|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 22, 2010 22:58:01 GMT -6
My colleague and I have been meeting once a week to read this famous and mysterious hymn from the Rg Veda by the Rsi DIrghatamas (Long Darkness). Thought I would post some of it here. This hymn was the inspiration of many an Upanisad passage and many ideas that were picked up and developed in the later Hindu tradition. DIrghatamas is responsible for "hearing" some twenty hymns of the Rg Veda (1.144-164)
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 22, 2010 23:16:38 GMT -6
अस्य वामस्य पलितस्य होतुस्तस्य भ्राता मध्यमो अस्त्यश्नः | तृतीयो भ्राता घृतपृष्टो अस्यात्रापश्यं विश्पतिं सप्तपुत्रम् || १||
asya vAmasya palitasya hotus tasya bhrAtA madhyamo astyaznaH| tRtIyo bhrAtA ghRtapRSTo asyAtrApazyaM vizpatiM saptaputram|| 1||
(for those of you who don't read the script of the gods)
This lovable grayed priest [the sun] has an all-pervading middle brother [lightning]. His third brother is ghee-backed [the sacrificial fire]. Here [in this rite] I saw the Lord of the people with his seven sons.
[This first verse starts with a visionary experience that the author undergoes during a sacrificial rite. The rest of the hymn seems to describe that visionary experience. Next verse tomorrow]
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 23, 2010 18:16:33 GMT -6
सप्त युञ्जन्ति रथमेकचक्रमेको अश्वो वहति सप्तनाम| त्रिनाभि चक्रमजरमनर्वं यत्रेमा विश्वा भुवनाधि तस्थुः|| २||
sapta yuJjanti rathamekacakrameko azvo vahati saptanAma| trinAbhi cakramajaramanarvaM yatremA vizvA bhuvanAdhi tasthuH|| 2||
Seven yoke the one-wheeled chariot and one horse with seven names pulls it. Three naves has the unaging and unstopable wheel on which all these beings [worlds] stand.
[One can see in this hymn some of the antecedents of the use of the metaphor of the chariot in the Kathopanisad, 3.3. The chariot is probably the chariot of the sun. The use of the number seven recurs throughout the hymn. Who the seven are is not known.]
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Sept 24, 2010 8:09:05 GMT -6
The metaphor of the wheel for the course of the sun is easy to understand but how to understand within that metaphor a wheel with three naves? What kind of a contraption would that be? Griffith says it means the three seasons but that doen't make the metaphor any better and thus it seems unlikely. nAbhi can also mean "point of junction or departure" so perhaps; dawn, noon and dusk?
But a great Hymn to study, if you like riddles.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 24, 2010 9:53:40 GMT -6
Yes. It is a lot of fun and a lot of head-scratching. The teachings aren't really riddles except perhaps in one case, I forget which verse. It is quite likely that Dirghatamas' hearers would have understood all these numerical references and other images without any difficulty. The problem is that we don't any longer. That sacrificial culture is gone and we can only try to reconstruct it as Brown tried to do from references in the other hymns. In one verse here there is a word (बष्कये , baSkaye) that never appears again anywhere in the Rg Veda or in any later text. We have no idea what it means. That is part of the challenge of trying to understand these old hymns.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 24, 2010 11:43:41 GMT -6
More numerology:
इमं रथमधि ये सप्त तस्थुः सप्तचक्रं सप्त वहन्त्यश्वाः| सप्त स्वरारो अभि सं नवन्ते यत्र गवां निहिता सप्त नाम || ३||
imaM rathamadhi ye sapta tasthuH saptacakraM sapta vahantyazvAH| sapta svasAro abhi saM navante yatra gavAM nihitA sapta nAma|| 3||
Which seven stand on this chariot with seven wheels; seven horses pull it, seven-wheeled. Seven sisters together sing forth praises in which are hidden the seven names of the cows.
