I have run up against a roadblock in my attempts to learn and study. I am trying to find a translation and...
I have run up against a roadblock in my attempts to learn and study. I am trying to find a translation and transliteration from the Sanskrit to English of the Vedas (actually for sruti in general and for smirti, too). The problem with most translations I find is that they don't include transliterations, so I'm not getting very far in my attempts to learn Sanskrit. The second problem, and to me the worse problem, is that the translations I find seem to lose the meaning -- both the literal meaning, and the intuitive, inspirational meaning -- of the text. For instance, the other day I read a "translation" of the first hymn of the Rigveda that never even used Agni's name. Where can I find better translations of the sacred texts? I have searched Amazon(dot)com, but most of the works offered don't let you have a preview, or only preview what amounts to the table of contents, so it's hard to figure out if a given book is what I'm looking for.
Thank you, everyone. Peace.
Thank you, everyone. Peace.
Agnimeele purohitham / Yajnasya daevamrityujam/ Hothaaram ratnadhaathamam -I hereby invite the highpriest ie. Agni/Fire who is the erudite of all heavenly offerings-daeva yajnam for extending his golden firearms to reach the high heavens
ReplyDeleteKrishnamurthi CG --
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your kind and informative response. You can't imagine how much I appreciate the time you took to answer.
First, I'd like to apologise for the fact that I don't always end up using the right IAST "romanized" characters when I use words from Sanskrit. Sometimes it's because I simply mistyped, and sometimes it's because I get lazy. (Which is a bad thing to admit, but at least I know I'm lazy so I can try to fix it.)
I understand that I will learn better, and probably faster or more fully, with a teacher with whom I can speak face to face. However, due to a lot of factors, that isn't possible right now. Rather than not study at all, I simply look for alternatives, such as books or online resources. Those things aren't perfect, of course, but for me, right now, they are definitely better than not trying to learn at all.
Possibly I'd also get more out of learning Sanskrit, and pursuing spirituality, if I separated the two processes. I can't be sure, because the other languages I speak, were just learned "for fun", with the exception of Latin, which was learned because I was a medical professional, and in the US, of course, Latin is the language used for medical stuff. I actually have no idea how to go about learning a language without a teacher, but again, partly due to where I live, my chances of finding anyone who even knows what Sanskrit is, let alone can help someone learn it, are nonexistent.
The point you made about reverence struck a very strong chord with me. While to me, a certain amount of reverence accrues to any translation of the Vedas, I miss the deeper reverence with certain translations. They don't make me feel something special inside, they don't make me gasp and say Yes! I understand this one small sentence, not just for what it says, but what it means! (Does that make sense? I do realise that's kind of an awkward way to phrase the concept.) If a translation doesn't make me feel that deep sense of reverence and even excitement, then it won't help me, at least not yet.
I really appreciate your information on the term/concept "Agni". I did know some of the things you mentioned. However, that wasn't exactly what I meant, but I don't think I expressed myself very clearly. The translation to which I referred made no mention of Agni in any form -- not as a messenger, not as a principle, nothing! The text of that particular hymn basically was boiled down into a few sentences, which were so cut-and-dried that they might just as well have not bothered. It was as if what I read that day wasn't even part of the RigVeda.
I am not entirely sure what you are asking me to consider in your fifth point. I understand very clearly that you're telling me it isn't to you I have to justify or explain my way of learning, but to myself, and that makes sense. I understand also that you outlined the usual path/time that most people take as they begin to learn, and that also makes sense to me. I can't imagine knowing anything instantly, let alone understanding it, and it's reassuring to hear that yes -- it DOES take time to begin to understand things. I don't want to study online only, since online is only one small resource. I don't think that would work very well for me (although maybe it would for some folks) But other than online, and books (and by that I mean actual printed books that I can hold in my hands, not simply texts on a Kindle screen or something) I don't yet have any other way to study. So, at the risk of sounding like a whiny child, what are you asking me to ask myself?
I love what you said about giving respect to the quest for knowledge, and how you related it to the living fire. When I read that, I actually said "Yes, someone understands how I feel!" out loud.
Again, thank you for taking the time to answer me so gently, and for making the suggestions you did.
ReplyDeletePeace.
The fifth point in my comment, is to gain a certain degree of masterly of the 'naada', 'shabda', 'dhvani', and 'bhaava' of the language for better understanding - this takes time. More so the Vedic dialect of Sanskrit.
ReplyDeleteThe Sanskrit Bhasha ('medium') by itself has the all inclusive world view as per Veda. Because the Bhasha is referred with many words are actually mean various dimensions at multiple levels. In Sanskrit the common word that is used to refer to various dimensions of bhasha (language) is 'shabda' - 'शब्दः' - because the thing 'shabda' is the attribute /property of "akaasha" or space.
First at primordial level the 'unmanifest' is referred to as "वाक्" - the terms such as वाक्, वाणी, परा, etc. fall in this category. These words refer to the stateless state. The ultimate truth. Tranquil. This also deals with the principle of manifestation at a deep philosophical level - this level actually means the truth and no external or internal sounds are there. Because the sound is the first level of manifestation
Then at psychological level the words that are used to denote the partial manifested or the subtlest aspect of 'bhasha' is "भाव" - the level where a minutest disturbance is caused in the tranquil natural state or the ultimate truth, etc. - the words that are used to denote this is - नाद, पश्यन्ति,
Then at the conceptual level - अर्थ- स्फोट, रेफ, मध्यमा, प्राकृतध्वनि (at thought level)
Then at the pronounced level - भणित (ध्वनि) वैखरी, विकृतध्वनि, स्वर, पदम्, वाक्यम्, etc.
भाषा (Bhasha) - this is the word that is used for Sanskrit in many places. Bhasha can be loosely translated as "medium" (of communication). People wrongly translate this word as language, because they are not able to even conceptualize anything other than the spoken part of language.
Why this is wrong - because Mathematics is a language but not a 'Bhasha'.
Yet we use the word "language" for "bhasha" for convenience sake within quotes.
Sanskrit "language's" conceptual level itself, the 'Weltanschauung' or the phenomenal world view is exactly as mentioned in Veda itself. That is, the empirical reality of this Universe is 'Pantheistic' as well as 'Monistic' - loosely translating the 2 important Vedic Mahavakya (superior quotations) 'सर्वङ्खल्विदम्ब्रह्म' and 'एकं सत् विप्राः बहुवदन्ति' - just to put them in some English terminology for those who don't understand Sanskrit or German . Then the question arises, why Monism - because if everything is connected to each other then it it just one single big (huge) thing - that we call as "brahman" (not brahmaa - the personified, which is entirely different). This kind of a fundamental foundation is important before you embark on your Vedic studies and never approach it objectively. On the contrary the Western idea of Monotheistic God sitting in heaven and not connected with the Universe, etc. while studying Vedas won't work.
Another Mahavakyam is that "तत् शृष्ट्वा तदेव अनुप्राविशत्" 'tat (means the universe) shriShTvA (having created) tadeva (that universe only) anupraviShat (entered or merged into)' - like the life force in the body. It is not created outside the force but the body is just built around the force - so in everything the core is the "Tat".
Try the Rig Veda community... Or The Vedas community... We are trying to make the most scientific and unbiased interpretations of the Vedas out there.
ReplyDelete