The Rig Veda - translation and commentary
हर्षवर्धनः Harsha Wardhan
Deepro Chakraborty
Trichur Rukmani
Namaste,
The latest and probably the best English translation of the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā is probably Jamison and Brereton's translation (2014).
Regards,
Deepro
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:26:20 PM UTC-6, हर्षवर्धनः Harsha Wardhan wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Dr. Yadu Moharir
हर्षवर्धनः Harsha Wardhan
1. H. H. Wilson, Ṛig-veda Sanhitá, 6 volumes, London: Trübner and Co., 1850-1888.
2. Ralph T. H. Griffith, The Hymns of the Rigveda, 4 volumes, Benares: E. J. Lazarus and Co., 1889-1892.
3. Svami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar, Ṛgveda Samhitā, 13 volumes in 12 bindings, New Delhi: Veda Pratishthana, 1977-1987.
4. R. L. Kashyap, Rig Veda Samhita, 10 volumes in 12 bindings, Bangalore: Sri Aurobindo Kapāli Sāstry Institute of Vedic Culture, 2004-2009.
5. Prasanna Chandra Gautam, Modern English Translation of The Rig Veda Samhitaa, 4 volumes, Kathmandu: Kulachandra Gautam Smriti Sansthaan, 2012.
6. Tulsi Ram, Ṛg Veda, 4 volumes, Delhi: Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, 2013 (not seen by me).
7. Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton, The Rigveda, 3 volumes, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Wilson believed that Sāyaṇa understood the Vedas far better than any outsider could. He therefore took Sāyaṇa as his authority for the meaning of the Vedic words and verses, and closely followed Sāyaṇa’s commentary throughout his translation.
Griffith tried to strike a balance between Sāyaṇa’s interpretations and the interpretations of the German scholars who rejected Sāyaṇa, such as Rudolph Roth. His translation is in English verse, which means that he had to adapt the meaning he understood to fit the required number of English syllables.
Satya Prakash and Vidyalankar followed the Arya Samaj line of thought, which rejected Sāyaṇa altogether. However, as comparison will show, they adopted much of Wilson’s translation, and thereby brought in quite a bit of Sāyaṇa’s interpretation, perhaps unwittingly to themselves.
Kashyap followed the Sri Aurobindo line of thought, which also rejected Sāyaṇa. His translation includes some of Sri Aurobindo’s psychological interpretations of the Vedas, meanings which were also elaborated by Kapali Sastry in his unfinished Sanskrit commentary.
Gautam and his team of co-translators tried to jointly ascertain the meaning of the Vedic verses, and when they reached unanimity on this they attempted to put this meaning into modern English. This translation differs quite a bit from the other English translations.
Tulsi Ram’s translation is described in the online listings as following the Arya Samaj line of thought. The one verse I saw from it seemed to be an expanded paraphrase rather than a translation as such.
Jamison and Brereton’s translation is subtitled “The Earliest Religious Poetry of India,” which shows their approach. It draws upon the advances in scholarship over the last century, and will replace Karl Geldner’s German translation as the standard of reference for most Western scholars."
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
Please help to get a clarity on the subject line:
1. The subject line speaks of ‘ TRANSLATION and COMMENTARY’ for Rig-Veda. The seeking is articulated as search for < an accurate and informed English translation of the Rig Veda for self-study by non-Sanskritists? >
2. Translation means ‘ Bhashaantara’ : Communication of Meaning of Content in ‘ Source document’ to ‘ a document in target language’, which is useful for leisure study and Scholarly study at leisure .
Commentary means ‘ Vyaakhyaana - Bhaashya – Teekaa /Tippani’ : Explanation of Text- Content that goes beyond the ‘ literal translation’, where the writer present their ‘ informed opinion’ about the ‘Veda’.
And this needs to be studied under the tutelage of a ‘ Guru’.
3. What is available in indicated resources’ is ‘ a mix up of preferred model of understanding what is identified as document of ‘Veda’ with a historicity and socio-religious- lingua concept.
These do not bring out the basics of what was understood and adapted in the bhaarateeya darshana shaastra/ yajna-karma vidhi’ as ‘Veda’.
4. What traditional schools always suggest for ‘ Self-Study’ to get engaged with VEDA is to practice any one of the ‘Yoga’s called ‘ TAPAS, SWAADHYAAYA, ISHWARA-PRANIDHANA’. ( PYS -2-1); use the texts of Ramayana and Mahabharata as iconic illustrations of what Veda intends to present, to get a ‘ SELF- VISION and EXPERIENCE’.
