Where is the word Bhakti in the Vedas?

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4805425, member: 56157"

What kind of evidence does one provide to prove a negative?

Are you presupposing the non existence of Culture/Tradition/Religion/History/Identity and their influences on people in the west?

Or are you saying that Culture/Tradition/religion ect ect are not Part of the entity which we term as "West"?

The evidence is required from those who claim that "Western Translators", are not influenced by biases ect.

Besides, there is a bigger problem here. The Rig-Veda is not a text to be read as a book. Such a reading has little value from a religious/spiritual perspective.

How so?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then what should the seekers of Truth like me should do if there is not done by Sanatana Dharma. How much more time the Hinduism would take to do it, if RigVeda has some Truth in it and that is supposed to be for the whole humanity. Hinduism people should do it on priority, I request it earnestly and humbly.

It is already done. Read Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagawat Purana. Read the old (Mukhya, Principal) Upanishads and BhagawadGita. They explain everything. Internet has translations of all available without any cost. One should go for other books later when one has read the above books.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I have been using his translation for the last 10 years and that is how I sum up my experience. Whether secularist or not is not my concern. I will have nothing against him if he was an Orthodox Russian Catholic. I am concerned only with his work.

Namaste,
Sorry not secular I misread when you said Scholar, sorry for that. But even then when saying he is unbiased and then not really having any good idea that he was, is not a good reason to think that his work was in fact unbiased.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The evidence is required from those who claim that "Western Translators", are not influenced by biases etc.

One can read Frawley. It is mostly trash. Western or Eastern, or Hindu or Christian, does not matter. The question is whether the particular person has translated it well or not. My experience with Griffith says that he has done it well. Anyone else is welcome to differ.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

One can read Frawley. It is mostly trash. Western or Eastern, or Hindu or Christian, does not matter. The question is whether the particular person has translated it well or not. My experience with Griffith says that he has done it well. Anyone else is welcome to differ.

Namaste,

Obviously i do differ, Griffiths is one of the least accurate that i have come across.

Wilson is better compared to Griffith

 

[Aupmanyav]

Views, Satyam. I am satisfied with Griffiths translation. Checked Wilson. Griffith has the original Sanskrit verse as well as transliteration, which is not available in Wilson's translation. Makes things easy when I am quoting. I do not have to put my faith on the translation by the author, I can check it myself. I do not need a commentary. I will understand it in my own way. That is why I selected Griffith to be on my bookmark panel. I just have to click the symbol, and the whole RigVeda is before me.

'Jati na puchho sadhu ki, poochh lijiye gyān, mol karo talwār kā, padi rahan do myān', so said Saint Kabir.
(Do not ask a good man about his caste, ask about what he knows; bargain for the cost of the sword, forget about the sheath)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Welcome back, Ratiben. We were all wondering as to why you were not posting?

 

[paarsurrey]

Rg Veda and all the Vedas for that matter are texts that are extremely vague in its language and ideas. Even if you do find a good or at least literal translation, it will be impossible to understand in a meaningful way without an authorized commentary by a particular school of Hinduism. That is why Vedanta focuses on the Upanishads and Puranas which are more clear in their ideas (and the ideas themselves. are easier to interpret and understand). What to speak of Vedanta, there are 6 schools of Hinduism who claim that their interpretation is the actual interpretation of the Vedas. These interpretations range from atheistic to theistic. Even Western Scholars, like Max Muller, interpreted the Vedas in accordance with the predominating ideologies of their time (in Muller's case it was Romanticism). If the Vedas did have a predominating translation, Hinduism would not be an umbrella of traditions.

A point to note.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I have been using his translation for the last 10 years and that is how I sum up my experience. Whether secularist or not is not my concern. I will have nothing against him if he was an Orthodox Russian Catholic. I am concerned only with his work.

A fair approach, I think.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What kind of evidence does one provide to prove a negative?
It should be the other way around - where one shows that a translator/commentator had a specific bias. If not, there is no reason to assume one, based solely on prejudice and nothing else.
Besides, there is a bigger problem here. The Rig-Veda is not a text to be read as a book. Such a reading has little value from a religious/spiritual perspective.

