Interpreting the Vedas - How we do it
Interpreting the Vedas - How we do it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is intended for the common people, so I will try my maximum not to use technical or difficult Sanskrit terms and confuse the reader.
Vedas are the most ancient form of knowledge available to us. To interpret them, therefore, the first thing we should do is to place ourselves in their time, see Vedas in their eyes, and try our maximum not to be biased by the later accounts and other scriptures.
__________________________________________________________________
The Vedic language - thinking beyond Classical Sanskrit
__________________________________________________________________
Most of the people who claimed to have translated or understood Vedas forget the basic fact that Vedic language is not same as Classical Sanskrit, after Panini. Of them, the Rig Vedic language remains the most archaic specimen of the language.
The Rig Veda is also a highly riddling puzzling beautiful set of poems that have a high sense of spirituality and poetic quality. Moreover, its purity and more focussed aspect makes it a perfect composition to understand Vedic spirituality. The Vedas have seven basic kinds of interpretations, right from Nairuktika (Etymological) to Aitihasika (Mythological). For eg; Sayana belongs to "sAmpRadAyika" (traditional) category
Aurobindo belongs to "AdhyAtmika" (spiritual) category....
The Rig Veda is different from other Vedas by language, and its less emphasis on rituals and practices. Rig Veda simply ignores practices.
Yea, the Rig Vedic language is even archaic than the preserved forms now. It may be due to the fact that Vedas were compiled and study processes were introduced only much later.
The Rig Vedic language also shows high affinity with other "Proto Indo European" languages than later versions. This also puts it a great deal to understand about the history of Indo Europeans.
The Rig Vedic archaism is still preserved in many of its usages, like "vishva-" for "all", "universal" (For eg; vishva sammishla (Rig Veda 1.7.3) = "Universally mingling") rather than the later "saRva-" ( As in Yajur Veda 40.1 : _"IshAvAsyam idam saRvam" - " By Lord is enveloped this all")
"kRNo(tu)" - do, than later "karo(tu)" - do... "brahmANa" for "brAhmaNa" (Yes! there are such usages!!)
Rig Vedic language also uses the unpopular versions : For example, in the earlier "sammishla", it is nothing but "sammishRa" ( l - r equivalence in archaic words, refer Nirukta), shukra (for modern shukla, which is more preferred) for "white", amra (sour) for modern amla....... there are so many archaisms. Some of this words are but, still used in Sanskrit owing to the Vedic authority.
__________________________________________________________________
The Rig Vedic characters and descriptions are theirs, not ours!!!
__________________________________________________________________ The most erroneous school is the Aitihasika (Yes, I boldly say that), because they interpret the Vedas in the most crude sense by comparing them with millennia later Puranas or Brahmanas or epics.
Nothing can be more biased than that. It is comparable to or even worse than a modern "Indologist" interpreting the words in terms of historical theories!
Every common man with proper sane, on studying Vedas, will certainly find that they have no connection with Puranas or epics. Still, cranks find their way here : They twist the Vedas itself to meet Puranas! I shall provide a great example (in a separate post) to show how Puranas were created from Vedas, and cannot be considered the other way. Biasing Vedas in terms of Puranas or Aesop fables is simply non scholastic and intolerable ignorance and arrogance.
So, another important thing you have to do is that, you have to remove your Puranic preconceptions before you interpret Vedas.
Remember that Puranas are later and different from Vedas, it is not more than if modern Christians invent myths about the Jesus
and then interpret the Bible itself through their myths.
Another important aspect is that your beliefs regarding God or Vedic people should also not affect Vedas, for we need an unbiased look.
Then, we should also realize an important fact, Sayana, who lived around 1400 CE is only as much as us who are going to interpret Vedas, because what he knows extra than us is the rituals and traditions, that are available to us now from himself. He knows nothing more than an unbiased scholar now looking for Vedas.
He has not seen the composers, nor has God revealed to him. So, he too, is equally prone to mistakes as we can. No human is fully correct.
_________________________________________________________________
There are many other Indo European Cultures!
_________________________________________________________________
I know that much of the traditional pundits ignore the evidences from other ancient IE cultures that can have even more reliability on Vedas.