The standard used is : Veda is ‘Self- Annotating and Self-Commented Text’. This is the method of ‘ Nirukta’ where ‘ Vedic Vocabulary is used to explain Vedic Suktas.
What ‘Academics’ seem to seek and present is the ‘ Opinion and narrative of someone else’.
5. In Indian schools, what is available as ‘Vedaartha’ – Meaning is oriented to align the explanation to ‘ Vedanta – Prasthana Traya approach’/ yajna vidhi/ Mantropaasanaa’ ;
The explanation of intent is to highlight the Utility- Application (= Viniyoga ) of Mantra .
Has any modern work kept its focus on this ? Has anyone checked latest efforts by Prof. Witzel on Translation and Commentary of Vedas ?
Regards
BVK Sastry
--
Deepro Chakraborty
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/y1zkLMAblrA/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Veeranarayana Pandurangi
A review of commentaries and new translation of Rgveda" which will appear in Tattvadipa Journal of Academy of Samskrit research Melkote. I am also writing one more review of Asya Vamiya Sukta 1.164.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Director of Academics
Dean, Faculty of Vedantas
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru.
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
Trichur Rukmani
I have been going through the Jamison translation of late to understand how the first new translation in last one hundred years is better than previous ones. I find it obscure, झोन्त and rather misunderstanding many a times. I have written a paper " Visnu Sukta 1.154.
A review of commentaries and new translation of Rgveda" which will appear in Tattvadipa Journal of Academy of Samskrit research Melkote. I am also writing one more review of Asya Vamiya Sukta 1.164.I hope you will take care of assessing the new translation of Jamison.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Deepro Chakraborty <chakrabo...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Director of Academics
Dean, Faculty of VedantasKarnakata Samskrita University,Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru.
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः। निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
हर्षवर्धनः Harsha Wardhan
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
हर्षवर्धनः Harsha Wardhan
Dmitri Semenov
What J&B translation adds is assigning new meaning to several words, but otherwise clarifies little beyond Sayana.
The translation has very few commentaries and those that are given put emphasis on poetic qualities of the suktas.
In general, they follow naturalistic interpretation of devas without elaboration/justification of it.
Gopal
Dr. Yadu Moharir
Venkata Sriram
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Harsha Wardhan
And all scholars who have touched upon this issue related to this thread. Please bear with the detailing provided. Complex issues cannot be brushed aside by one liners!
( Note: I have great respect for the academic work carried out by the scholars of east and west in regard to Vedas. It is because of their hard work, we are having material for this discussion. The only point I am highlighting here is the failure of these works in presenting the < indigenous voice> as it is present in the source works and as a living practicing reality in a dwindling community struggling to make a ‘ Culture and lifestyle’ to live by the standards set by a specific understanding of Vedas. I have no intention of accusing or hurting any scholar in this deliberation).
This approach to understand and practice ‘Veda’ and the ‘matter, content and intent ( = vastu, artha and taatparya) of Veda, indicated by me is not my personal opinion. This is the language- standard set in the ‘Panini- Patanjali- Yaaska / Vyasa – Jaimini / Vyasa – Daasa - Acharya - Sampradaya’. This standard prevailed in Bharath till at least 14th century, as a ‘ Sanatana Dharma-Vaidika Brahmana Vedanta – Sampradaya’. Kapali Shastry reiterated this Sampradaya in his works and in his life by practice. There are many other illustrious names around of the last three centuries who have clearly demonstrated the validity of this Sampradaya. Saayana bhashya, Venkatdhvarin, Acharya Madhwa all resonate the same thought.
This standard comes with an integral thinking on philosophy and mysticism of Language, known as ‘Vak-Yoga’ for ‘ Shabda-Brahma Darshana’. Bhartruhari endorses this. This approach of using ‘Samskruth Language’ for Veda studies and practice is called ‘ Shadanga Saanga –Vedanga Paddhati’. A guideline that was provided for a ‘Brahmana’ of yore, to follow without any compromise ( Nishkaaranena) in the absence of ‘ Yoga Tapas based justification ( Tapasaa Brahma Vijinaasasva)’. I refrain from making any observation on today’s scenario where the tag line ‘Brahmana’ has become a socially and academically undesirable burden.
If one really needs to understand and provide a restoration and find a platform for < indigenous voice > as ‘Swa Desha Bhashaa Sampradaaya’, Then one needs to ‘ See- Think -Say’ as the indigenous schools presented the subject. If the scholars of indigenous tradition fail to assert their logical and scientific position, If the scholars of traditional schools find happiness to echo-back the views of others ( = kechit /anye) as ‘ Practical convenience’ , then what prevails is the authority of ‘outsiders’ to judge the ‘indigenous tradition’, which in other words is called ‘ intellectual slavery’.
