Asya VAmasya Hymn (Rg Veda 1.164)

[Nitaidas]

Sept 28, 2010 7:33:03 GMT -6 gerard said:

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.

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.

You are a very clever man, gerardji. You have now switched to talking about cosmogony and astronomy as if they were the same thing. That is not so. A cosmogony can be the result of a primordial sexual act or of a primordial sacrifice or it could be shrouded in mystery such that no one really knows how it happened (10.129). None of these cosmogonies have anything to do with astronomy. That eliminates at least two thirds of those verses you listed. Moreover, every time a number is cited does not mean something astronomical. As I see it, even 2-3 are dubiously about astronomy. The chariot could be the chariot of time with the three naves of the wheel representing the past, present, and future. Why limit ourselves to looking for astronomy? Time through represent perhaps in the motions of the sun and moon and stars is surely trans-astronomical, a bigger force than the motions of the planets and stars. I am going to continue my translation of the hymn because that is how I meditate on it and we shall see how little there is of astronomy in it.

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 brahmins didn't have to wait for Francis Bacon to tell them that 'knowledge is power'.

Knowledge is also liberating and live-saving and a little of it is a dangerous thing. These are all cliches, gerardji. One cannot sprout them without thinking about them. Saying them often enough does not make them true. Even if true, the brahmins didn't need codes. They already had sufficient safeguards in place for their knowledge. They only taught their own and they taught them in an old obscure language that was not understood anymore in the communities within which they were embedded. No need to invent codes. Besides. they had to let some of their knowledge out otherwise no one else would have heard about it or considered it important or worth having. This is called advertising.

If the Australian aborigines put their knowledge of astronomy in songs it was to preserve it in a way that could be passed down to their descendants.. Why suspect anything else?

[Nitaidas]

Let us look at verse six:

अचिकित्वाञ्चिकितुषश्चिदत्र कवीन्पृच्छामि विद्मने न विद्वान् |
वि यस्तस्तम्भ षलिमा रजांस्यजस्य रूपे किमपि स्विदेकम् || ६||


acikitvAJcikituSazcidatra kavInpRcchAmi vidmane na vidvAn|
viyastastambha SaLimA rajAMsyajasya rUpe kimapi svidekam|| 6||

As one who does not see I ask the poets who do see in order to know what I do not know. What indeed is the one in the form of the unborn who set apart these six regions? (6)

[I don't know why the Devanagari does not work some times on this site. Anyway, it is a pain to fix so I will just let it be. There is nothing astronomical here. This is about finding knowledge if you don't have it. Interestingly the root of the word acikitvAn and of cikituSaa is cit, yes the root of the word for consciousness. Here in its earliest usage it means "to see or perceive." If I do not perceive it, I go to those who do perceive it and ask them. So knowledge is based on perception, either direct or indirect. What does our poet what to know? What is that one who in the form of the unborn set the six regions apart. Again, it is a question here of beginnings and ultimate truths. Put simply the question is who created the world. We also learn that it has six regions (rajas). In the Vedas rajas meant "the sphere of vapor or mist, region of clouds, atmosphere, air, firmament." We can kind of see how rajas took its place between sattva (clarity, clear skies) and tamas (darkness, opacity).

[gerard]

Nitaiji, how can you think that people in ancient times would disconnect cosmogony (the origin and the history of the cosmos) from astronomy? Everything was interconnected to them.
History is the history of the development of consciousness. They lived in a totally different world from yours.


(But although the thinking of the ancients was different of ours and perhaps they were completely wrong in their ideas of the origin and history of the Cosmos, in modern times the origin of the universe, is still a subject of astronomy. The Big Bang Theory for instance is part of astronomy.)

[Nitaidas]

Sept 28, 2010 16:24:54 GMT -6 gerard said:

Nitaiji, how can you think that people in ancient times would disconnect cosmogony (the origin and the history of the cosmos) from astronomy? Everything was interconnected to them.
History is the history of the development of consciousness. They lived in a totally different world from yours.

Sorry. I thought I had given you examples of how they had disconnected cosmogony from astronomy (sexual interaction, sacrifice and dismemberment, mystery. speech: "let there be light," etc. etc.) And how do you know that everything was "interconnected" for them? I think we should not impose that view or any other on them and instead listen to what they tell us themselves, in so far as we are able. That is the way I am approaching this reading of the hymn. If there is an astronomical statement, and there are some, I will not close my ears to it. But I will not impose something on the text that is not there, if I can possibly avoid it.

(But although the thinking of the ancients was different of ours and perhaps they were completely wrong in their ideas of the origin and history of the Cosmos, in modern times the origin of the universe, is still a subject of astronomy. The Big Bang Theory for instance is part of astronomy.)

The point is not that cosmogony is "still" a subject of astronomy, but that it has become connected with astronomy. That is a modern development. Perhaps you are imposing this connection on the ancient peoples where it did not exist. In other words you may be guilty of the very thing you accuse me of doing: not walking in their shoes. Anyway, lets reserve our judgment on the text until we have more of it available.

