Introduction
How should we understand the text of the Gāyatrī-Mantra, and how can we translate it? The list of more than seventy translations given in Appendix 1 illustrates that many writers have felt the need to create their own rendition of the mantra. No single standard translation of the GM has ever become widely accepted. In my view, the primary reason for the existence of so many translations and paraphrases is not that the GM itself allows for such a great variety of different readings, but rather, when it comes to the GM, many authors seem to have felt that a famous mantra such as this one must have, or allow for, several interpretations and translations, and that their own rendition may therefore easily be included among them.
When it comes to mantras especially, this position is indeed not without justification.¹⁵⁰ Texts in general can only be understood with a view to their context. In the case of mantras, however, the context changes with the text in which they are reused and, much more frequently, with the liturgical or ritual situation. A mantra must almost inevitably be translatable in different ways, depending on the context.
On the other hand, it is obvious that many “translators” of the GM (including numerous scholars) actually had no command of Sanskrit, let alone Vedic, and would have shied away from any other Ṛgvedic verse. One can hardly avoid the impression that many translations are not based on a divergent reading of the original text, but simply vary the wording of other translations. The respective textual, liturgical, or ritual context is very rarely taken into consideration, and almost never used to justify the creation of a new translation. Moreover, the historical aspect – the fact that the semantics and grammar of a language change over time – is hardly ever accounted for. Considering that in cultural studies of many kinds, translations are key tools, these are by no means trivial observations.
150 Cf. Bühnemann 1988: 67–68.
42 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
The aim of this first introductory chapter is to remedy this situation. It provides grammatical, morphological, etymological, lexical, and semantic analyses of the textual content of the GM against the background of the linguistic changes that took place during the transition from early to late Old Indo-Aryan.
In other words, this chapter explores how the GM would be understood by users of Vedic and Sanskrit.
This exploration is based primarily on pre-medieval sources. As will be seen, only few texts from this period provide explicit information on how the text of the mantra was understood, and we largely have to base our analysis on inferences. The meanings of the individual words of the mantra and its purport as a text only began to receive more attention from medieval commentators.¹⁵¹
• The chapter begins by presenting the GM in its original textual environment (Section 1; pp. 43–44). Then, each textual component is analyzed in dedicated sections (2–5). The semantic range of each word is discussed against the background of its usage in the primary literature. This is done in the rough chronological order of the selected text genres (for instance: Vedic Saṃhitās, Brāhmaṇas, the Epics, etc.; see also Table 1 on page xviii above) by comparing the usages of each word in their original contexts.
• **Section 2 **(pp. 44–46) is dedicated to Savitṛ. The manifestation of this deity changed significantly over time. Contrary to what one might expect, however, little attention was paid to the role he played as the deity addressed in the GM.
• **Section 3 **(pp. 47–53) turns to a more complicated issue: the nature of the object of the main sentence of the mantra, Savitṛ’s bhárgas, and the role it plays in the syntactical construction of the mantra. As we will see, the word *bhárgas * became the subject of a significant semantic change.
• **Section 4 **(pp. 54–56) analyzes the word dhīmahi, the main verb of the text, but an archaic form that fell out of use early on. In this case, later recipients had to deal with a significant change in the grammar of the language and it became necessary to find other ways of understanding it.
• **Section 5 **(pp. 57–58) briefly deals with the relative sentence at the end of the mantra. As in the case of dhīmahi, the grammatical form of the verb *pracodáyāt * at some point became obsolete. In this case, however, this had little effect upon how it was understood.
151 In accordance with the scope of this part of the study, their sometimes quite fanciful interpretations are not covered in this chapter; cf. above p. 35. However, these interpretations would certainly be worth a study of their own.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 43
• **Section 6 **(pp. 58–60) offers a few concluding remarks on what needs to be considered when translating the text of the mantra. I then summarize the grammatical analyses and possible translations of each word, and propose English and German translations of the entire mantra.
1. Original context
The earliest testimony of the GM is given in a textual context, namely in the ṚV, where it is part of a hymn dedicated to several gods at the end of the third book (ṚV III 62). The Anukramaṇīs (or traditional indices) attribute most of the hymns in the third book to Viśvāmitra Gāthina¹⁵² (or to members of his family), as also the tenth verse of ṚV III 62, that is, the verse commonly known as Gāyatrī
or Sāvitrī.
The hymn containing the GM is composed in tṛca s, groups of three ṛc s or
“verses of praise” that are frequently set in the *gāyatrī * meter. In sum, ṚV III 62 comprises six tṛca s (i.e., eighteen verses). Formerly, these tṛca s or “triplets”
probably were each counted as hymns themselves and were only later conflated into a single hymn.¹⁵³ Most of them are very simple and straightforward. This might have been a reaction to the sophisticated style of much of the third book: Jamison and Brereton interpret the first triplet of the hymn as a suggestion that, in the view of the poets, a simpler style is needed to make the hymns effective again.¹⁵⁴ They conclude that the “hymn would not be especially noteworthy, except that verse 10, dedicated to Savitar, is the Gāyatrī mantra, the best-known verse in the Ṛgveda.”¹⁵⁵
The GM, which at the time of its composition did not yet enjoy its name and reputation, is the first verse of the fourth triplet of the tripartite hymn. This triplet (ṚV III 62.10–12) is here given as a whole:
152 See n. 2 on p. 1 above.
153 Jamison & Brereton 2014: 553.
154 Jamison & Brereton 2014: 553.
155 Jamison & Brereton 2014: 464.
44 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
tát savitúr ¹⁵⁶ váreṇiyaṃ ¹⁵⁷ *bhárgo devásya dhīmahi */
*dhíyo yó naḥ pracodáyāt */10/
*devásya savitúr vayáṃ vājayántaḥ púraṃdhiyā */
*bhágasya rātím īmahe */11/
*deváṃ náraḥ savitā́raṃ víprā yajñáiḥ suvṛktíbhiḥ */
*namasyánti dhiyéṣitā́ḥ */12/
May we obtain that desirable splendor of the god Impeller, who shall spur on our thoughts! /10/
Competing for the generosity of the god Impeller, we ask for the gift of the Apportioner.¹⁵⁸ /11/
To the god Impeller do the men, as inspired ones, give reverence with sacrifices and well-twisted verses, when driven by (inspired) thought. /12/¹⁵⁹
In the following I will concentrate on the text of the GM itself, but in the course of the analysis I will also come back to the two subsequent verses.
