Rig Veda : English translation by T.H.Griffith

[paarsurrey]

I have started reading from it. I find some difference in Rig Veda Chapter 1 verse 1 published by Sacred Texts @ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01001.htm

Which reads:
HYMN I. Agni.
1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
The hotar, lavishest of wealth.

And the one in public domain ,which reads:

BOOK THE FIRST.
HYMN I. Agni.

I LAUD Agni, the great high priest, god, minister of
sacrifice,
The herald, lavishest of wealth.

@https://archive.org/stream/hymnsrigveda02grifgoog/hymnsrigveda02grifgoog_djvu.txt

Anybody to please let us know, why the difference in words, though the meaning are the same? Which one is the subsequent translation by Griffith?

Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

They're both close. I'd call it as:

om agnim - ile - purohitam
Om Agni - I praise - the house/home/domestic priest

yajnyasya - devam rtvijam
Of the sacrifice - the divine priest

hotaaram - ratna - dhaatamam
The priest [he who] calls the gods - [he who] gives - wealth.

I praise Agni the household priest (i.e. the home fire),
the divine priest [rtvij is a priest who does the rituals at the prescribed times] of the sacrifice,
the [high] priest who invokes the gods, who gives wealth.

Hotar could be translated as herald, one who calls or invokes. A Sanskrit speaker, because Sanskrit is so highly inflected, would understand it perfectly without the extra words English needs. Sanskrit has no words for a, an, the, to, for, with, at, etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

Does one know which one is the later translation? As I want to read the later one.
I could not find a translation online from a Veda following (or Hinduism) person.
Does anybody know of such a translation, online or in PDF? Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

It doesn't matter which is later. The original Sanskrit is not going to change, but every translator will translate differently. I'm certain that someone will disagree with my translation, and I would expect no less.

 

[Madhuri]

Sanskrit is often translated or interpreted differently by different people. It's not a simple language. But this is why I would caution people to not completely trust translations by people who are not expert in the language and culture/history.

 

[paarsurrey]

Rig Veda : English translation by T.H.Griffith

Isn't Sanskrit a dead language and is on resuscitation by some people or the Indian Government? If those people who call themselves "Aryans" won't speak it and write it in everyday usage, it must die out sooner. It is fault of the Brahamins/clergy-class right from the Vedic period to the Post-Vedic period who restricted the common people reading Vedas and reciting it, so the people left and abandoned both Vedas and its language Sanskrit. The common people should not be blamed. It should not be strange, therefore, that the earliest translations of Vedas in English language have been done by the Westerners, not by the Hinduism people themselves, though there is no dearth of English knowing people in India. Please correct me if I am wrong. Right? Please
I have read Yajurveda, it speaks so often that its knowledge should be made open for everybody and for the whole world, its knowledge should be preached and propagated in the whole world. Why didn't they do it? Just tell me. The fault is with the Hinduism people, they should admit their fault.
Should I quote such verses one by one, in these forums. Right? Please
I tried much to find one translation online by a Hindu and realized that already many Hinduism people are searching for it, but none is available. Why? Please
Regards

 

[Madhuri]

There are Hindus who could make English translations and I'm sure with some more time they will. But other scriptures have been given more importance, such as the Gita, the Upanishads and the Puranas. Most Hindu scriptures have been translated by many people and are easy to access. I hope that someone will finally also provide good quality English translations of the Vedas.

There are still many Hindu scholars who are expert with Sanskrit. I hope that they continue to teach it to the newer generations so that it does not die.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hotar/Hotra (like the host) is one who is offering the oblation. And it is not 'household fire'. That is known as 'Garhapatya Agni' and is different. (as far as I know). 'Grha' is house, and therefore 'Garhapatya'.

I have always worked with this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm) and have found no reason for any complaint. This is from 1894 and without a commentary. Clearer, shorter. I always like that. The other one is from 1889 and with commentary. Your choice.

It should not be strange, therefore, that the earliest translations of Vedas in English language have been done by the Westerners, not by the Hinduism people themselves, though there is no dearth of English knowing people in India.

Why would Hindus need a translation. The could read and understand Vedic Sanskrit. It is only after Western education came to India that the study of Sanskrit was neglected.

My first concern with a translation would be the bias of the translator. I find Griffith unbiased. As I mentioned in case of YajurVeda translation, I would not touch an Arya Samaj translation even with a long bamboo pole.

 

[paarsurrey]

There are Hindus who could make English translations and I'm sure with some more time they will. But other scriptures have been given more importance, such as the Gita, the Upanishads and the Puranas. Most Hindu scriptures have been translated by many people and are easy to access. I hope that someone will finally also provide good quality English translations of the Vedas.
There are still many Hindu scholars who are expert with Sanskrit. I hope that they continue to teach it to the newer generations so that it does not die.

Friend!
I have read Bhagvad Gita and I have affinity with it. But people here tell me that Hinduism is not one religion, it is conglomerate of many religions, not every Hindu believes in Gita or Krishna. Right? Please
I have always appreciated your inputs though sometimes I may differ.
Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hotar/Hotra (like the host) is one who is offering the oblation. And it is not 'household fire'. That is known as 'Garhapatya Agni' and is different. (as far as I know). 'Grha' is house, and therefore 'Garhapatya'.
I have always worked with this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm) and have found no reason for any complaint. This is from 1894 and without a commentary. Clearer, shorter. I always like that. The other one is from 1889 and with commentary. Your choice.Why would Hindus need a translation. The could read and understand Vedic Sanskrit. It is only after Western education came to India that the study of Sanskrit was neglected.
My first concern with a translation would be the bias of the translator. I find Griffith unbiased. As I mentioned in case of YajurVeda translation, I would not touch an Arya Samaj translation even with a long bamboo pole.