Then what it is?
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim, not a Hindu.
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Besides, there is a bigger problem here. The Rig-Veda is not a text to be read as a book. Such a reading has little value from a religious/spiritual perspective.

I agree with you (now that Paarsurrey as asked us), Shiva. It is not something to be read as a book, it is not a compendium of Hindu and Aryan philosophy. It is a basically a prayer book. The Gods were to be praised with these hymns. I think, some thing like the Psalms of the Christians.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Are you presupposing the non existence of Culture/Tradition/Religion/History/Identity and their influences on people in the west?
Or are you saying that Culture/Tradition/religion ect ect are not Part of the entity which we term as "West"?

No to both questions.

The evidence is required from those who claim that "Western Translators", are not influenced by biases ect.

No such claim was made on this thread. Please re-read the posts.

If you are familiar with Indian scripture, you will know that most ancient texts are interpreted in the context of commentaries. This is practically the only way to make sense of texts such as sutras (for their brevity) and the Rig-Veda (for its archaic language). Sayana's commentary - the most well known medieval commentary on the Rig-veda is viewed as an Advaita commentary owing to his own affiliation to the doctrine (he was Vidyaranya's brother). Madhva wrote a partial commentary, which was elaborated by Raghavendra - both of which align with Tattva-vada.

Neither of the above will accept the other's version. How then, does one expect a universal Hindu translation or commentary? It appears that there is the impression that a translation is somehow better if it is made by a Hindu - regardless of his views - than by a non-Hindu, even if he has no known biases. Besides prejudice, there is no justification for this line of thinking.

Note that Griffith mostly follows Sayana in his translation. So, if we want to assign bias to Griffith, it should be on the grounds that he provided an Advaitic translation.

How so?

Because the Rig-veda was never meant to be read and indeed, that is still the traditional view. It is to be chanted (by Dvijas only) with the right Swaras and this is not something one learns by reading the text. As for its content, it contains very little in the way of philosophy and religious insight. The ten books are collections of prayers (and eulogies) to a set of gods who were prominent during its time, but whose importance diminished a long time ago. While we can find a number of people who claim that the Rig-Veda is the bedrock of Hinduism, challenge them to show how much of it is part of their religious practices and they will struggle for an answer. This is because the role of the Rig-Veda in the living Hindu tradition is almost non-existent.

The level of knowledge about the content of the four Vedas is abysmal among Hindus. For instance, a few months ago, we had people on this forum who claimed that the Yajur Veda taught mathematics! The OP is a muslim and has likely been misinformed that the Rig-Veda is the Hindu equivalent of the Quran/Bible. We are not willing to learn or put in the effort, and yet, we are ready to voice objections against Westerners who make an attempt to provide us with translations and other forms of research.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4806262, member: 56157"

Namaste,

No to both questions.
No such claim was made on this thread. Please re-read the posts.

I was replying to your previous post which was:

"A Hindu scholar will invariably "interpret" the text to align it with his own beliefs and to give it an appearance of consistence. The Western scholar on the other hand has no such constraint and is likely to provide a more literal (or neutral) translation."

From this I assumed you were implying that western scholars are free from beliefs, so i just wanted how one could know this, anyways lets not turn this into a debate.

If you are familiar with Indian scripture

To some degree i can claim that i am familiar with some actual texts.

Note that Griffith mostly follows Sayana in his translation. So, if we want to assign bias to Griffith, it should be on the grounds that he provided an Advaitic translation.

Exactly my point, there would be no neutral translation either by westerner or Indians. So the claim of western translations of the Vedas being unbiased is not accurate.

Because the Rig-veda was never meant to be read and indeed, that is still the traditional view. It is to be chanted (by Dvijas only) with the right Swaras and this is not something one learns by reading the text. While we can find a number of people who claim that the Rig-Veda is the bedrock of Hinduism, challenge them to show how much of it is part of their religious practices and they will struggle for an answer. This is because the role of the Rig-Veda in the living Hindu tradition is almost non-existent.

I agree to some of this, but disagree to other points. Thanks for clarifying.

We are not willing to learn or put in the effort, and yet, we are ready to voice objections against Westerners who make an attempt to provide us with translations and other forms of research.

