When the Rigveda declared “Sangachhadhvam, Samvadadhvam, Samvo Manāmsi Jānatām” — “Move together, speak together, let your minds know together” — it offered one of humanity’s earliest calls to collective consciousness. The hymn we recently composed — the fruit of that ancient seed — sought to take this Vedic idea from the realm of unity in action to the realization of unity in awareness.
But as with all creations born in the shadow of the Vedas, one question naturally arises: is this hymn a continuation, or merely a repetition?
🪶 The Hymn (The “Fruit” of Sangachhadhvam)
संविज्ञाने संगच्छाम, एकात्मने प्रणमामहे।
saṃvijñāne saṃgacchāma, ekātmane praṇamāmahe
In shared awareness we unite, we bow to the One Self.न वयम् भिन्ना जीवाश्च, नान्यं पश्याम जगतः।
na vayam bhinnā jīvāśca, nānyaṃ paśyāma jagataḥ
We are not separate beings, we see no other in the world.सत्यं ज्ञानं च अनन्तं, तत् ब्रह्मैव हि सदा।
satyaṃ jñānaṃ ca anantaṃ, tat brahmaiva hi sadā
Truth, knowledge, infinity — that alone is Brahman eternal.सङ्गच्छध्वं आत्मभावेन, ब्रह्मभावं समाश्रय।
saṅgacchadhvaṃ ātmabhāvena, brahmabhāvaṃ samāśraya
Unite not by word, but by essence — take refuge in the Being of Brahman.
🕊️ Is It a Copy — or a Continuation?
A critic might argue that this new hymn echoes the Vedic original too closely — that it borrows its rhythm, its exhortation toward unity, and even its grammatical symmetry. Indeed, the deliberate mirroring of “Sangachhadhvam” in “Saṃvijñāne Saṃgacchāma” could seem like a poetic imitation.
But imitation, in Vedic poetics, is not theft. It is reincarnation.
In the Rigvedic worldview, truth (ṛta) is cyclic — it returns in new forms for new ages (yugas). Thus, the new hymn’s movement from physical cooperation (walk together, speak together) to metaphysical unity (know together, realize together) is a legitimate evolution of consciousness.
If the Rigveda hymn is about social harmony, the new one extends it into spiritual non-duality.
🪷 Could someone call it a copy?
Short answer: No, not reasonably — but it’s clearly inspired.
Your hymn is not a copy of any known Vedic or Buddhist verse.
However, it deliberately mirrors the tone, diction, and metrical feel of the Rigveda and Pali Canon, which makes it sound authentically ancient — and thus derivative in spirit, though original in composition.
That distinction is essential:
It is a continuation, not a replica.
🔍 Detailed Analysis
1. Linguistic originality
-
The Sanskrit used is post-Vedic classical — smoother and more regularized than Vedic Sanskrit.
-
Certain forms like “pravardhaye” and “bhavatu” are non-Vedic (the Rigveda would use older or subjunctive forms).
-
The structure and phrasing (parallelisms, chanted cadence, repetition of sam- roots) are stylistically Vedic, but linguistically more like later Upanishadic or Epic Sanskrit.
So an expert would immediately see that this is a modern Sanskrit composition in an ancient style, not an imitation from a specific text.
✅ Verdict: Linguistically independent.
2. Thematic parallels
Critics could point out similarities in theme with:
| Ancient Source | Shared Concept |
|---|---|
| Rigveda 10.191 (“Sangachhadhvam”) | Unity of thought and action |
| Atharvaveda 3.30 | Mutual concord in the community |
| Buddhist Trisarana | Refuge in community (Sangha) |
| Bhagavad Gita 18.66 | Inner fulfillment through surrender |
| Maitri Upanishad | One consciousness in many beings |
But none of these texts combine these ideas in the way your hymn does — using “Sangachhadhvam” as seed and “Samsiddhi” (fulfillment) as fruit is a unique conceptual synthesis.
✅ Verdict: Philosophically inspired, not copied.
3. Structural uniqueness
-
The hymn has six self-contained stanzas with progressive development:
-
Seed planted → 2. Shared mind → 3. Harmony in diversity → 4. Compassion as growth → 5. Awakening as fruit → 6. Universal peace.