(I shall say why) In many passages where we find Vedic words obscure, and traditional Sanskrit meaning as incongruent with the passage, we can now look up for the same word in other ancient IE
languages.
A real example is "sushipRA". This could be split as su - shiprA. See "sushipra" in 1.9, 1.101, 3.34 etc... The meaning of shiprA can be cheeks, nose, or jaws, as per classical interpretation. That would make the Indra of 1.9 "fair cheeked" or "well nosed", as many have translated. But the context is Indra being praised as "delighting in delightful lauds". (matsvA sushipra mandibhiH stomebhiH) what does fair cheek (or jaw) or good nose have in this situation?
Classical Sanskrit usages here abandon us, nor does the "nirukta" help us! Remember, nirukta is also composed millennia after Vedas!
So, should we simply ignore the inconsistency and move on with "fair nose" or "good jaws"? And twist Vedas? No.
Let us refer the daughter languages of Vedic outside India, for a better analysis.
The word "shipra" is cognate with Alb. "krife", "mane", krip, "hair", Avestan "shrifA", "plume".
Combining the Classical Sanskrit usage as jaws, and noting the other language uses for hair, we can safely conclude that the mother of these languages, the Vedic could have used the term for a "beard" or "moustache".
And su-shiprA thus stands for a wise sage, since in Vedas, beard stands as a metaphor for wisdom. This fits well in the context, where Indra, the great wise God is asked to enjoy the beautiful praises of the worldly sages.
So, interpreting the Veda is not complete without looking beyond Sanskrit.
Again, fitting our notions into Vedas is not a good way to interpret it.
In the next post, I shall discuss in detail regarding the dissimilarities between Vedic and later concepts, and show the incongruencies in different schools of interpretation. And, there are some people who don't know what is the difference between translation and interpretation. A good translation must be literal so that another one can interpret using your translation. A translation need not provide interpretation. But, a best interpretation can or cannot be literal, it depends on the situation.
I know, many of you will be exhausted, so I stop here.
Reach soon with the next post!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is intended for the common people, so I will try my maximum not to use technical or difficult Sanskrit terms and confuse the reader.
Vedas are the most ancient form of knowledge available to us. To interpret them, therefore, the first thing we should do is to place ourselves in their time, see Vedas in their eyes, and try our maximum not to be biased by the later accounts and other scriptures.
__________________________________________________________________
The Vedic language - thinking beyond Classical Sanskrit
__________________________________________________________________
Most of the people who claimed to have translated or understood Vedas forget the basic fact that Vedic language is not same as Classical Sanskrit, after Panini. Of them, the Rig Vedic language remains the most archaic specimen of the language.
The Rig Veda is also a highly riddling puzzling beautiful set of poems that have a high sense of spirituality and poetic quality. Moreover, its purity and more focussed aspect makes it a perfect composition to understand Vedic spirituality. The Vedas have seven basic kinds of interpretations, right from Nairuktika (Etymological) to Aitihasika (Mythological). For eg; Sayana belongs to "sAmpRadAyika" (traditional) category
Aurobindo belongs to "AdhyAtmika" (spiritual) category....
The Rig Veda is different from other Vedas by language, and its less emphasis on rituals and practices. Rig Veda simply ignores practices.
Yea, the Rig Vedic language is even archaic than the preserved forms now. It may be due to the fact that Vedas were compiled and study processes were introduced only much later.
The Rig Vedic language also shows high affinity with other "Proto Indo European" languages than later versions. This also puts it a great deal to understand about the history of Indo Europeans.
The Rig Vedic archaism is still preserved in many of its usages, like "vishva-" for "all", "universal" (For eg; vishva sammishla (Rig Veda 1.7.3) = "Universally mingling") rather than the later "saRva-" ( As in Yajur Veda 40.1 : _"IshAvAsyam idam saRvam" - " By Lord is enveloped this all")
"kRNo(tu)" - do, than later "karo(tu)" - do... "brahmANa" for "brAhmaNa" (Yes! there are such usages!!)