[Every time I hear seven I think of the seven rsis who are objectified in the seven stars of Ursa Major or the Big Dipper. Seven days of the week (a Mesopotamian invention ?), seven levels of planets up and down. What other sevens are there? The "which" may refer back to the seven of the previous verse who "yoke" the chariot. Or, Kunhan Raja thinks it refers to the seven horses who "stand" in the sense of being yoked to the chariot. Now the chariot has seven wheels instead of just one. And cows! Cows are everywhere in this hymn.]
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Sept 24, 2010 16:45:28 GMT -6
That is too big a subject to summarize. Perhaps you'll like this (illustrated) description of the origin of the use of seven and the geographical spread of the seven as magical or mystical number. It never reached China for instance; five is there the number one:
Geoffrey Ashe, The Ancient Wisdom, MacMillan, London 1977.
***
The word for 'cow', go or gau, also means 'star'. As mentioned in several threads before, and which is also clear from RV 1.164, mythology is mainly astronomy, see for instance:
Giorgio de Santilliana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill, An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth, David R. Godine, Boston 1979 (1st edition 1969).
Florence & Kenneth Wood, Homer's Secret Iliad, The Epic Of The Night Skies Decoded, John Murray, London 1999.
John Michell, A Little History of Astro-Archeology, (updated and enlarged), Thames & Hudson, New York 1989. (This subject is usually called 'archaeoastronomy'.)
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Sept 25, 2010 8:18:09 GMT -6
PS I forgot to metion, several books and articles by David Frawley and Subash Kak.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 25, 2010 11:01:32 GMT -6
The word for 'cow', go or gau, also means 'star'. As mentioned in several threads before, and which is also clear from RV 1.164, mythology is mainly astronomy, see for instance: No, that is not clear at all from 1.164. There are certainly astronomical elements but they are certainly not the main thing in the hymn. Not every number refers to something astronomical. The astronomical elements of the text are part of a larger search for origins and meaning. It is a metaphysical quest for the ultimate truth and the results are rather surprising I think, as we shall see. There is no doubt that these ancient men and maybe some women studied the skies and noted its changes as the years progress. A perhaps a body of shared knowledge was developed and handed down from generation to generation. Such knowledge would have been useful to their survival. And there is no doubt that they recognized may interesting things there in the skies. But to suppose that they were highly advanced in their understanding of the skies and cosmos is beyond ridiculous. They had no adequate tools and inadequate mathematics for the job. In short, they had no worthy epistemology, that is, no good means of knowing. Thus, much of what they believed was wrong. Why bother with it now except as examples of how humans do the best they can with what they have? We, too, even with all our great tools and facilities, are limited in what we can know. I have no doubt that future men and women will look back at us in the pre-quantum gravity period and laugh at our foolish ideas and speculations. They might also marvel at how ingenious we were with our limited abilities, but of course how ultimately wrong. Anyway, one shouldn't read too much into these texts and one should not believe everything one reads. Moreover, one should always ask the epistemological question: now how is it that you know that? We will be encountering Sri Jiva's epistemological teaching in the Tattva-sandarbha soon and it will teach us a lot about what we can expect to learn from him and what his limitations will be. Go also means "ray of light" and other things. But sometimes a go is just a cow. These other uses are metaphorical and it is important for us to understand the metaphors involved. To take things too literally is another kind of violation of the text.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 25, 2010 11:02:18 GMT -6
PS I forgot to metion, several books and articles by David Frawley and Subash Kak. Those two are so bogus. How can you take them seriously? One does need some discrimination, doesn't one?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 25, 2010 11:31:39 GMT -6
Time for another verse:
को ददर्श प्रथमं जायमानमस्थन्वन्तं यदनस्था बिभर्ति| भूम्या असुरसृगात्मा क्व स्वित्त्को विद्वांसमुप गात्प्रष्टुमेतत् || ४||
ko dadarza prathamaM jAyamAnamasthanvantaM yadanasthA bibharti| bhUmyA asurasRgAtmA kva svitko vidvAMsamupa gAtpraSTumetat|| 4||
Who saw the first one being born, the one with bones which the boneless bears? Where was the life, blood, and self of the earth? Who approached the learned one to ask about this? (4)
[Ah! The old question of epistemology again. Who knows what happened in the beginning, when the structured (boned) was being born supported or birthed by the unstructured (boneless)? Where were the breath, blood, self (actually Atman also means 'to breath;" so we have two words for breath here) of the earth? Someone must know but who asked that person? Here is the epistemology presented by the text. Seeing (ko dadarza), that is pratyaksa or direct sensory perception. And failing that what? Prazna, questioning someone in the know, that is someone who either saw the first being born or someone who heard from someone who did, and so on. Thus, we have pratyaksa and zabda or testimony of the expert. But the fundamental means of knowing appears to be pratyaksa. Here the author reveals his real intention and quest. It is for the ultimate truth and is only tangentially interested in astronomy.]