2. savitṛ
In the Vedic language, *savitṛ́ * is an agent noun derived from the root *sū *(or secondary su) “to impel,” which has to be distinguished from the homophone *sū *“to give birth to.”¹⁶⁰ *savitṛ́ * thus literally means “impeller, initiator, arouser, instigator,” or “stimulator.” In the ṚV he is not only the god who sets everything into motion, but he also puts everything to rest again.¹⁶¹ These two activities become 156 Van Nooten & Holland (1994: 608) note that this opening is metrically uncommon.
157 The subscripted *i * can only be reconstructed from the meter, which requires eight syllables per pāda. In a process called the orthoepic diaskeuasis of the ṚV, the original sequence of the two vowels *ia * was subjected to the so-called Kṣaipra sandhi, a rule which requires the vowels ī̆, ū̆, and ṝ̆, to turn into their respective semi-vowels ( sc. y, v, and r) before dissimilar vowels. As can be seen also in the case of the GM, later authors were well aware of the missing syllable: in the much later Atharvaveda-Pariśiṣṭa (AVPar) XLI, to give but one example, *ṇi * and *yaṃ * are treated as discrete syllables; see below p. 253.
Regardless of its actual phonetic form, the GM was always considered a mantra that consists of twenty-four, rather than twenty-three, syllables.
158 While Bhaga, the “Apportioner,” is one of the Ādityas and a deity in its own right.
Brereton points out that the term *bhága * may also be an epithet of Savitṛ (Brereton 1981: 309–310). Since both the first and the last verse of the hymn refer to Savitṛ only, it is most likely that *bhága * is indeed just a title of Savitṛ: he is the “Apportioner” who distributes fortune and goods.
159 For another translation, on which the present translation is partially based, see Jamison
& Brereton 2014: 554.
160 For these roots, see *VIA * I: 324–325.
161 For a very short introduction to Savitṛ in the ṚV, see Jamison & Brereton 2014: 44–45
and Oberlies 2012: 159–161; for a more comprehensive description, see Macdonell 2002:
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 45
manifest in a range of ways and domains. Thus, Savitṛ impels gods, humans, and animals to action; he causes the change of day and night as well as the seasons and is also responsible for the movement of rivers and the wind. After the fulfillment of his daily work he brings all beings to rest, but at the same time continues his impelling activity by stimulating the procreation of offspring.
His outer appearance is sometimes described as well: Most conspicuously, he has a golden tongue and complexion, in addition to golden arms, hands, and eyes. He has a golden coat and is equipped with a golden chariot. Savitṛ was thus not simply an abstract “agent god,” but rather an anthropomorphic deification of what was perceived as a certain “cosmic” or “natural” force.¹⁶² This force was especially to be observed at the beginning and end of the day and night – at the transition from darkness to light and *vice versa *– and was felt as the drive to awaken and be active at daybreak and to rest at night.
Savitṛ’s etymologically clear name defined him throughout the entire Vedic period. Being the archetypical initiator, Savitṛ was thought to be the god who sets things in motion and gives them a good start. Hermann Oldenberg had already observed that it was a widespread practice to call on Savitṛ at the beginning of Vedic rituals, in both the Śrauta and the Gṛhya domains,¹⁶³ and he continued to be known for his function as the divine impeller even in the post-Vedic period.
Over time, however, his anthropomorphic characteristics faded into the background, as did his association with the night. On the other hand, his association with the time before sunrise became stronger from the YV onwards,¹⁶⁴
until he was even identified with the rising sun itself.¹⁶⁵ The (probably) earliest complete identification of Savitṛ with the rising sun is found in the Kauṣītaki-Brāhmaṇa (KauṣB), where we learn that “Savitṛ is verily the one over there –
the one who gives heat over there.”¹⁶⁶ “The one who gives heat over there” –
that is in the sky – is a typical characterization of the sun, which was often simply called asau, “the one over there” or “the one yonder.” This does not mean, however, that Savitṛ instantly merged with the sun god, Sūrya. While in later Sanskrit literature, the sun came to be seen as his only manifestation, and the
→
32–35 (with a caveat). For Savitṛ in the (AV), see Shende 1949: 239–231. For the various theories about Savitṛ’s manifestations in nature, see Haas 2020.
162 See Haas 2020, where I also argue that in the early-Vedic religion, Savitṛ cannot be easily connected with any single celestial object or phenomenon.
163 Cf. Oldenberg 1897: 479 and 1905: 256–257. Savitṛ is the first deity to be invoked in many rituals and litanies, for instance in the Śukla-Yajurvedic (ŚYV) litanies of the New and Full Moon rituals (VājS I) as well as the Vājapeya (IX), Agnicayana (XI), Pitṛyajña (XXXV; however, other gods are mentioned too), and the Pravargya proper (XXXVII). In Chapter 4, I argue that this practice was decisive for the choice of the GM as an initiation mantra.
164 See Falk 1988: 14.
165 See Falk 1988: 8–9.
166 *tad asau vai savitā yo ’sau tapati * KauṣB XXVII 7.28; cf. also ŚatB III 2.3.18.
46 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
word *savitṛ * was frequently used as a synonym of sūrya, he remained a distinct (Vedic) god.¹⁶⁷ Thus, Savitṛ continued to function as a god of fecundity and procreation – an “impeller of new life” – at least until the time of the early Upaniṣads.
But eventually this, too, would change. In the mid-Vedic period, he came into close contact with another deity, one who would gain the upper hand as god of procreation: Prajāpati. The “Lord of Progeny” became one of the most important deities of the Vedic religion. While in the ṚV *prajā́pati * was just one of the epithets of Savitṛ,¹⁶⁸ the new creator deity of the same name in many respects became his successor. The two gods were even identified with each other in some texts; that is to say, Savitṛ came to be seen as one of Prajāpati’s many manifestations.¹⁶⁹
In the post-Vedic period, Savitṛ continued to lose much of his profile. In the Sanskrit Epics, for instance, he most often simply appears as the sun in the sense of a celestial luminary – rising, shining, and setting.¹⁷⁰ While he is sometimes mentioned in a list together with other (usually Vedic) gods,¹⁷¹ little of his former glory remained. While continuing to appear in ritual contexts, as an individual god he became insignificant, at least outside the domain of Vedic ritual. As will be seen throughout this study, the texts mentioning or interpreting the GM do not show much concern for him. Instead of elaborating his role as a sun god, they rather focus on his light or, even more frequently, on the mantra or its deification itself.¹⁷²
167 See nn. 170–171 below.
168 See, e.g., ṚV IV 53.2.
169 See, for instance, PañcB XVI 5.17 (tr. Caland 1931: 433) and JaimUB I 5 (tr. Bodewitz 1973: 30); cf. Falk 1988: 22–23.
