision of two 3d membranes in the 11 dimensional space. They also further theorise that big-bangs could be happening all the time in the 11 dimensional space and ours was not anything unique. In fact this does not really seem to contradict vedic cosmology as well because, it says that srushti(creation) and pralayam(the ultimate deluge) happen cyclically and as seen earlier also admits multiple universes. This might be one of the possible explanations between the difference in the ages of the universe as given by Vedas(~311 trillion years) and the one predicted latest by science(13.7 billion years)

As said before, the devas came much later than initial creation of 24 tattvas and brahma and hence sail in the same boat with us when it comes to knowing when creation started.
Apart from the foregoing discussion on the age of the current universe or kalpa or maha-kalpa, there is a very important concept in this verse. It is "anaadi" or beginninglessness. It is a concept which is virtually impossible for human mind to comprehend. The universe has been created and destroyed infinite number of times in the past and will continue to be so into the future forever. So, no one knows when the creation began(in fact it did not!).

7. इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन् सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा नवेद
 

He from whom this creation arose- verily he may uphold it or he may not(and then of course none else can do it). The one who is sovereign in this highest heaven he assuredly knows or even he knows not(or who else knows)

Contrary to popular interpretation that this verse is on a skeptical note and is the source of atheism in indian thought etc., this actually talks about the greatness of paramatma. The sense of this rik is that brahmam is infinite in all attributes that he himself does not know his extents and powers(this is a statement to emphasise the infinity to finite people like us).

Interestingly, no one knows the size of the universe. We always talk about the extent of the visible universe only and have absolutely no idea of the size of the universe, leave alone the multiverse. It is impossible to know this quatity because it changes with every unit of time. In other words even now space is constantly expanding everywhere as you are reading this sentence.



A nice video about the big-bang

It appears that  non-existence and existence do not differ as we think from a limited, conditioned point of view. Paramatma shrinking all this creation unto himself can be said to be the state of non-existence( though absolutely speaking, it is not so).
One last note is a quote by aurobindo regarding the inadequacy of science when it comes to metaphysics, in the context of rebirth

"Rebirth is for the modern mind no more than a speculation and a theory. It has never been proven by the methods of modern science or to the satisfaction of the new critical mind formed by a scientific culture. Neither has it been disproved; for modern science knows nothing about a before life or an after life for the human soul, knows nothing indeed about the soul at all, nor can know; its province stops with the flesh and the brain and nerve, the embryo and its formation and development.Neither has modern criticism any apparatus by which the truth or untruth of rebirth can be established. In fact modern criticism with all its pretensions to searching investigation and scrupulous certainity, is no very effiecient truth-finder. Outside the sphere of the immediate physical it is almost helpless. It is good at discovering data, but except where the data themselves bear on their surface their own conclusion it has no means of being rightly sure of the generalisations it announces from them so confidently in one generation and destroys in the next."

This is true for any issues related to religion and science. So, I take a cautious step here by saying that as of now we can sense a parallel between the nasadiya suktam and big-bang(sans its atheistic interpretations).

Note:
To see the Nasadiya suktam with the svara marks(accent marks) see the following link, hymn 129


http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/rv10-120.pdf