Coming to the specifics,
1. The summary answer to your question < which one, in your opinion, comes closest to the criteria you set out in your trailing post > is < NONE ! I do not find any work that passes the set criterion>.
I am open to correct my position, with help from scholars.
What is being globally showcased as ‘ Indian writing on Veda : Translation and Summary’ - has several deviations and discordant notes.
This can be realized only when one goes deeper in to the given texts. For example, if one were to read the original Samskruth writing of Sri Kapali Shastry and ‘ Translation- Commentary – Representation of Kapali Shastry’s view to align it with Sri Aurobindo’s writings’, the slips will be gaping at the reader. Similarly, when many schools keep their priority and focus only on select ‘ Upanishats and Gita’ ( and select lines only ?? ) to give the ultimate meaning of ‘Veda’, the presentation is of a ‘ head severed from the body’. If select lines were to be the entire text, why have the whole book ?? The ‘ Brahma Karma and Yajna Karma’ are to be presented as integrally twined and harmoniously blended guidance from Vedas. When Colonial and Oriental schools present ‘ Veda –yajna’ as a historic case ( Classic illustration being the Yajna studies as practiced at Kerala, by many oriental and western academic institutions; since 1970’s ), the live relevance of Yajna for the current life, society is dismembered. The performance of ‘ Vedic yajna’ is treated as an enactment of a past event and ‘tribal memory recalled’. The ridicule point on ‘ Meemaamsaa’ raised is the same as ‘Charvaka , Jain and Buddhist schools did’- on the ‘ way to dress the animal for sacrifice’ ! The way ‘Ashvamedha’ is interpreted as a gore animal sex activity and information spread in society as ‘ Riddles of Ramayana and Mahabharata’ is yet to be addressed properly.
With these kinds of ‘under cover discrepancies, used for audit- filtering in journal publications, the indigenous voices on Veda will never get to the surface.
Writings with this kind of shortcomings do not really meet even the standards of honest academics, let alone the ‘ Satya –Dharma seeking Darshana Shastras’.
Indian schools deliberation with ‘Veda’ is NOT for Translation = ‘ Bhashaantara’ > . The language of ‘ Vision’ (= Yoga -Darshana ) is not same as ‘ language of a historical past society (= Samaaja – jana- jaati)’. Accuracy of expression for a ‘Vision’ when it is same, will yield the same expression. If ‘ Agni’ is the True visioned word for ‘ Agni tattva /devataa in Prakruti ( like Gravity, magnetism), then the natural cosmic frequency of the field will be ‘ heard in the same way. (Shruti will not change; the term is Non-Substitutable.). If ‘ Agni’ was a name given to fire by a society in a language context, then the term can be substituted by several regional language expressions like ‘ aag, benki, nippu, neruppu……’.
When it comes to the second part of < commentary = ‘ Vyaakhyaana - Bhaashya – Teekaa /Tippani’ >, each of the Astika and Naastika schools ‘Critique Vedas (= Veda – Vimarsha) from a Point of View of their own ‘Darshana –Siddhaanta’ (= Point of View). In this sense, Veda- Vimarsha is OPINION Presented ( = mata – vichara) and NOT ‘ Bhashaantara’ ‘ Vyaakhyaana - Bhaashya – Teekaa /Tippani’
Thus, Jains and Buddhists, Charvakas critique Vedas from their preferred philosophical position and then ‘ interpret Veda- Sukta document and practices’ as it serves their position. Charvaka finds no use for Vedas in a ‘ one life for enjoyment’ schema ! Jains find ‘ himsaa- pashu ghaata’ and reject Vedas ; Buddhists want ‘Dharma’ and ‘Nibbana’, but don’t want ‘ Vedas as Transcendental authority on Dharma’ and ‘ Moksha as Purushaartha’. Yet, all these three schools used the language standards of Samskrutham to ‘ interpret Veda and its observed practices’.
In the Aastika darshanas, Nyaya-Viasheshika and Saamkhya-Yoga interpret and provide arguments to fit and accept supreme authority of Vedas ; but they differ on the ‘ Origin and Authorship issues of Vedas’. Yet, these three schools used the language standards of Samskrutham to ‘ interpret Veda and its observed practices’.