170 See, for instance, MBh I 161.20; III 133.18; V 27.6; VII 170.47; VIII 26.73; IX 31.17; XII 163.22; XIII 141.7; XIV 8.10; Rām. III 28.23, 67.28; VI 4.52, 57.20. This was also the case in the Gṛhyasūtras; the ĀśvGS, for instance, prescribes as part of the Upanayana that “the teacher makes him look at the sun, saying: ‘O god Impeller (/ O Sun god), this is your brahmacārin, protect him, he shall not die!’” ĀśvGS I 20.7: ādityam īkṣayed deva savitar eṣa te brahmacārī taṃ gopāya sa mā mrṭety ācāryaḥ.
171 MBh I 59.15, 114.55, 218.35; II 7.19; III 3.18, 118.11, 249.4; VI 116.38; XIII 16.22.
172 In the AVPar, it is even the *sāvitrī * itself – rather than the god to whom it is dedicated –
that is identified with the sun: “Verily, the *sāvitrī * is the sun, together with the sun the *sāvitrī * praises, impels – in the morning ( prātar) it impels forth ( pra+ sū), hence the sāvitrī-
ness” AVPar XLI 5.5: ādityo vai sāvitry ādityena saha sāvitrī stauti suvati prātaḥ prasuvati tasmāt sāvitrīt
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 47
3. tad**, vareṇya****, bhargas**
3.1 Vedic literature
The object of the main clause of the mantra is expressed in three words. As a first peculiarity, it is invoked with tád, a usually anaphoric pronoun that can only refer back to something already known either from the preceding text or from the context.¹⁷³ In the case of the GM, which was originally placed at the very beginning of the originally independent, brief hymn ṚV III 62.10–12, an antecedent clause is lacking, and *tád * must therefore refer to something that is well known. Hence *tád * in this case may be translated either with the pronoun
“that,”¹⁷⁴ which has indeed been chosen by most translators, or with the definite article “the.”¹⁷⁵ Just like the word “that,” *tád * in the mantra can appeal to shared cultural knowledge: both the poet and his audience are familiar with Savitṛ’s famous bhárgas.
Before *bhárgas * is mentioned, however, it is qualified as being *váreṇya. váreṇya * is basically an adjectivized participle optative passive derived from the verb root *vṛ *(or vṝ), “to choose” or “to desire.”¹⁷⁶ The meaning of this word is agreed upon: “worthy to be chosen” or “desired,” that is, “desirable” or, in a more general sense, “best” or “excellent.”¹⁷⁷ Both *tád * and *váreṇya *(losing their accent in later Sanskrit) retain the same function and meaning in the later literature.
But what kind of light is bhárgas? And why would one want to obtain it? The etymology of the word *bhárgas * is not completely clear. It is probably derived from PIE **bʰelg * or *bʰerHǵ ¹⁷⁸ and basically means “splendor, effulgence,”
or simply “light.” Its likely cognate *bhrāj *(from *bʰerHǵ) suggests that it may denote a kind of light that evokes the impression of (1) an unsteady flicker as in the case of flames, or (2) movement and effulgence as in the case of the sun, which in the ṚV is often equated with metallic objects.¹⁷⁹ In the ṚV, the term *bhárgas * appears only three times;¹⁸⁰ two of those times it is connected with Agni, the god of fire.
Ulrike Roesler has pointed out that in the ṚV, Savitṛ is never the agent of any verb belonging to the semantic sphere of “shining.”¹⁸¹ Although having 173 *VGS * 293–294 (§195 [A3]).
174 For this function of the English word “that,” see Chen 1990: 143.
175 Against this background then, the occasional translation of the word with “this” (or German dies) is problematic.
176 For this root, see *VIA * I: 378–379.
177 Thus, even Savitṛ himself can be called váreṇya; see AVP XX 12.10 (tr. Kubisch 2012: 80)
≈ AV VII 73.6 (≈ ŚāṅkhŚS V 10.10, with *damūnā- * instead of váreṇyo-).
178 See *EWA * II: 252; for bhrāj, see also *VIA * I: 467 (“(er)glänzen, strahlen”).
179 See Roesler 1997: 150.
180 ṚV I 141.1, III 62.10, X 61.14.
181 Roesler 1997: 229.
48 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
a golden or shiny complexion himself, Savitṛ is primarily the one who brings light. In view of Savitṛ’s association with the early morning and evening, it is conceivable that *bhárgas * in the GM indeed denotes some kind of physical light, such as, perhaps, the gentle gleam of the sky before sunrise and after sunset.
As a matter of fact, in the Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa (JaimB), the “heavenly light”
( dyumna) visible at these times is even explicitly connected with Savitṛ.¹⁸²
If one assumes that this light is identical with Savitṛ’s bhárgas, it is possible to establish some sort of coherence between it and those parts of the hymn ṚV
III 62.10–12 that refer to inspiration. To do so, it is necessary to consider the cultural background of early-Vedic poetry. For the composers of the ṚV, light, intuition, inspiration, and the act of composing hymns were integrally related.
First, Vedic poets thought that hymns appealing to the gods should be inspired by something already existent, rather than being created “out of nothing.” They considered their ideas and inspirations to be something that must be received, not produced. Second, they felt inspiration and insight to be a kind of sight or vision. Sight requires light, and the gods are consequently often asked to bestow this visionary light, which was also generally associated with the sacral world and the states of beatitude and bliss.¹⁸³
The reception of inspiration is often associated with a special time, the early morning. Jan Gonda observed:
Now, the visions or inspiration of the Vedic poets are often said to be transmitted early in the morning (cf. e.g., ṚV 3, 39, 2; 7, 79, 5; 10, 172, 2 ff.). This inspiration ( dhīḥ) belonged to those power-concepts which appear or reappear before daybreak. In the transmission of *dhī * a definite activity of gods of light and the early morning was a determinant factor.¹⁸⁴
Since Savitṛ, too, is associated with the morning, this fact may also pertain to the GM. Being, in a very general sense, a prayer for inspiration, it might even have been composed and used just at that time. Thus, the verses following the GM
could indicate that Savitṛ is being asked to bestow his light *in order * to inspire the thoughts of the poets, which are needed to create hymns of praise (and to perform sacrifices) in honor of the gods. The gods, in turn, are then besought to provide worldly goods to the poets.