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Sept 26, 2010 8:37:02 GMT -6
The word for 'cow', go or gau, also means 'star'. As mentioned in several threads before, and which is also clear from RV 1.164, mythology is mainly astronomy, see for instance: No, that is not clear at all from 1.164. There are certainly astronomical elements but they are certainly not the main thing in the hymn. Not every number refers to something astronomical. The astronomical elements of the text are part of a larger search for origins and meaning. It is a metaphysical quest for the ultimate truth and the results are rather surprising I think, as we shall see. There is no doubt that these ancient men and maybe some women studied the skies and noted its changes as the years progress. A perhaps a body of shared knowledge was developed and handed down from generation to generation. Such knowledge would have been useful to their survival. And there is no doubt that they recognized may interesting things there in the skies. But to suppose that they were highly advanced in their understanding of the skies and cosmos is beyond ridiculous. They had no adequate tools and inadequate mathematics for the job. In short, they had no worthy epistemology, that is, no good means of knowing. Thus, much of what they believed was wrong. Why bother with it now except as examples of how humans do the best they can with what they have? We, too, even with all our great tools and facilities, are limited in what we can know. I have no doubt that future men and women will look back at us in the pre-quantum gravity period and laugh at our foolish ideas and speculations. They might also marvel at how ingenious we were with our limited abilities, but of course how ultimately wrong. Anyway, one shouldn't read too much into these texts and one should not believe everything one reads. Moreover, one should always ask the epistemological question: now how is it that you know that? We will be encountering Sri Jiva's epistemological teaching in the Tattva-sandarbha soon and it will teach us a lot about what we can expect to learn from him and what his limitations will be. I don't like being called "beyond ridiculous" (although it has a good ring to it) especially as I never said "highly advanced in their understanding of the skies", that's your projection on what I said, then you repeat what I did say and quoted in the Kanupriya Goswami thread. Anyway, I think that if you could decode the scriptures you would probably end up with a knowledge that wouldn't get you through Junior High. But I think you're totally missing the point and the big picture here, Nitaiji. If you can't decode the scriptures as to the astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc that they did know and hid and mixed-up in the texts, how would you know what part of the texts would be dealing with their "metaphysical quest for the ultimate truth"? On the one hand you say they could not be "highly advanced in their understanding of the skies", but on the other hand you want to come up with an epistemology of Jiva Goswami which is based on the aprAkRta, out of this world, Veda's and the apauruSeyam, non-human, Bhagavata Purana. Fine with me as a person of faith, but which kind of epistemology are you thinking of?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 26, 2010 10:54:46 GMT -6
I don't like being called "beyond ridiculous" (although it has a good ring to it) especially as I never said "highly advanced in their understanding of the skies", that's your projection on what I said, then you repeat what I did say and quoted in the Kanupriya Goswami thread. Anyway, I think that if you could decode the scriptures you would probably end up with a knowledge that wouldn't get you through Junior High. Sorry, gerardji. I must have mistook what you said. There are those that make such claims. I mistook you for one of them. I apologize. But I don't understand why you think the Vedas and other scriptures need to be decoded. I don't believe there is any code in them. They are old and the language is obscure. That doesn't mean that there are secrets hidden in them. Now there are riddles scattered