Rig Vedic language also uses the unpopular versions : For example, in the earlier "sammishla", it is nothing but "sammishRa" ( l - r equivalence in archaic words, refer Nirukta), shukra (for modern shukla, which is more preferred) for "white", amra (sour) for modern amla....... there are so many archaisms. Some of this words are but, still used in Sanskrit owing to the Vedic authority.
__________________________________________________________________
The Rig Vedic characters and descriptions are theirs, not ours!!!
__________________________________________________________________ The most erroneous school is the Aitihasika (Yes, I boldly say that), because they interpret the Vedas in the most crude sense by comparing them with millennia later Puranas or Brahmanas or epics.
Nothing can be more biased than that. It is comparable to or even worse than a modern "Indologist" interpreting the words in terms of historical theories!
Every common man with proper sane, on studying Vedas, will certainly find that they have no connection with Puranas or epics. Still, cranks find their way here : They twist the Vedas itself to meet Puranas! I shall provide a great example (in a separate post) to show how Puranas were created from Vedas, and cannot be considered the other way. Biasing Vedas in terms of Puranas or Aesop fables is simply non scholastic and intolerable ignorance and arrogance.
So, another important thing you have to do is that, you have to remove your Puranic preconceptions before you interpret Vedas.
Remember that Puranas are later and different from Vedas, it is not more than if modern Christians invent myths about the Jesus
and then interpret the Bible itself through their myths.
Another important aspect is that your beliefs regarding God or Vedic people should also not affect Vedas, for we need an unbiased look.
Then, we should also realize an important fact, Sayana, who lived around 1400 CE is only as much as us who are going to interpret Vedas, because what he knows extra than us is the rituals and traditions, that are available to us now from himself. He knows nothing more than an unbiased scholar now looking for Vedas.
He has not seen the composers, nor has God revealed to him. So, he too, is equally prone to mistakes as we can. No human is fully correct.
_________________________________________________________________
There are many other Indo European Cultures!
_________________________________________________________________
I know that much of the traditional pundits ignore the evidences from other ancient IE cultures that can have even more reliability on Vedas.
(I shall say why) In many passages where we find Vedic words obscure, and traditional Sanskrit meaning as incongruent with the passage, we can now look up for the same word in other ancient IE
languages.
A real example is "sushipRA". This could be split as su - shiprA. See "sushipra" in 1.9, 1.101, 3.34 etc... The meaning of shiprA can be cheeks, nose, or jaws, as per classical interpretation. That would make the Indra of 1.9 "fair cheeked" or "well nosed", as many have translated. But the context is Indra being praised as "delighting in delightful lauds". (matsvA sushipra mandibhiH stomebhiH) what does fair cheek (or jaw) or good nose have in this situation?
Classical Sanskrit usages here abandon us, nor does the "nirukta" help us! Remember, nirukta is also composed millennia after Vedas!
So, should we simply ignore the inconsistency and move on with "fair nose" or "good jaws"? And twist Vedas? No.
Let us refer the daughter languages of Vedic outside India, for a better analysis.
The word "shipra" is cognate with Alb. "krife", "mane", krip, "hair", Avestan "shrifA", "plume".
Combining the Classical Sanskrit usage as jaws, and noting the other language uses for hair, we can safely conclude that the mother of these languages, the Vedic could have used the term for a "beard" or "moustache".
And su-shiprA thus stands for a wise sage, since in Vedas, beard stands as a metaphor for wisdom. This fits well in the context, where Indra, the great wise God is asked to enjoy the beautiful praises of the worldly sages.
So, interpreting the Veda is not complete without looking beyond Sanskrit.
Again, fitting our notions into Vedas is not a good way to interpret it.
In the next post, I shall discuss in detail regarding the dissimilarities between Vedic and later concepts, and show the incongruencies in different schools of interpretation. And, there are some people who don't know what is the difference between translation and interpretation. A good translation must be literal so that another one can interpret using your translation. A translation need not provide interpretation. But, a best interpretation can or cannot be literal, it depends on the situation.
I know, many of you will be exhausted, so I stop here.
Reach soon with the next post!
Comments
Post a Comment