I don't trust the astronomical interpretation of this hymn by that silly goose Frawley. He is all too willing to ignore those little pesky things called facts.

[gerard]

I find your idea about astronomy and cosmogony confusing, but I'll think about it. Frawley I never read on this hymn.

And of course there are other sources for the scriptures than star-gazing, you mentioned a few, sex & love, hunting & migration, war & cannibalism, cattle & agriculture, drugged shamans and perhaps even... a revelation or two.

[Nitaidas]

Oct 1, 2010 7:38:30 GMT -6 gerard said:

I find your idea about astronomy and cosmogony confusing, but I'll think about it. Frawley I never read on this hymn.

And of course there are other sources for the scriptures than star-gazing, you mentioned a few, sex & love, hunting & migration, war & cannibalism, cattle & agriculture, drugged shamans and perhaps even... a revelation or two.

Well, let's see how it plays out. If you notice me ignoring something connected with astronomy, let me know. You might check out Frawley's essay. It is available somewhere on the internet. My colleague found it early on in our study of this hymn. You might see something in it that I don't.

[Nitaidas]

Verse Seven:

इह ब्रवीतु य इमङ्ग वेदास्य वामस्य निहितं पदं वेः |
शीर्ष्णः क्षीरं दुह्रते गावो अस्य वव्रिं वसाना उदकं पदापुः || ७||

iha bravItu ya imaGga vedAsya vAmasya nihitaM padaM veH |
zIrSNaH kSIraM duhrate gAvo asya vavriM vasAna udakaM padApuH || 7||



Let him who knows with certainty proclaim here the hidden home of this lovely bird. The cows draw milk from its head [and] dressing in its clothes they drink water with the foot. (7)

[The word for bird here is vI. This is a new word to me. Again we have the quest for knowledge in the first quarter, a hidden abode in the second and cows in the third and fourth. The cows, it has been suggested, refer to clouds in this verse, drawing water through their feet and milk from the head of the bird. Kind of a nice imagery. The milk would be the while misty portions of clouds high in the sky. What do you think? Is the bird then the sun? Others think the cows are sun rays here (Brown). The same author connects this verse with verses 47, 51 and 52. We will revisit this when we get there.]

[Nitaidas]

Here is verse eight:

माता पितरमृत आ बभाज धीत्यग्रे मनसा सं हि जग्मे |
सा बीभत्सुर्गर्भरसा निविद्धा नमस्वन्त इदुपवाकमीयुः || ८||

mAtA pitaramRta A babhAja dhItyagre manasA saM hi jagme |
sA bIbhatsurgarbharasA nividdhA namasvanta idupavAkamIyuH || 8||

The mother gave a share to the father in the Law; in the beginning she approached him with thought and with the mind. She fearful [loathful] with juicy womb [menses?] was pierced. They indeed bowing down spoke close by. (8)

[No one seems to understand this verse. It seems to suggest a primordial sexual union between the mother (earth?) and the father (sky or sun?). The word bIbhatsu seems to suggest that she was disgusted by the union. Perhaps this refers to a primordial incest, an early version of that passage in the Brhad-aranyaka Upa. in which purusa shaped like two, male and female joined together, split and begin a series of copulations that produce all of the varieties of animals in the world. No idea who comes bowing and speaking in the last quarter. Perhaps the progeny of that union. There is here also the suggestion that procreation takes place when the woman is approached by the man when she is in her menstration. This appears frequently in the later tradition.]

[Nitaidas]

Perhaps Brown's translation does the best job here:


The mother (of the Sun, i,e, Usas [Dawn]), in accord with supreme order (rta), yielded the father (Dyaus [Sky]) his due, for at the beginning reverently and with concentrated mind she united with him. A reluctant prude, she became pregnant when pierced. Reverent worshipers went to give applause.

[Dyaus is Usas' father, so this is again an incest. The sun born born from the union.]

[Nitaidas]

How about another verse of the hymn today.

युक्ता मातासीद्धुरि दक्षिणाया अतिष्ठद्गर्भो वृजनीष्वन्तः |
अमीमेद्वत्सो अनु गामपश्यद् विश्वरूप्यं त्रिषु योजनेषु || ९||

yuktA mAtAsIddhuri dakSiNAyA atiSThadgarbho vRjanISvantaH |
amImedvatso anu gAmapazyadvizvarUpyaM triSu yojaneSu || 9||

The mother was joined to the yoke of the south; the embryo stood within the clouds. The calf lowed and looked towards the cow who had all forms in the three stages.

[This is a particularly puzzling verse for me. None of the other translations I have seen make very good sense of it. Here is Brown, for instance:

The mother (Dawn, USas) was yoked to DakSiNA's chariot pole. The child (Sun) was within the enclosures (?). The calf (Sun) lowed and searched for the many-colored cow (Dawn) in the three stages.

This is why reading Veda is so much fun and why Sri Jiva says we cannot understand it anymore.