here and there that are meant to be solved. That was apparently one of the "games" the priests played during long sacrifices, but those are pretty clearly marked. There are no riddles here in this hymn except for one possible one. We will get to that one eventually. Look at the last verse I translated, #4. Where is the astronomy in that? That is a question of beginnings and cosmogony similar to the famous cosmogonic hymn 10.129. You said "mythology is mainly astronomical." This is clearly not the case in this hymn. There is some astronomy but it is not the main thing, as we shall see. This idea that the authors hid their knowledge in their texts is itself a myth. Why would they hide their astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and so forth? Who were they keeping it from and why? It makes no sense. The idea that the ancient scriptures are encoded with "secret" knowledge is not based on any evidence and therefore there is no evidence that one can proffer to refute it. The texts are old, the grammar is strange, and there are words that we no longer know the meanings of. That is all. Here, you have misunderstood me. I am going to criticize Sri Jiva's epistemology. I think it is baloney. The denial of the validity of pratyaksa and anumana is foolish and the acceptance of zabda as the only and final pramana is, well, to reuse a phrase you liked "beyond ridiculous." It was not Sri Jiva's finest moment. His epistemology warns us, however, of the severity of his limits and that is useful knowledge for us. We can gather many useful things from him, but only up to a point. After that we are on our own. And there is the possibility that he wasn't really serious about his stated epistemology. Instead he may have been building bridges to an older, more conservative tradition. After all, he starts by accepting the Vedas as the highest authoritative source and then tells us it is now beyond our reach, but has to be replaced by the Bhagavata. That is a view that many of the most conservative in his audience would have found hard to accept. The Bhagavata is not apauruseya. it was written by Vyasa, but on the basis of an experience he had in meditation (1.5-7). Thus by the end of his argument Sri Jiva has refuted himself and tacitly accepted saksatkara or pratyaksa as the final court of appeal or highest source of knowledge. Clever, but the only way to arrive at that understanding is through anumana, inference. People who have been warned off of pratyaksa and anumana will never get it.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Sept 26, 2010 15:48:03 GMT -6
Another verse from this great hymn. Again nary a snorkle of astronomy:
पाकः पृच्छामि मनसाविजानन् देवानामेना निहिता पदानि | वत्से बष्कये धि सप्त तन्तून् वि तत्निरे कवय ओतवा उ || ५||
pAkaH pRcchAmi manasAvijAnan devAnAmenA nihitA padAni | vatse baSkaye'dhi sapta tantUnvi tatnire kavaya otavA u || 5||
I, a fool, ask, not understanding with my mind, about these hidden abodes of the gods. Over this young calf the poets have spread wide the seven threads in order to weave indeed. (5)
[Again there is the theme of inquiry and the suggestion that perhaps one cannot understand it all with one's mind. Important realization here: true inquiry comes after one discovers that one does not know. i.e. is a fools. The inquiry is about the places of the gods which are hidden. The third quarter of the verse has that word baSkaye which never appears again. I follow Kunhan Raja in taking it to mean "young." The poets are described as weavers here. They spread the seven threads in order to weaver them together. Perhaps what comes later will make more sense of this verse. Remember: poets weave.]
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Sept 28, 2010 7:33:03 GMT -6
That depends on your interpretation. I count about 33 verses (or a line in a verse) with an astronomical/cosmogonical meaning: verses 2,3, 5-15, 17, 19, 25-28, 30, 31, 33-36, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48 and 50-52. That's quite a lot. Not a real cow in sight. Not to my myopic eyes that is.
The brahmins didn't have to wait for Francis Bacon to tell them that 'knowledge is power'.
|
|