However, another interpretation – for which some justification can be found in later literature – appears to be just as plausible. In the ṚV III 62.10–12
182 “… after sunset, before darkness; at dawn, before sunrise. Now in these the heavenly light is the Impeller.” *astam ite purā tamisrāyai suvyuṣṭāyāṃ purodayāt *| atho haiṣu savitaiva *dyumnaḥ * JaimB I 6. Cf. the translations by Bodewitz 1973: 30, Parpola 1998: 226, and 2000: 202. For more on dyumna, see Bodewitz 1973: 32–33, n. 13, and 2019 [¹1974]: 35.
183 Gonda 1975: 68.
184 Gonda 1981: 7. For a collection of early passages showing the importance of the morning time for ritual purposes, see Gonda 1981: 6–7.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 49
hymn, Savitṛ, who is also given the epithet “Apportioner” ( bhága), is asked to be generous to those who strive for his *púraṃdhi, * his “plenitude,” and hanker after his rātí, his “generosity” or “gift.” It has to be stressed that it is not the light but Savitṛ himself ( *dhíyo * yó- [m.]) who inspires the poets, and it is quite possible that the somewhat elusive *bhárgas * of the GM is not so much an “inspirational”
as it is a more “profane” light (as can be found in later texts). Thus, it may rather belong to the same category as *púraṃdhi * and rātí, two words that do not really belong to the domain of inspiration.
The answer to the question of what kind of light *bhárgas * might be is partly dependent on how one understands the syntactic construction of the GM. In 1954, Vishva Bandhu published a paper in which he argued that the word yó-
“who” in *pāda * c should be interpreted as a variant neuter form of *yád *“which,”
and was correlated to *tád * and bhárgas.¹⁸⁵ In this way, *bhárgas * becomes the agent of *pracodáyāt, *“shall inspire” or “set in motion.” Since Bandhu was apparently convinced that it cannot be Savitṛ who is to inspire the poets, he suggested a rather cumbersome – and ultimately unacceptable – distortion of the grammar of the text. Most other translators continued to accept Savitṛ as the agent of *pracodáyāt. *
In turn, Walter Slaje argued for a reading of the verse that – while being grammatically possible – again suggested that there could be a causal or at least a temporal relationship between *bhárgas * and the inspiration referred to in the last pāda.¹⁸⁶ Slaje interpreted *tád * as an adverb with the meaning “thus, so”¹⁸⁷
and read *pāda * c as a final clause (“in order that…”). Read this way, Savitṛ would first be asked to confer his bhárgas, in order that *he * shall inspire the poets.
The logical coherence of these events is not entirely clear: if Savitṛ’s *bhárgas * is interpreted as an entity that has the power to invoke inspiration, it is strange that the text is formulated in such a way as to indicate that it is Savitṛ – *yó- *– and not the *bhárgas * who is expected to stimulate the thoughts of his worshippers.
Of course, it might not be advisable to expect too great a degree of logical order in a work of poetry. It might be significant, however, that in two other verses similar in wording to the GM, *tád * is most likely not used as an adverb. In ṚV I 159.5, *tád * is a qualifier of the neuter noun rā́dhas, “largesse,” following it immediately afterwards, and in V 82.1, of the neuter bhójana.¹⁸⁸ While this does 185 Bandhu 1954; cf. Bandhu 1969.
186 Slaje 2007: 3, n. 6.
187 Slaje 2019: 205: “So laßt uns denn / Das strahlend helle Licht / Des Gottes Savitar empfangen / Auf daß er unser Denken / Vorwärts treibe!” (the slashes inserted here stand for line breaks in the original). Cf. also Slaje 2007: 3 (“Wir wollen uns dies strahlende Licht des Gottes Savitr verschaffen, dass unsere Gedanken er beflügle.”) and the similar translation in Slaje 2009: 525, n. 11 (“Wir wollen uns das ersehnte Licht […]”).
188 ṚV I 159.5: “The desirable largesse of Savitar shall we think upon today at the impulse of the god. For us, o Heaven and Earth, through your kind attention establish wealth consisting of goods and a hundred cows.” tád rā́dho adyá savitúr váreṇiyaṃ, vayáṃ de-
50 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
not rule out that *tád * could be an adverb – it is, in any case, grammatically possible to translate *tád * with “so” – I would argue that in the GM, too, *tád * qualifies the neuter noun bhárgas.
There are further reasons to interpret *bhárgas * as an object of desire rather than as a source of inspiration. In several Brāhmaṇas, *bhárgas *(sometimes in the form bhárga) is equated with *vīryà *“heroic power” or “vigor,” which the personified Waters take from Varuṇa when he is consecrated.¹⁸⁹ It is also frequently associated or mentioned alongside *várcas *“luster,” *yáśas *“fame,”
*ójas *“vigor,” *bála *“strength,” *máhas *“greatness,” *śrī *“splendor,” yajñasya yad *yaśas *“that which is the fame of the sacrifice,” *yajñásya yát páyas *“that which is the essence of the sacrifice,” *bhaga *“portion,” and *stoma *“praise.”¹⁹⁰ This makes it likely that in the ṚV, too, the word does not necessarily denote the inspiring
“gleam” of Savitṛ in the early morning, but a somewhat less sublime “splendor”
or “glory.”
3.2 Post-Vedic literature
Turning to the post-Vedic period, we observe that the word *bhargas * almost dropped into desuetude. Only a few sources employ it, most notably the Maitrāyaṇīya-Upaniṣad (MaitrU) and the Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad (ŚvetU).¹⁹¹
As it is one of the few texts dealing with the meaning of the actual text of the GM, the testimony of the **MaitrU **is especially intriguing. Evidently, the author had a particular interest in Savitṛ’s *bhargas *(here perhaps better translated as
“effulgence”), even more than in Savitṛ himself. After explaining every *pāda * of the verse, he even adds a separate comment just on this word. I here translate
→
*vásya prasavé manāmahe */ asmábhyaṃ dyāvāpṛthivī sucetúnā, rayíṃ dhattaṃ vásumantaṃ
*śatagvínam *//; tr. Jamison & Brereton 2014: 338. ṚV V 82.1: “This we choose of Savitar’s: the sustenance of the god – the Apportioner’s best vanquishing power, which best confers wholeness – (that) would we acquire.” *tát savitúr vṛṇīmahe vayáṃ devásya bhójanam */
*śráéïṣṭhaṃ sarvadhā́tamaṃ túraṃ bhágasya dhīmahi *//; tr. Jamison & Brereton 2014: 765; see also below pp. 123–124. The verbal similarities between these verses and the GM have been discussed in Brereton 2022: 76–77.