In the Aastika darshanas, Poorva and Uttara meemaasaa, selectively construct arguments to accept supreme authority of Vedas and construct the Utility- Application Goal of Vedas differently. Meemaamsakas want Veda as ‘ Yajna-Karma’ authority; and use the filter of ‘artha-vaadas’ . Vedantins want Veda to be aligned to the ‘ Upanishads’ and take the ‘ Prasthan-Traya route to put forth their views. They use the filter of ‘Maha-vakyas and Layered meaning of Words’. The skills in deployment of Language – Grammar – Text Construction tools do vary across each school ; Yet, these schools used the language standards of Samskrutham to ‘ interpret Veda and its observed practices’.
2. The Colonial and Oriental scholars make a ‘ Sandwich of Convenience and Soup of personal academic taste’ to serve to preferred audience and with a brand stamped on it, on what they think about ‘ Veda and then Translation and Commentary of Vedas’. These schools simply violate the integrity and internal consistency of the language standards of Samskrutham to ‘ interpret Veda and its observed practices’ and bring out the < indigenous voice>.
3. Traditional schools present their position on two issues of ‘ Veda and Language-Tools to understand Vedic ‘matter, content and intent ( = vastu, artha and taatparya) of Veda, which helps to practice Yajna. The details are to be seen in the books from Shaunaka and others provide the importance of Rishi –Devataa – Chandas – Sukta- Viniyoga directions. The social outreach of this is seen in Aagama, Purana, Tantra as Devataa- Poojaa – Sandhyaa Vidhi, which again comes as ‘ Brahmana Vaidika Poojaa Vidhi’. This has a social, cultural, philosophical and religion-relevance. The interest is to address the question: How to live Good, Peaceful now? What to do achieve Moksha ? In this approach, Veda – abhyasa is by Mantra- Yoga-Samskrutham Language Practice and Validated by Seers and Yogi-Sages.
Post-Colonial Academic and Oriental schools present their position on the two issues of ‘ Veda and Language-Tools to understand the ‘matter, content and intent ( = vastu, artha and taatparya) of Veda, to learn the history and practices of a land and religion. This has a class room, history of religion-relevance. The interest is to address the question: How they lived and what they did ? What was their faith-belief- practice ? Relevant only to make a museum of past society ! In this approach, Veda – Translation and Commentary is by Classical Language Scholarship and Validated by Peers and publications.
The social outreach of this is seen in history of Hinduism, World Religions and Media presentations detailing Social Caste- Creed practices attacking ‘ Brahmana community’ for socio-historical ills of Bharath !
4. Thus, I am also on the lookout and help from scholars to explore any new translation which would truly bring out the < indigenous voice>. If someone really intends to make an effort in this direction, the starting book could be : Vedartha Samgraha - Sri Ramanujaacharya (https://archive.org/details/VedarthaSangraha ) Where one can see the position of tradition in approaching ‘Vedas’. The term ‘Vedaartha’ – means ‘ Purpose of Vedas ,Vedas as means for a purpose’. It is NOT limited to ‘ Translation- Commentary model of Vedic Studies’. Acharya Madhwa’s guidance needs to be integrated on this to get a better picture on use of ‘ Samskrutham Language Tools’ and address the standards of ‘ Translation- pedagogy’. The extract below is from Vedartha Samgraha .
The current global society may not want this model; yet that is no reason to suppress the < indigenous voice> which shaped ‘Bharatheeya Sampradayas’.
Achyut Karve
--
Dmitri Semenov
On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 12:32:18 AM UTC-6, Dr.BVK Sastry wrote: ...1.--4.
Dear Dr. BVK Sastry,
Just a short note to your exposition.
The problem is not with lacking an "indigenous voice" in translation of RgVeda, but in lacking an "indigenous vision" of it that is ṛtáyu (and if it is such, terms indigenous, external, colonial, post-colonial, etc. would not be even applicable to it). The problem is to accept the state of affairs formulated by Sri Aurobindo as
------------------------------
Both of them (Saaya.na and modern European scholarship} present one characteristic in common, the extraordinary incoherence and poverty of sense
which their results stamp upon the ancient hymns. The separate lines can be given, whether naturally or by force of conjecture,
a good sense or a sense that hangs together; the diction that results, if garish in style, if loaded with otiose and decorative
epithets, if developing extraordinarily little of meaning in an amazing mass of gaudy figure and verbiage, can be made to run
into intelligible sentences; but when we come to read the hymns as a whole we seem to be in the presence of men who, unlike
the early writers of other races, were incapable of coherent and natural expression or of connected thought. Except in the briefer
and simpler hymns, the language tends to be either obscure or artificial;
and take up his challenge --- to elicits the richness of sense, of meaning, of ideas and visions in RgVeda
that will show how many subsequent dharmas (even those that came to reject Vedas as ultimate authority like Bauddhadharma)
have roots and source of liveforce in its suktas. Evidently Puurva Mimaamsaa and Saayana failed to do it.
