I recently come across some translations of Veda by some scholar - some of the meanings are wrongly given for some...
I recently come across some translations of Veda by some scholar - some of the meanings are wrongly given for some words in some Mantras. For Veda Rakshanam our Rishis have created 4 Vedangas (Shiksha, Chandas, Niruktam and Vyakaranam) all four has to be taken into account when translating - when there is a clear translation into Bhasha (Laukika Samskritam)
Laukika Samskritam - Samskritam is 2 types - Vaidikam and Laukikam that which is used in Veda is Vaidika and is also called as Chandas. The other one that is used everywhere else is called as Laukika and is called as Bhasha.
When there is a clear translation of Veda into Laukika samskritam in the Bhashyam of Sayanacharya then why there is a need to translate again ?. More over most of the Samhita part (that which is in Mantra - poetic form) and a lot of Brahmana part has svara in it - thus without the understanding of Shiksha and Chandas one can't even think of translating Veda. Many have attempted with the help of Vyakarana (grammar) and Nirukta (etymology) - to use these 2 one doesn't need to pronunce the Mantra - just by using a dictionary and the understanding of the structure of vedic language is sufficient - and such translations just by using Vyakarana and Nirukta end many times with wrong meanings.
As per veda Shabda (sound) and Artha (meaning) both are inseparable and thus if one needs to get the correct meaning then not just the word - its corresponding sound (audible form) should also be heard - this is the very reason why Veda is recited - heard- repeated and not written and read.
Laukika Samskritam - Samskritam is 2 types - Vaidikam and Laukikam that which is used in Veda is Vaidika and is also called as Chandas. The other one that is used everywhere else is called as Laukika and is called as Bhasha.
When there is a clear translation of Veda into Laukika samskritam in the Bhashyam of Sayanacharya then why there is a need to translate again ?. More over most of the Samhita part (that which is in Mantra - poetic form) and a lot of Brahmana part has svara in it - thus without the understanding of Shiksha and Chandas one can't even think of translating Veda. Many have attempted with the help of Vyakarana (grammar) and Nirukta (etymology) - to use these 2 one doesn't need to pronunce the Mantra - just by using a dictionary and the understanding of the structure of vedic language is sufficient - and such translations just by using Vyakarana and Nirukta end many times with wrong meanings.
As per veda Shabda (sound) and Artha (meaning) both are inseparable and thus if one needs to get the correct meaning then not just the word - its corresponding sound (audible form) should also be heard - this is the very reason why Veda is recited - heard- repeated and not written and read.
Please note that the 4 vedangas given above for Swaroopa and Artha rakshanam - the rest of the 2 vedangas - Jyotisha and Kalpa are for Aacharana rakshanam (performing the vedic rites and their preservation) - In total 6 vedangas (limbs of Vedas - to protect the Vedas)
ReplyDeleteThus with out Svara (pitch, accent, tone, etc.) correct understanding the meaning of a particilar word in Veda is not possible
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. While giving or elucidating the Vedic words, I find
ReplyDeletemany scholars including some Mutt heads, and corporate
babas, interpret the meanings wrongly , in the name of populist
way of , taking the message to the people, they do harm to Vedic
Words. One such message by a popular yogi is , "desire for everything".
The example that I want to take is "paatre prayacchasva" (पात्रे प्रयच्छस्व) - here most people on loose translations take Locative case (अधिकरणम्) for the word "paatre" - in fact it should be Dative case (सम्प्रदानम्) - this can be clearly understood based on the svara - also on deeper inquirey of vyakarana also this can be understood as - when there is an order (by Veda) instructing a person to offer - only the forth (dative) case can come in the sentense - else the question remains - "to whom" (आकाङ्क्षासम्पूर्तिः न भवति). Like this many instances... We are in a pityful situation instead of going to a near by Veda shaastri and getting the answer free of cost - we rely on expensive books to get the meanings for Vedic passages.
ReplyDelete