Thanks and regards for providing the information, the one without commentary is of 1894 and with commentary is of 1889. I will not read the commentary but I will read from the 1889 edition.
Please don't mind, I don't understand as to why one cannot touch Yajurveda translation of Devi Chand even with a long bamboo! After all Devi Chand was a human being, at times he could err.
Thanks again.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One does not want a translator to err; more importantly, not intentionally at least (bias, giving it a twist). That is why I did not like Devi Chand's translation. You would not like Qur'an to be wrongly translated.

 

[Madhuri]

Friend!
I have read Bhagvad Gita and I have affinity with it. But people here tell me that Hinduism is not one religion, it is conglomerate of many religions, not every Hindu believes in Gita or Krishna. Right? Please
I have always appreciated your inputs though sometimes I may differ.
Thanks and regards

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hotar/Hotra (like the host) is one who is offering the oblation. And it is not 'household fire'. That is known as 'Garhapatya Agni' and is different. (as far as I know). 'Grha' is house, and therefore 'Garhapatya'.

I found 'purohitam' defined as the house/home/domestic priest; hotar as the one who calls the gods. But this is a perfect example of differing translations.

Why would Hindus need a translation. The could read and understand Vedic Sanskrit. It is only after Western education came to India that the study of Sanskrit was neglected.

This not unlike the situation with Icelandic and Old Norse. Most Icelanders can read Old Norse the way Modern English speakers can read Shakespeare.

When you have a language that is a direct descendant, it's a lot easier to understand than sister dialects or languages. Afaik Vedic and Classical Sanskrit are still mutually intelligible; Hindi and Sanskrit are not fully mutually intelligible, if at all. I don't know Hindi, so I can't say for sure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But people here tell me that Hinduism is not one religion, it is conglomerate of many religions, not every Hindu believes in Gita or Krishna.

Worshiping Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva or the Mother Goddess Durga, does not divide them. They are all Hindus and they have the right to chose their Gods, maintain their individual traditions. Hinduism is not a hand-cuff like many other religions.

Hindi and Sanskrit are not fully mutually intelligible, if at all. I don't know Hindi, so I can't say for sure.

You see, I had the background (because of my Sanskritist grandfather), I could follow it more easily. People who do not have the background will find it difficult.

 

[Jainarayan]

You see, I had the background (because of my Sanskritist grandfather), I could follow it more easily. People who do not have the background will find it difficult.

That is an advantage for sure. It is also easier for a person who has an affinity for languages. Though you may not know all the vocabularies, if you understand how Russian, Greek, Sanskrit, Lithuanian, Latin work, that is more than half the battle. They are all highly inflected languages and work pretty much the same way. Picking up the vocabularies is relatively easy. Hindi, Italian, Spanish, and other Indian and European languages related to and/or descended from the mother languages because they've simplified or "collapsed" many grammatical forms. Modern English is actually easy to speak, much easier than the more inflected Old English (Anglo-Saxon). It's that English writing has not kept up with pronunciation or grammatical forms.

 

[paarsurrey]

I have always worked with this (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm) and have found no reason for any complaint. This is from 1894 and without a commentary. Clearer, shorter. I always like that. The other one is from 1889 and with commentary. Your choice.

I have started reading the 1889 translation of Griffith. It is its Volume1 and it has in all 613 pages. Will your kindly inform as to how many more volumes it has and how many pages are there in each volume in 1889 edition. Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Never counted the pages. I work with http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm which has one hymn on each page. Since there are 1028 hymns in RigVeda, I think that means 1028 pages at that site.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think that means 1028 pages at that site

You counted them too?

Book 1 - 191
Book 2 - 43
Book 3 - 62
Book 4 - 58
Book 5 - 87
Book 6 - 85
Book 7 - 104
Book 8 - 103
Book 9 - 104
Book 10 - 191

Total hymns 1028

Book 1 Hymn 164 has 52 verses. 1.164.46 is the famous ekam sat... verse "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."

 

[paarsurrey]

Never counted the pages. I work with http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm which has one hymn on each page. Since there are 1028 hymns in RigVeda, I think that means 1028 pages at that site.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Rig Veda : English translation by T.H.Griffith
some quotes from the Preface/s of the above translation (1889 edition):

RIGVEDA - PREFACE

"But it seems impossible to fix, with anything approaching to
certainty, any date for the composition of the hymns*
In the first Hymn of Book I. ancient and recent or
modern Rishis or seers are spoken of, and there is other
internal evidence that some hymns are much older than
others,"
* The History of Indian Literatwe, By Albrecht Weber. Trttbner's
Oriental Series. 1878.
https://archive.org/stream/hymnsrigveda02grifgoog/hymnsrigveda02grifgoog_djvu.txt

Does it mean that the hymns were not compiled in one period of time or in one life span of an average human being? Please
Regards