Criticism of "Vedic" practices and ideas by Buddhists cannot be brushed aside simply because of rifts between cultural and political currents of the past.
Language is not that crucial --- if an idea can be understood, it can be expressed in any language with rich vocabulary.
It is not about "language tools", but about "idea tools".
The agendas and positions of convenience of "Western scholars" shall be pointed out even more brutally --- Western indology was and probably is driven by the ideas of religious conversion
and by quite mistaken sense of superiority of Abrahamic creed --- but it would be a mistake to see in it some substantial obstacle to the challenge --- "colonial" and "post-colonial" scholars have quite seductive examples for simplifications and "sandwiches of convenience" in indigenous sources --- and it is those sources that should be taken up for a critical consideration.
Best of luck in this pursuit!
yūyámasmā́nnayata vásyo ácʰā níraṃhatíbʰyo maruto gṛṇānā́ḥ
David and Nancy Reigle
Madhav Deshpande
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Gopal
> In addition to this, there is a commentary of Madhva on some portions of the R̥gveda, with multiple subcommentaries.
Nagaraj Paturi
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Achyut Karve, David Reigle, Dmitri Semenov,
I am bringing together the response in one post. This is for consolidating the situation and bring a coherence in addressing the issue.
First, Achyut Karve:
1. On < What was recited? > : was relevant for the choice of veda mantras for achieving intended goal. Example : Heaven seeker -‘Swargakamo yajeta’ uses different mantras from Rain-seeker ‘ Vrushtikamo yajeta’. What was recited is based on the ‘ need’- Ishta- Kaama. This guideline is from the discipline of Meemaamsaa. Looking for ‘ Adhyatma ’ in ‘Sayana Bhashya’ which is focused on ‘ Adhi-yajna’ presentation of Vedas , is an error. It is also an error when academicians miss the clear observation on ‘ Adhyatma’ part of Vedas made by Sayana and charge his work as ‘ ritualistic’ ! .
2. On < How was it recited? > : was relevant for making the ‘Mantra-chant’ to become effective and yield results. It is here that the story of ‘ Indra-Shatru’ and issue of defects of ‘ Swara- Varna – Chandas’ comes in. This training is from the six disciplines of Vedangas. See the quote down below, where the importance of disciplines providing training on how veda is to be recited is considered an integral part of Yajna application of Vedas.
Ancient Guru kula model of Veda –Training for ‘Purohitas’ – Acharyas covered both aspects : training, examination and certification for practice as a profession. Modern Academic Veda studies do not cover all this.
Second: David Reigle, Colorado, U.S.A.
It is true that < Sāyaṇa's interpretation was rejected by 19th-century German scholars, by Swami Dayanand Saraswati (founder of the Arya Samaj), and by Sri Aurobindo, because it interprets the Vedas in terms of rituals, yajña. > .
It is also true that < This (adhi-yajna) is only one of three modes of Veda interpretation referred to by the ancient writer Yāska in his Nirukta: adhiyajña, adhidaiva, and adhyātma.>. In fact, the five perspectives of Veda study add : adhiloka, adhi-praja to the three mentioned. ( Cf: Taittiriya Upanishad – Shikshaa valli:: pancahsvadhikaraneshu )
It is also true that < The adhyātma mode of interpretation has remained little explored.> . In fact, the ‘ Upanishads’ are treated as if they are alien and anti - to teaching and practice of ‘Vedas’ by many writers ! It is a clear travesty of tradition and display of ‘selecting easy choices’ for ‘ maximum gains’ !
The point I want to highlight is that Sayana was clearly aware of all the above modes of explanations attached with Vedas; especially the ‘ Adhyaatma’ mode. He chose consciously to highlight the ‘adhi-yajna’ or the ‘ AADHVARYAVA’ mode for the benefit of the ‘ Yaajnikas’; because it calls for special skills of Language Tools spread over Six disciplines. Sayana preferred to handle the ‘Adhyatma interpretations ( with his preferred Advaita flavor) in different works. The image placed below is the opening of Rig-Bhashya Bhoomikaa. Please note the flavored use of the term ‘Vedarthasya – prakaashane’. The ‘ adhyatma’ interpretation of Veda by Sayana can be seen in his writing on ‘ Purusha Sukta ( Rigveda 10.90), His Sandhyavandana –Bhaashya and other works.