189 ŚatB V 4.5.1 (tr. Eggeling, *SBE * XLI: 113) and PañcB XVIII 9.1 (tr. Caland 1931: 493). Cf.
also JaimB II 101 and MaitrS IV 3.
190 AV VI 69.3 ( várcas, yáśas, yajñásya yát páyas), XIX 37.1 ( várcas, yáśas, ójas, váyas, bála); TaittB II 5.7.1.10 ( várcas, yáśas, ójas, bála); JaimB II 258 ( śrī); ŚatB XII 3.4.7 ( bhárgas, máhas, yáśas); ŚāṅkhĀ VII 1.4, XII 1.5 ( yajñasya yad yaśas); BaudhŚS XVII 43 ( mahas, bhaga, yaśas); PañcB I 1 ( mahat, yaśas, stoma, bhukti, sarva), IX 8 ( bhargayaśasī); GopB V 15
( mahas, yaśas, sarvam).
191 According to van Buitenen (1962: 71) one should put the original MaitrU “not too much later than the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, while some portions, like 6.33 are definitely older”; according to Olivelle (1998: 13), the TaittU can be assigned to the sixth or fifth centuries bce. Oberlies (1988: 54), on the other hand, placed the MaitrU *after * the ŚvetU, a text dated by Olivelle (1998: 13) to the “the last few centuries bce” and by Sanderson even to after the second century ce (for references, see Okita 2017: 259, n. 6). The MaitrU may in fact be several centuries younger; cf. Mallinson 2014: 170.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 51
the relevant passage (excluding a portion that can be safely considered a later interpolation):¹⁹²
[With regard to ***pāda ***a] “That desirable [effulgence] of the Impeller”: the Impeller is yonder sun. He is thus to be preferred by someone who desires the Self – thus the Veda exegetes say.
Next [with regard to ***pāda ***b] “we visualize¹⁹³ the Effulgence of the god”: the god is the Impeller. Therefore, I think on him who is called his [i.e., the god’s] Effulgence¹⁹⁴ – thus the Veda exegetes say.
Next [with regard to ***pāda ***c] “who may inspire our insights”: the insights are thoughts. “…who may inspire” them for us – thus the Veda exegetes say.
Next [with regard to the word] “Effulgence”: he who is placed in yonder sun or is the star in the eye, he is called Effulgence. “Effulgence ( bhargas)”
because his movement ( gati) is by means of the beams of light ( bhā), or he is called Effulgence because he roasts ( bharjayati) – thus the Veda exegetes say. […]
He, it should be known, is the lord of the Self, he is Śambhu, Bhava, Rudra, the Lord of Progeny, the all-creator, Hiraṇyagarbha, the truth, the vital force, the goose, the preceptor, Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, the sun, the Impeller, the Placer, the Ordainer, the sovereign, Indra, Indu. He, the one who gives heat like fire hidden by fire, by the thousand-eyed Golden Egg,¹⁹⁵ he is to be looked for, to be sought after.¹⁹⁶
192 See van Buitenen 1962.
193 See below p. 56.
194 Cf. the misleading tanslations by Gonda 1963a: 286: “Because Savitar is God ( devaḥ) I meditate ( cintayāmi, explication of dhīmahi) upon that which [!] is called his light ( bhargaḥ)” and van Buitenen 1962: 136: “deva is savitā. The One who is its [!] bhargas, on Him I think.”
195 In Hindu cosmogony, the Golden Egg is the original source of the entire universe; it is occasionally identified with Brahmā, Prajāpati, and the Vedic Puruṣa, who has a thousand eyes; see Gonda 1974, especially pp. 46–47.
196 MaitrU VI 7–8: *tat savitur vareṇyam ity asau vā ādityaḥ savitā *| sa vā evaṃ pravaraṇīya *ātmakāmenety āhur brahmavādinaḥ *| *atha bhargo devasya dhīmahīti savitā vai devaḥ *|
*tato yo ’sya bhargākhyas taṃ cintayāmīty āhur brahmavādinaḥ *| *atha dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayād iti buddhayo vai dhiyaḥ *| *tā yo ’smākaṃ pracodayād ity āhur brahmavādinaḥ *| atha *bhargā iti yo ha vā *⁺ *amuṣminn āditye nihitas tārako ’kṣiṇi vaiṣa bhargākhyaḥ *| bhābhir *gatir asya hīti bhargaḥ *| *bharjayatīti vā eṣa bhargā ity āhur brahmavādinaḥ *|7| […] eṣa khalv ātmeśānaḥ śambhur bhavo rudraḥ prajāpatir viśvasṛg ghiraṇyagarbhaḥ satyaṃ prāṇo *haṃsaḥ śāstā viṣṇur nārāyaṇo ’rkaḥ savitā dhātā vidhātā saṃrāḍ indra indur *| ya eṣa tapaty agnir ivāgnināpihitaḥ sahasrākṣeṇa hiraṇmayenāṇḍenaiṣa vai jijñāsitavyo ’nveṣṭayaḥ. Also translated by van Buitenen 1962: 136.
52 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
This passage is instructive in a number of ways. First, a close reading shows that the text is not really interested in Savitṛ. Rather, it elaborates on the bhargas, which it takes to be a masculine word ending either in *a * or as,¹⁹⁷
even though it is impossible to analyze *bhargo- * in the GM in this way. The reason for this is that it assumes a male god in the background of the mantra “who is called his Effulgence” ( yo ’sya bhargākhyas-): it is this “Effulgence” who is at the center of the mantra and is worthy of visualization or contemplation. As the following text shows, a great number of deities are identical with (or, rather, manifestations of) this single great god, among them not only Rudra, Viṣṇu, and Indra, but even Savitṛ himself! Thus, instead of focusing on Savitṛ – the sun –
directly, the author chose to twist the grammar of the text in order to arrive at the god who is not only located within the sun and moves by means of its rays but is the sunlight itself.
Turning to the ŚvetU, a theistic text dedicated to the god Rudra/Śiva, we observe that here, too, the object of the mantra was valued higher than the god in possession of that object. The reference to the GM is found in the following verse, which also alludes to another famous Vedic text, the Nāsadīya Hymn (ṚV
X 129):¹⁹⁸
When there was darkness, then there was neither day nor night, neither the existent nor the non-existent – Śiva alone was there.