The great Vedic commentator Sayana thinks this verse refers to a rain storm which nourishes the earth and creates crops. For him the mother is the sky, dyaus, which does sometimes have a feminine grammatical gender in the Veda. DakSiNA means, according to him, the earth. So the Sky was engaged (yuktA) in supporting the earth. How? By becoming ready to rain. The embryo is the waters hidden in the clouds. The calf refers again to the waters in the clouds which when the three, cloud, rays of light, and wind (the three yojanas) are joined together make sound as thunder. The waters then look to the earth, which has the form of the world, that is, they fall as rain. ]

[Nitaidas]

Here is a pdf of the verses covered so far in this hymn.


Here.

[kalki]

Sept 26, 2010 10:54:46 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Sept 26, 2010 8:37:02 GMT -6 gerard said:

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.

I am curious about this and want to understand what the Veda is and how it is regarded. I have understood that according to the Gita and any acharya from past to present, has informed us that the Veda is for materialistic persons and does not deal with real spiritual information. That is what the Bhagavat is for.

But also, I want to understand what are we calling Veda? Is the Upanisadas part of the Veda? Aren't they a later installment? Can they be considered separate from the original Veda or is that wrong?

[ing]

Oct 22, 2010 16:25:58 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Here is a pdf of the verses covered so far in this hymn.


Here.

Is the translation of sayana comment correct in rig veda 1.164.9?

[Nitaidas]

May 9, 2022 7:48:20 GMT -6 ing said:

Oct 22, 2010 16:25:58 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Here is a pdf of the verses covered so far in this hymn.


Here.

Is the translation of sayana comment correct in rig veda 1.164.9?

Greetings ing, Welcome to the symposium. Hope you will find lots to read and think about and, of course, to question.

In answer to your question concerning Sayana (d. 1387) I would have to say that it is quite unlikely that his commentary is "correct" on the Vedas. He wrote about 3000 years after the likely time of the composition and/or compilation of the Vedic texts (~1500-1000 BCE). He also, along with his brother, Madhava (aka Vidyaranya), is responsible for turning Sankaracarya into a Saivite/incarnation of Siva. They were ministers of the kings of Vijayanagara Empire (~1200 to 1643), specifically Bukka Ray I and Harihara. As prominent Advaita-vadins they naturally gave a non-dualist spin to everything they wrote and commented on. Coming so late and being so much influenced by the Advaita tradition he inherited, it is unlikely that he has given the Vedas their due consideration as pre-Sankara, pre-Buddhist, and even pre-Hindu texts. But, his commentary is one of the few on the whole expanse of Veda texts. There is another commentator named Skandha-svamin, but his commentary is not as complete as Sayana's. I don't know much about him, but his Hindupedia entry says: He was the son of one Bhartṛdhruva and belonged to the country of Valabhī.[1] He was the guru of Harisvāmin, the well-known commentator of Śatapatha Brāhmana. He might have lived around A. D. 625.

Anyway, the Vedas are archaic and the language in them is proto-Sanskrit. The classical language of India only became called Sanskrit (Made-whole) after the work of the grammarian Panini in the 4-5th cents. BCE. The language before that is simply called Vedic. There are many words in the Vedas we no longer know the meaning of. Sayana makes guesses based on similar words in the later language. but considering how languages change over time. that is a sketchy methodology.

[ing]

May 10, 2022 13:31:07 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

May 9, 2022 7:48:20 GMT -6 ing said:

Is the translation of sayana comment correct in rig veda 1.164.9?

Greetings ing, Welcome to the symposium. Hope you will find lots to read and think about and, of course, to question.

In answer to your question concerning Sayana (d. 1387) I would have to say that it is quite unlikely that his commentary is "correct" on the Vedas. He wrote about 3000 years after the likely time of the composition and/or compilation of the Vedic texts (~1500-1000 BCE). He also, along with his brother, Madhava (aka Vidyaranya), is responsible for turning Sankaracarya into a Saivite/incarnation of Siva. They were ministers of the kings of Vijayanagara Empire (~1200 to 1643), specifically Bukka Ray I and Harihara. As prominent Advaita-vadins they naturally gave a non-dualist spin to everything they wrote and commented on. Coming so late and being so much influenced by the Advaita tradition he inherited, it is unlikely that he has given the Vedas their due consideration as pre-Sankara, pre-Buddhist, and even pre-Hindu texts. But, his commentary is one of the few on the whole expanse of Veda texts. There is another commentator named Skandha-svamin, but his commentary is not as complete as Sayana's. I don't know much about him, but his Hindupedia entry says: He was the son of one Bhartṛdhruva and belonged to the country of Valabhī.[1] He was the guru of Harisvāmin, the well-known commentator of Śatapatha Brāhmana. He might have lived around A. D. 625.

Anyway, the Vedas are archaic and the language in them is proto-Sanskrit. The classical language of India only became called Sanskrit (Made-whole) after the work of the grammarian Panini in the 4-5th cents. BCE. The language before that is simply called Vedic. There are many words in the Vedas we no longer know the meaning of. Sayana makes guesses based on similar words in the later language. but considering how languages change over time. that is a sketchy methodology.

What are the comments of sayana predecessors about this veda 1,164.9 rig?