Does this mean Sayana sidelined the ‘adhyatma meaning of the Richas ? No. The Sayana commentary on Mandala -1 - Ashtaka 22- Sukta 164 :: (Asya vaamasya..), referred to by Agrawal, is very clear on this. It is a pointer to the way Sayana preferred to structure the ‘ Veda-Bhaashya’ during his time to meet the contextual needs. Sayana did not intend to please a later writer looking for ‘ adhyatma’ meaning and deviate from his primary focus of ‘ Adhi-yajna’ .
The rejection of Sayana Commentary by 19th century German scholars is unjustified and incorrect; and on the top of it loading ‘inappropriate history and language-constructions are inexcusable. If only these scholars had taken the trouble to read and understand every argument Sayana takes for analysis and justifies the need for writing a ‘adhi-yajna’ perspective of understanding ‘Veda’, then much of the blames heaped over Sayana could be taken off ! It would also help to free Sayana keep free from charges like < the extraordinary incoherence and poverty of sense which their results stamp upon the ancient hymns. The separate lines can be given, whether naturally or by force of conjecture, a good sense or a sense that hangs together; the diction that results, if garish in style, if loaded with otiose and decorative epithets, if developing extraordinarily little of meaning in an amazing mass of gaudy figure and verbiage, can be made to run into intelligible sentences; but when we come to read the hymns as a whole we seem to be in the presence of men who, unlike the early writers of other races, were incapable of coherent and natural expression or of connected thought. Except in the briefer and simpler hymns, the language tends to be either obscure or artificial; >
The pedagogy of Veda was presented through a ‘ Sampradaya’, which addressed these issues in a ‘ in person – eye to eye – Gurukul mode teaching’.
There is certainly much to think on Agarwals statement and work to do.
Third : Dmitri Semenov.
Thanks for bringing to light the challenge in this case : < The problem is not with lacking an "indigenous voice" in translation of RgVeda, but in lacking an "indigenous vision" of it that is ṛtáyu (and if it is such, terms indigenous, external, colonial, post-colonial, etc. would not be even applicable to it). The problem is to accept the state of affairs formulated by Sri Aurobindo >. The expression ‘ Idea – tools’ used by you aptly fits in to explain the concept of ‘Shadanga’ – Six disciplines working together to get at the idea presented in the Richa.
I place below two extracts from Sayana Bhashaya : One pointing to the way Sayana ( and tradition looks at the role of ‘ Language- Tools’ in ‘Comprehending the Idea- Vision in Vedic Richa’. Second is what makes a ‘Rishi’ to use such complex language , or in other words, what is the language, which a poet uses when in the elevated state of consciousness as a ‘ Rishi’. The current position on ‘Veda : Translation and Commentary issue is complex with a two hundred year distortions loaded on a reference point position, even if it be of Sayana !
If this line of Tradition, coming all the way from Vedas - Panini- Patanjali- Yaska is used as a reference for ‘ indigenous standards’ for assessing Veda: Commentary and Translation, how many modern Veda: Translations and commentaries would pass the test ? Whom should we be reckoning as ‘ Nootana Rushi’ ?
Thanks for your observation. How is one to address the challenges articulated by you so succinctly < The agendas and positions of convenience of "Western scholars" shall be pointed out even more brutally --- Western indology was and probably is driven by the ideas of religious conversion and by quite mistaken sense of superiority of Abrahamic creed --- but it would be a mistake to see in it some substantial obstacle to the challenge --- "colonial" and "post-colonial" scholars have quite seductive examples for simplifications and "sandwiches of convenience" in indigenous sources --- and it is those sources that should be taken up for a critical consideration.> .
Here lies the challenge of indigenous scholars to rediscover the ‘Swa-Desha –Bhashaa – Sampradaya’ for ‘ Veda-Artha – Samgraha and Veda-Artha –taatparya nirnaya’. This work starts by revisiting the pedagogy of Samskruth studies in the eco-system of current global academia and Religion Studies.