He was the imperishable / the Syllable,¹⁹⁹ he was “that desirable [effulgence] of the Impeller,” and from him has come forth the ancient insight.²⁰⁰
In this verse, only the first *pāda * of the GM is quoted; the word *bhargas * itself is missing. It is, however, instructive to observe how this *pāda * is embedded in the sentence: both the first *tad * and the second one in tat savitur vareṇyaṃ-refer to the aforementioned Śiva and should be translated as “he.”²⁰¹ This means that the verse not only quotes from the GM, but even reinterprets its structure and integrates it into the new sentence, a technique also employed in other 197 As in bhargākhyaḥ and bhābhir gatir asya hīti bhargaḥ or as in bharjayatīti vā eṣa bhargā * ity āhur brahmavādinaḥ.
198 For this and other Vedic quotations (or paraphrases) in the ŚvetU, see Salomon 1986 and Oberlies 1988.
199 The word akṣara means “imperishable” as well as “syllable.” Since the time of the Brāhmaṇas, it has been associated with the syllable om (as “the Great Syllable”; see Gerety 2015: 129–135 and van Buitenen 1959), which is not only significant as a sacred syllable itself, but also frequently precedes the GM. It is very likely that both meanings are intended in the verse.
200 ŚvetU IV 18: yadā tamas tan na divā na rātrir, na san na cāsac chiva eva kevalaḥ / tad akṣaraṃ tat savitur vareṇyaṃ, prajñā ca tasmāt prasṛtā purāṇī //; cf. the translations by Olivelle 1998: 427 and Oberlies 1998: 89–90.
201 Cf. Oberlies 1998: 90, nn. 78–79; contra Salomon 1986: 174, n. 18 (see p. 178).
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 53
Upaniṣads.²⁰² Although the quotation stops before it, I would argue that the bhargas is nevertheless present: the beginning of a verse (a so-called pratīka) such as tat savitur vareṇyam is often used to bring the verse back to mind – an easy feat in the case of the GM. As a consequence, it must have been clear that
“that which is desirable” is indeed Savitṛ’s bhargas.
But why cite the GM in the first place? According to Richard Salomon, it is precisely because of the authority of the verse (and perhaps for no other reason, since it is not particularly relevant in and of itself) that the composer chose to quote it here. In fact, this is only one more instance of a pronounced pattern throughout the ŚU of choosing verses for citation from the Vedas, and particularly from the ṚV, more on account of their popularity or perceived authority than because of any particular relevance to the context or theme of the Upaniṣad itself.²⁰³
However, while the GM certainly was a renowned text at the time of the ŚvetU, I doubt that this was the only reason why the author selected it.²⁰⁴ Rather, I would argue that there is a contrast between the “darkness” in the first half of the verse and the implicit bhargas in the second: in the beginning, there was darkness, and Śiva was the only light, from which everything emerged. The pāda following the GM quotation, in turn, possibly continues another aspect of the bhargas: “from him/it [Rudra = bhargas] has come forth the ancient insight ( prajñā).” This would mean that Rudra – particularly in the form of Savitṛ’s bhargas, his “inspirational light” – is the primordial fountainhead of wisdom and insight.
Irrespective of whether one accepts this interpretation or not, it is clear that bhargas here does not denote the worldly “splendor” or “fame” that was coveted by the Ṛgvedic poets. Rather, it is presented as a much more powerful entity, the divine source of the universe. In this respect, the ŚvetU is similar to the MaitrU, where the bhargas is even reinterpreted as a male deity.
202 A similar case is given in KaṭhU 2.17, where the word brahmajajñam is used both to denote the sun and, at the same time, to refer to a specific Vedic verse beginning with bráhma jajñānáṃ- (given, for instance, in TaittS IV 2.8.8d); cf. Haas 2019b: 1036 with n.
73 (cf. Haas 2018a: 20 and 39).
203 Salomon 1986: 172.
204 This argument was already criticized by Oberlies, whose own explanation (Oberlies 1998: 90, n. 80), however, is incomprehensible to me: “Anders als Salomon, der die Ansicht ver-tritt, daß der Verfasser unseres Verses den ṛgvedischen ausschließlich wegen des hohen Ansehens […], das dieser genoß, zitiert, glaube ich, daß dieses erweiterte Prädikatsnomen eine konkrete Aussage macht: Rudra ist der Antrieb, der Impuls, der aus der Urmaterie ( akṣara-) die Schöpfung entstehen läßt.” No “Antrieb” or “Impuls” is ever mentioned.
54 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
4. dhīmahi
4.1 Vedic literature
In the Vedic language, the main verb of the mantra is either an aorist injunc-tive²⁰⁵ or an aorist optative²⁰⁶ form of the root dhā “to put.”²⁰⁷ Used in the middle voice (or medium), it means “to take, to receive” or “to obtain.” The aorist optative is usually taken to denote a wish, that is, it has a cupitive function.²⁰⁸
The injunctive on the other hand “originally expressed an action irrespective of tense or mood, the context showing which was meant.”²⁰⁹
According to Peter-Arnold Mumm, the injunctive is used to denote situations or actions that are for some reason obvious to the hearer, because it expresses a fact or an action that is either (1) already known (“as everybody knows”); is (2) according to common sense logically preceding/following the present situation (“it’s obvious/self-explanatory that now…”); or (3) coincides with its expression (“I now proclaim”).²¹⁰ In his analysis of the aorist injunctive,²¹¹ Eystein Dahl, too, concluded that the aorist injunctive “is underspecified with regard to tense and modality,”²¹² but further remarked that because of its being an aorist it denotes the perfective aspect.
The perfective aspect conveyed by the aorist simply expresses that an action is seen as a complete (and sometimes also completed) whole, that is, not as continuous or habitual. In the case of the aorist injunctive and optative, this often means that an action is causally and temporally prior to another contextually salient situation.²¹³ This is in any case also valid in the context of the GM, which ends with a verb pointing to a future event.
But how should dhīmahi be analyzed in the hymn of the ṚV? The question is whether Savitṛ should be asked to bestow his light or whether he will give it himself. In most hymns that are (at least partly) directed at Savitṛ, it is the very first verse that extols his appearance.²¹⁴ They describe how he has arrived, how he has raised his golden arms, and how he has brought his light. It is only then that he is asked for protection, wealth, progeny, etc.
205 VGS 171 (§148 [3]) = VG 369 (§503 [3]). dhīmáhi ← dhī (weak root aorist stem) + mahi (secondary ending in the 1st person plural).