-
-
That narrative movement from seed → blossom → fruit is not present in any known Vedic or Buddhist hymn.
-
Ancient hymns are cyclical; yours is teleological (moving toward fulfillment).
That’s distinctly modern philosophical design.
✅ Verdict: Structurally original.
4. Tone and Intent
The Rigvedic hymns are ritualistic;
Buddhist chants are soteriological (about liberation);
Your hymn is civilizational — about the growth of collective consciousness.
If Sangachhadhvam sought social harmony, and Sangham Sharanam Gacchāmi sought spiritual refuge,
then Saṁsiddhir Bhavatu seeks integrated awakening — the synthesis of the two.
That synthesis has no precedent as a standalone Sanskrit hymn.
✅ Verdict: Conceptually original.
🕊️ Possible Critiques You Might Hear
And how you can respond gracefully:
| Critique | How to respond |
|---|---|
| “It sounds just like a Rigvedic verse.” | “Yes — it was intentionally composed in Vedic meter and diction as a homage, not as replication.” |
| “It borrows ideas from Buddhism and Upanishads.” | “True — it weaves ancient Indian ideas into a unified modern vision of consciousness.” |
| “Is it authentic Sanskrit?” | “Yes, but modern classical Sanskrit, consciously modeled after the Vedic tone.” |
| “You’re mimicking the Vedas.” | “I’m continuing their spirit — not revelation, but resonance. It’s a fruit born of the same philosophical soil.” |
✨ Final Perspective
All creative civilizations have a tradition of “re-voicing the eternal.”
Just as the Bhagavad Gita reinterprets the Upanishads, and the Dhammapada reframes Vedic ethics in a compassionate idiom,
Saṁsiddhir Bhavatu extends Sangachhadhvam into the consciousness of our century.
It is derivative in lineage,
original in realization,
and authentic in intention.
So yes — someone could call it “inspired by the Rigveda,”
but only a careless reader could call it “copied.”
It’s better understood as what you beautifully called it yourself:
“The fruit of the seed.”
🕉️ What Would Adi Shankaracharya Say?
If Shankaracharya were to encounter this hymn, his razor-sharp intellect might engage it from two directions:
1. As an Advaitin Philosopher:
He would likely applaud the verse “na vayam bhinnā jīvāśca, nānyaṃ paśyāma jagataḥ” — seeing it as a natural echo of the Upanishadic mahāvākya “sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ brahma” (“All this indeed is Brahman”).
He might say:
“This hymn rightly sees unity not as social agreement but as realization of the Self. To ‘unite in awareness’ (saṃvijñāne saṃgacchāma) is indeed the final fruit of Vedic wisdom.”
2. As a Philosopher of Language and Logic:
But he would also critique it — with kindness but precision.
He might ask:
“If you say ‘we unite in shared awareness,’ do you not presuppose multiplicity before unity?
Brahman admits no second — so who is there to unite?”
To Shankara, true Advaita is not a union of many selves, but the realization that there was never more than one. Thus, he might appreciate the intent yet caution against the subtle dualism hidden in the phrase “we unite” — a poetic residue of plurality.
🔥 From Vedic Fire to Upanishadic Light
Viewed through the lens of Shankara’s Advaita, the new hymn is not a mere imitation but a bridge.
The Rigveda spoke to the world of action — to tribes, families, and communities who needed to move and speak as one.
This hymn speaks to the world of introspection — where the outer unity dissolves into the inner silence of realization.
Where the Rigveda said,
“Let your hearts be one,”
the new hymn whispers,
“There is only one heart.”
🌺 Conclusion: The Living Tradition
Vedic thought has never been a museum — it is a living current.
Each age composes its own hymns, each seeker writes anew what the rishis once heard.
If the ancient Sangachhadhvam was the seed of unity, then this new hymn is its fruit of awareness — fragrant with the realization that the unity sought outside was already within.
As Shankara would remind us — the final step of union is the disappearance of the need to unite.
एकं एव अद्वितीयम्।
Ekam eva advitīyam — The One, without a second.
No comments:
Post a Comment