Dr. Yadu Moharir
Shaunaka focuses on the application
(viniyoga) portion, where the Vedic term is connected with the terms: Rushi
(Drashtaa –seer), Chandas (Flow of terms), Devataa
and Viniyoga. He emphatically states in (br̥had dēvatā dēvatānukramani136): अविदित्वा ऋषिच्छन्दो
दैवतं योगमेव वा | योध्यापयेत्
जपेत् वापि पापीयान्
जायते तु सः
K S Kannan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Ramanujachar P
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)
Achyut Karve
It is not about "language tools", but about "idea tools". '
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
1. This thread started in search of an answer, nay an Indian Traditional position ( academic or otherwise) responding to the post: < Could the learned members here recommend an accurate and informed English translation of the Rig Veda for self-study by non-Sanskritists? I am looking for an English translation with the original Sanskrit hymns for comparison, and preferably with extracts from any traditional commentary. > .
My considered response was < We have NONE to make a recommendation>. I have not seen any post raise any objection on this position.
Do We want a ‘ Modern work addressing Veda – issues’ raised ? as above? If yes, how are we to proceed, knowing full well all the clinkers noted below? Where to start ?
2. The situation opens the doors to the flood of next set of questions. Without a clarity on the following points, the social and spiritual outreach of ‘Vedas’ as ‘ translation, commentary, practice for religion specificity’ will just rest on personal faith – belief platform ! This is deeply connected with the criticality of ‘ Samskruth Language Pedagogy’ – Teaching methods of Samskrutham as ‘Yoga of Vak’ , the Patanjali way of Learning Language-grammar of Panini coded as ‘Ashtaadhyayi’ . This is an option to restore and re-explore ‘Ashtaadhyaayi’ in place of PIE model Indology approach based on ‘Tower of Babel’ narrative.
Here below are the questions:
Question 1: Do we have, a position to address and assert an answer to the basic questions on VEDAS as below:
‘What is Veda’ ( LAKSHANA) ? – DEFINITION Issue.
‘Why Veda’ ( PRAYOJANA - VINIYOGA) ? – USE issue
‘HOW Veda’ ( YOGA- PRAYOGA )? – PRACTICE – PURPOSE- METHODS and SYSTEMS, TRANSLATIONS, COMMENTARY ON TEXT.
Question 2: With all the details poured in the posts, do we have a logically, scientifically convergent ‘Bharateeya Vidwat Parishat’ assessment on issues of ‘ (i) Veda (The Source Text) – (ii) Vedaartha ( Meaning and Purpose of Veda) – (iii) Veda Taatparya ( The Goal, vision and mission of Veda) – (iv) Veda Viniyoga ( USE- Practical beneficial application of Veda ) – (v) Vedaanta – ( The end outcome , as Spiritual/ adhyatma understanding of the source document) (vi) Veda Bhashaa – ( Language/ Idea Tools to understand , interpret, practice the text) ’ - over and above what has been provided from Panini- Patanjali-Yaska onwards, Through Shaunaka, ….. Ramanuja, Madhwa up to Sayana?
This is a clear position assessment with the reference line : ‘ Insider to Vyasa- BADARAYANA Sampradaya’ Or ‘ Outsider to Vyasa- BADARAYANA Sampradaya’ ?
Question 3: How post colonial / Post Sayana Translators and Commentators have meddled or maintained the indigenous Veda study tradition – In India or outside ? Even when it is fully known that inappropriate translations and commentaries have lead to social upheavals with political consequences and spiritual dilemmas on ‘To do or Not to Do the Karma-Kanda prescribed by Vedas’ ??
Question 4: Has Academia ( Western as well as Indian) taken a freehand – free for all – academic liberty for freewheeling of OPINIONS on the above questions to float around as ‘ VEDIC RESEARCH, TRANSLATIONS- COMMENTARIES’ even when there is a consistent violation of the standards of LANGUAGE – IDEA – USAGE- CONTINUING PRACTICE , all of which got freezed at least by 6th century BCE in the frame of ‘ Panini-Patanjali-Yaska’ ? The trio, who were well acquainted and clear about the ‘ texts that go in to the PRASTHANA TRAYA’ approach ?
2. Here below is a summary of points from the posts made on this thread and have not provided any positive recommendation for the starting question:
2a) Ramanujachar P: Presented Sri Ramanuja Sampradaya which alone carries the unique features binding Jaimini- Kaashakrutsna- Baadarayana.
2b) Prof. KSK : Sayana consciously limited the scope of commentary to focus on certain aspects ; adhyatmic sense that is missed a great deal today ; we find this in the writings of Agrawala and Coomaraswamy.
2c) Dr. Yadu Moharir: Most translators have not followed the directives provided by Sage Shaunaka pertaining to “ USE” (The ‘Viniyoga’). This has been missed by Westerns as well as Home team scholars.
2d) Achyut Karve : With respect to the Vedas which of the two questions are more relevant. 1) What was recited? 2) How was it recited?