206 VIA I: 298; cf. Meier 1922: 58. dhīmáhi ← dhī + ī (optative suffix) + mahi.
207 For this root, see VIA I: 298–299.
208 For an analysis of the aorist optative, see Dahl 2010: 308–314.
209 VGS 350 (§215B).
210 Mumm 1995. For (1), see p. 178; for (2), pp. 187 and 182; for (3), p. 180.
211 Dahl 2010: 320–333.
212 Dahl 2010: 333.
213 Dahl 2010: 311 and 326.
214 Cf. ṚV IV 54.1, VI 71.1, VII 39.1.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 55
As I imagine it, many of these hymns were created and recited in the presence of the god, that is, just before daybreak, or just following sunset. In this case, the poet reciting the hymn simply states the obvious: all who are present
“have now received” the light of Savitṛ, who will now inspire the creation of hymns, as the last verse of the hymn indicates. Mumm adduces three cases in which an injunctive (one time an aorist injunctive) may be used for the immediate past in order to express something relevant to the present situation,²¹⁵ and it cannot be ruled out that this is also true for the GM. If that is the case, we could then translate the GM thus: “We have (obviously) obtained the desirable splendor of the god Impeller, who shall (now) spur on our thoughts.”²¹⁶
The communis opinio, however, is to analyze dhīmahi as an optative.
Berthold Delbrück thought it to be an injunctive, in this case one that denotes a wish whose fulfillment is outside of the power of the speaker.²¹⁷ This use would eventually be equivalent to the cupitive use of the optative. Arthur A.
Macdonell, too, analyzed it as an aorist injunctive, which for him is dependent on context,²¹⁸ but generally expresses a desire.²¹⁹ The verbal form in the next verse of the hymn – the present indicative īmahe “we ask” or “beg” – may indeed suggest a cupitive reading of dhīmahi. Karl Hoffmann, lastly, properly called it an optative. In the instances he refers to, dhīmahi can be found to be in close proximity to unambiguous optative forms.²²⁰ In addition, the co-occurrence of dhīmahi with voluntative and cupitive verbs such as vṛ/ vṝ “to choose, to desire”²²¹ or yā/ī “to ask, to beg”²²² is conspicuous.
In the case of the GM, the optative (i.e., cupitive) reading is indeed the more natural one.²²³ Thus, in the ṚV, dhīmahi in all likelihood expresses a wish, that is, something that cannot be achieved by the speakers themselves. It is used in the meaning of “appropriation” rather than “reception”: even though Savitṛ’s light can be seen, it has yet to become the property of the poet, it does not yet infuse him. This means that it can be translated, for example, as “may we make our own” or “may we obtain.”
215 ṚV X 86.18, VII 58.5, and 73.2; see Mumm 1995: 17–18.
216 Cf. Geldner’s (I: 410) translation; see below p. 279.
217 AS: 356. He refers to ṚV V 82.6, VII 66.9, and X 36.5.
218 VG 369 (§503 [3]), n. 6.
219 VGS 350 (§215B).
220 Hoffmann 1967: 254, n. 286. He refers to ṚV I 17.6 ( sanéma), II 11.12 ( vanema), V 21.1
( idhīmahi), and VII 66.9 ( syāma).
221 ṚV V 82.1 X 36.5d (= X 36.7d).
222 ṚV X 35.4.
223 However, one may doubt that all instances of dhīmahi in the ṚV have to be interpreted as optatives. This is not the place to pursue the subject further; however, in several instances it seems plausible to me to understand it as an injunctive used in one of the functions outlined by Mumm: e.g., ṚV I 131.2; III 29.4, 30.19; V 21.1, 82.6; VII 15.7, X 16.12, 36.7, 66.2, 87.22.
56 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
Since the injunctive died out in the mid-Vedic language, understanding it as anything other than an optative became impossible. As I will show in Chapter 3, the Vedic texts that were composed after the ṚV generally do not show any concern for the meaning of the GM, let alone for the word dhīmahi. We may nevertheless assume that, in the mid- and late-Vedic periods, the form continued to be understood as being derived from dhā.
4.2 Post-Vedic literature
As the language evolved, aorist optatives, too, went out of use. While aorist forms continued to be used in Epic and Classical Sanskrit, these are always in the indicative. This means that – some time in or after the late-Vedic period – the form dhīmahi could no longer be easily understood as part of the contemporary language. As a consequence, those who pondered the meaning of the text came up with new interpretations.
On account of its similarity with the word dhiyo-, “insights” or “thoughts,”
the form dhīmahi was reinterpreted as being derived from the root dhī, which means “to see, to think” or “to conceive of,”²²⁴ a root that may also be related to dhyā/ dhyai, which has a similar meaning.²²⁵ It is not clear whether the form dhīmahi was understood to be an indicative or optative of either of these roots – that is whether it meant “we contemplate/visualize” or “may we contemplate/visualize.” The correct optative form would be * dīdhīmahi for dhī (and dhyāyemahi for dhyā/ dhyai). We may speculate, however, that in either case the “aberrant” form dhīmahi was simply thought to be a peculiarity of the Vedic language.²²⁶
One of the earliest texts hinting at such an interpretation might be the MaitrU translated above, where, in his explanation of pāda b, the author explains that “I think ( cint) on him who is called his [i.e., the god’s] Effulgence.”
Insofar as the author seems to paraphrase the text of the mantra, he probably understood dhīmahi in the sense of “we contemplate/visualize.” This interpretation became very popular with medieval commentators such as Sāyaṇa,²²⁷ and has remained extremely popular up to the present day. However, I do not know of any other pre-medieval texts that attest to it.
224 Cf. EWA I: 793 and VIA I: 299–300.
225 Cf. EWA I: 777–778 and VIA I: 433.
226 See, for instance, Joshi 1964: 379.
227 Cf. the gloss vayaṃ dhyāyāmaḥ in his Ṛgvedabhāṣya; see Müller 1854: 773.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 57
5. dhī**, pra****+ cud**
The beginning of the third pāda shows what the Ṛgvedic poets expected Savitṛ
to do. dhī is derived from the verbal root dhī, which we already met with above.
Its primary meaning is “thought,” but it is also thought that is qualified in a certain way, namely “visionary thought” or “inspiration.”²²⁸ The alliteration with dhīmahi is, therefore, not the corollary of a figura etymologica – as we saw, dhī and dhīmahi are unrelated – but should rather be interpreted as a pun made by the poet.²²⁹
In the GM, Savitṛ is expected to “stimulate” or “inspire” – prá+ cud,²³⁰ literally “to cause to move forward” – the thoughts of the praying poets. prá+ cud is also used, for instance, for the action of setting a car into motion or driving it (ṚV VIII 12.3). In the Ṛgvedic language, pracodáyāt is a subjunctive form of a causative formed from cud, combined with the preverb prá. The subjunctive form probably does not express a wish, but something that is expected to happen in the future.