I agree we should not object to Westerners trying to translate our texts, but we should also have the self confidence not to entirely rely and on western sources.

 

[3d2e1f]

Because the Rig-veda was never meant to be read and indeed, that is still the traditional view.

versus

Hinduism is a hodge podge of several different beliefs and everyone has his own take on what the Rig-Veda says.

If each person has his own take then what/whose is the *traditional view* you alluded to?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Welcome to the forum, 3d2e1f (wow, that is sure a bit difficult, like passwords). I would say 'traditional view' is what majority says - that Vedas are 'apaurusheya', they are the font of Hinduism, and for some Hindus, all the world's knowledge and science is in Vedas. But I believe that RigVedic richas are like 'ārtis' to Gods - sing them, enjoy and get the favor of deities. Shiva may agree with me.

That brings me to another word, 'Sangīta' (music). Does it derive from 'Sāma Gītam' (Singing of SāmaVeda richas)?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

versus



If each person has his own take then what/whose is the *traditional view* you alluded to?

What is meant by traditional view? The three Vedas (Rig, Sama, Yajur) and also the Atharvana Veda were transmitted orally from generation to generation. Unlike other texts, the Veda is to be chanted (according to different pathas) to produce specific sounds. Hence, the name Sruti. None of this was written down for a long time because there was no reliance on written material in teaching, memorizing the content and the pathas. The idea of reading the Rig-Veda as a text did not happen until foreign scholars arrived in India and took interest in the literature.

What is meant by each person has his own take? Advaita divides the Veda into Karma-Kanda and Jnana-Kanda. Samhitas falls under the category of the former and their purpose is to provide scriptural injunctions for material benefits. Here, they borrow the Mimamsa view that Vedic injunctions are about producing results (prosperity, progeny, etc.,) by following a formal set of actions (chanting, yajna, etc.,). No philosophical value is attributed to the Karma-Khanda. Dvaita does not draw such a distinction and treats them all one consistent body meant to eulogize Vishnu. These approaches result in different interpretation of the same text. Similarly, other scholars have their own specific take on the matter.

In short, while they agree on the legacy of apaurusheyatva and the traditional way of learning the Veda (authority, qualifications, teaching methods), they disagree on the intent of its purpose and its meaning - as explained above.

 

[3d2e1f]

while they agree on the legacy of apaurusheyatva and the traditional way of learning the Veda

IIUC, by tradition, here, what you really mean is how it was actually done in ancient times. And in matters pertaining to Hinduism, we know how things were done in ancient times by relying on .... ?

In your post I notice you have only talked about the darshanas and linked it with the RV.

Earlier you had said:

While we can find a number of people who claim that the Rig-Veda is the bedrock of Hinduism, challenge them to show how much of it is part of their religious practices and they will struggle for an answer. This is because the role of the Rig-Veda in the living Hindu tradition is almost non-existent.

I have somewhat lesser interest in studying the living Hindu tradition since there are too many externalities that lead to many distortions making it difficult to ascertian cause and effect. I would imagine -- since you responded to my post by exclusively talking about the darshanas -- you would agree with the fact the Vedas do indeed constitute the bedrock of the darshanas. Yes? For instance, what are your views on Mimamsa philosophy of language and how it is related to the eternality of the Vedas?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Living Hindu tradition does not have much of Vedas - Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Mother Goddesses, Ganesha, Murugan, Ayyappa, Hanuman, etc.

 

[Amanava]

Living Hindu tradition does not have much of Vedas - Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Mother Goddesses, Ganesha, Murugan, Ayyappa, Hanuman, etc.

That is blind worship just for materialistic benefits. Only if a person has proper understanding of the philosophy behind our vedic culture, Bhakti will not generated in him Sir.

 

[Jainarayan]

While we can find a number of people who claim that the Rig-Veda is the bedrock of Hinduism, challenge them to show how much of it is part of their religious practices and they will struggle for an answer. This is because the role of the Rig-Veda in the living Hindu tradition is almost non-existent.

Is it correct to say that Hinduism today is more "Puranic" than anything else, especially Vedic? I think it is ("Puranic"), but I don't know if anyone even looks at it that way, hence my question.