2e) David Reigle : 19th century German scholars ( Max Mueller-1823 – 1900) and later writers Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824–1883 ) , Sri Aurobindo (1872 –1950) rejected Sayana (circa 14th century) due to his limited focus on ‘ Ritual (Adhiyajna) and not providing the other perspectives of understanding Veda in Adhyatma and Adhi-daiva. These five perspectives of Veda interpretation were continuously prevalent in India since Yaska (earlier to 6th century BCE).
2f) Dmitri Semenov : The agendas and positions of convenience of "Western scholars" shall be pointed out even more brutally --- Western indology was and probably is driven by the ideas of religious conversion and by quite mistaken sense of superiority of Abrahamic creed --- but it would be a mistake to see in it some substantial obstacle to the challenge --- "colonial" and "post-colonial" scholars have quite seductive examples for simplifications and "sandwiches of convenience" in indigenous sources --- and it is those sources that should be taken up for a critical consideration.
2g) Prof. Madhav Deshpande : < Thanks for adding this information on Vedic interpretation. The Nirukta has a few other modes of Vedic interpretation, namely the Nairukta "etymological" mode and the Aitihāsika mode. He ofter quotes stories from the Brāhmaṇas with the phrase "iti aitihāsikāḥ." The Nairuktas as is clear from the Nirukta do not always agree with each other. The other extreme of interpreting the Vedas mentioned by Yāska, and disputed, is the view of Kautsa who boldly proclaimed "anarthakā mantrāḥ". So, from the point of view of Kautsa, there would be no translation of the Veda possible. From the view point of the Nairuktas, the interpretation would be based on proposed etymologies, and from the view point of the Aitihāsikas, the Vedic passages should be interpreted in relation to the stories or accounts of events found in the Vedas, mostly in the Brāhmaṇas. As for traditional commentaries on the Vedas, besides the more well known commentaries of Sāyaṇa, Bhaṭṭabhāskara, Mahīdhara etc, Vishvabandhu has published in eight volumes the R̥gveda commentaries of Skandasvāmī, Veṇkaṭamādhava and Mudgala, and these commentators do not always agree with each other. In addition to this, there is a commentary of Madhva on some portions of the R̥gveda, with multiple subcommentaries. This goes to show that in India there were always multiple ways of interpreting the Vedas. >
2h) Prof. Nagaraj Paturi : Multiple interpretations of mantra bhaaga of the Veda are found already there in the braamhaNas and aaraNyakas. . What yaaska is doing by enlisting adhiyajna, aadhibhautika, aadhidaivika, aadhyaatmika or any other kind of arthas is classifying these already available interpretations in the braamhaNas and aaraNyakas. Aadhyaatmika interpretation of the mantra bhaaga is what is found in the sections of braamhaNas and aaraNyakas that are given the name 'Upanishads', though they do not provide a mantra-wise explanation covering all the mantras. . Thus aadhyaatmika interpretation of mantras is neither new nor little. Since the entire Vedanta tradition is built on the foundation of the sections of braamhaNas and aaraNyakas that are given the name 'Upanishads', entire Vedanta tradition is a huge edifice built on the aadyaatmika interpretation of the mantras only , thought is edifice does not provide a mantra-wise explanation covering all the mantras. What distinguishes the interpretations by 'modern' bhaashyakaaras/commentators/translators such as Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, Sri Aurobindo, Sri Kapali Sastri etc., from the pre-modern ones is that the modern ones are informed /influenced by 'science(s)' and not that they created any new aadhyatmika interpretation that did not exist or existed little in the pre-modern times.
Look forward for the pointers that help to answer the starting question.
Regards
BVK Sastyr
Error! Filename not specified.
--
Dr. P. Ramanujan
Parankushachar Institute of Vedic Studies (Regd.)
Bengaluru
080-25433239 (R)
9449088616
Achyut Karve
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Jayanthi Manohar
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)<sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
K S Kannan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Madhav Deshpande
Achyut Karve
- the state of being obsessed with someone or something."she cared for him with a devotion bordering on obsession"
- an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.plural noun: obsessions"he was in the grip of an obsession he was powerless to resist"
synonyms: fixation, ruling/consuming passion, passion, mania, idée fixe,compulsion, preoccupation, enthusiasm, infatuation,addiction, fetish, craze, hobby horse;
These do not bring out the basics of what was understood and adapted in the bhaarateeya darshana shaastra/ yajna-karma vidhi’ as ‘Veda’. <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue","serif";color:#26282a
Bijoy Misra
--