Since the subjunctive began to die out in the times of the Brāhmaṇas, many reciters of the GM must have had some difficulties in understanding this form (just as they must have had problems with dhīmahi a little later). The most prominent forms containing the suffix yā by the end of the Brāhmaṇa period were the optative and its close cousin, the benedictive, also known as precative.
However, it is impossible to categorize the form pracodáyāt as either an optative or benedictive: the optative of pracodáyati would be pracodáyet.
Forming the benedictive of causative verbs, on the other hand, is a far more difficult matter. The main characteristic of the benedictive is the insertion of s between the modal suffix of the optative and the ending (in the very rare forms in the middle voice, it is sometimes the other way round: sī[ y]).²³¹ Most often, this form is made from aorist stems, and is thus very close to the aorist optative (lacking the s of the benedictive). The aorist of causatives is usually the reduplicating aorist, and the aorist optative would therefore be * pracūcudét.²³²
Apparently, no active benedictive form of a reduplicating aorist is attested (in the middle voice, we only find rīriṣīṣṭa [ṚV VI 51.7]), and it would be rather speculative to postulate *pracūcudyā́s or *pracūcudyā́t.
These grammatical problems notwithstanding, it is plausible that the recipients of the GM actually did categorize pracodáyāt as a special, “archaic”
228 See above p. 48; see also generally Gonda 1975: 65–73.
229 This pun, however, was already recognized by Ṛgvedic poets; see Brereton 2022: 76–77.
230 VIA I: 276.
231 See VGS 175 (§150).
232 Cf. VGS 174 (§149.4). This form is not attested.
58 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
optative (or benedictive) – just as in the case of dhīmahi.²³³ Unlike dhīmahi, however, reinterpreting pracodáyāt as an optative or benedictive did not involve major semantic innovations. Again, to my knowledge, pre-medieval texts generally remain silent on this word.
6. Translating the mantra
The analyses above have demonstrated that translating the text of the GM is by no means a straightforward task. When translating verse from a Bronze-Age text such as the ṚV, this may seem obvious. But given the numerous translations available – and the many more we can expect in the future from both scholars and laypersons – it is worth repeating. At the same time, it should also be underscored that there cannot, and indeed need not be, a single correct translation: any translation may be deemed accurate if it is based on the linguistically arguable meanings of the word-forms of the text, and is in line with the context.
When viewing ṚV III 62.10 as a verse contained within a hymn, the textual context has to be considered. When viewing it as a mantra, the ritual context has to be taken into account. Moreover, when translating historical texts, we need to be aware that a mantra may not have had the same meaning for its recipients as it did four centuries earlier or later. It may be the case that a word no longer had a linguistically clear meaning at all, and that those recipients were more or less forced to reconstruct or invent a meaning ad-hoc. For some of them only parts of it were relevant, for others the meaning of the mantra may not have mattered at all. For these reasons, one has to be very cautious with copy-and-paste translations.
The following table summarizes those translations I consider suitable for the individual words, purely in view of the general linguistic context. The table also sums up the grammatical analyses and indicates semantic or grammatical changes between Vedic and Sanskrit (a transition that was by no means abrupt):²³⁴
233 At least in theory there are even rules for forming a benedictive from the present stem of secondary verbs. Both Whitney (2008: 384 [§1049]) and SGB: 112 [§385], n. 2 [see p. 113]) explain that in the benedictive active of causative verbs, the suffix ay is replaced by the suffix yā-s. Neither offer any further references; Whitney even regards this formation “as purely fictitious.”
234 Note that Epic and Classical Sanskrit do not use accents.
chapteR 1 ∙ meaning ∙ 59
tát-
“that”
sandhi form of tád, accusative singular in the neuter of the pronoun sá/ tá ( tád)
savitúr
“of Savitṛ/ the Impeller/Initiator/Instigator”; Sanskrit also “of the Sun”
genitive singular of the masculine noun savitṛ́, agent noun derived from the root sū
váreṇyaṃ- “desirable, excellent”
sandhi form of váreṇyam, accusative singular of the neuter form of váreṇya, adjectivized participle optative in the passive voice derived from vṛ/ vṝ
bhárgo-
“splendor, effulgence, radiance”
sandhi form of bhárgas, accusative singular of the neuter noun bhárgas
devásya
“of the god / the divine”
genitive singular of the masculine noun devá
dhīmahi
“may we / would we / we wish to” + “obtain/attain/receive/
make our own” (or: “we have obtained” etc.), Sanskrit also
“(may) we contemplate/visualize”
first person plural in the middle voice of the aorist optative or injunctive of dhā; Sanskrit-speakers also interpreted it as a
“Vedic” first person plural of the present indicative or optative of dhī
dhíyo-
“thoughts, inspirations”
sandhi form of dhíyas, accusative plural of the feminine noun dhī́, root-noun derived from dhī
yó-
“who”
sandhi form of yás, nominative accusative of the masculine form of the relative pronoun yá
naḥ
“our”
enclitic form of asmā́kam, genitive plural of asmá ( asmád) pracodáyāt “shall/will” + “spur on /inspire/stimulate”
third person singular in the active voice of the conjunctive of the causative of prá+ cud; Sanskrit-speakers also interpreted it as a “Vedic” optative, that is “(may) spur on” etc.
**Table 3: **The individual words of the GM
60 ∙ paRt i ∙ the mantRa
Even more valid translations can certainly be found for the individual words, and there is also more than one way to put them together. I here propose the following two pairs of English and German translations (the German translations are somewhat less literal, but emulate the gāyatrī meter), based, on the one hand, on the Ṛgvedic reading and, on the other, on a general Sanskrit reading (which has to be adapted depending on the context). One could say that the Ṛgvedic and the Sanskrit translations present extremes; for many recipients, the sense of the text must have been in the middle, so to speak, or a mixture of both:
“May we obtain that desirable splendor of the god Impeller, who shall spur on our thoughts!” (ṚV)
“We visualize that excellent effulgence of the Sun god, who may inspire our thoughts!” (Sanskrit)
“Jenen begehrten Glanz des Gotts
Antreiber mögen wir empfahn,
der unsre Geister vorwärts bringt!” (ṚV)
“Das wünschenswerte Leuchten des
Sonnengottes erschauen wir,
der unser Denken inspiriert!” (Sanskrit)