nAsadIya sUktaM (Hymn of creation)

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Jun 2006, 00:01

Nasadiya Suktam (Hymn of Creation.) Rigveds 10.129

1.nAsadAsIn no sadAsIt tadAnIM nAsId rajo no vyomAparo yat |
kimAvarIvaH kuha kasya sharmannambhaH kimAsId gahanaM gabhIram ||

2.na mRtyurAsIdamRtaM na tarhi na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH |
AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM tasmAddhAnyan na paraH kiM canAsa ||

3.tama AsIt tamasA gULamagre.apraketaM salilaM sarvamAidam |
tuchyenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIt tapasastanmahinAjAyataikam ||

4.kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt |
sato bandhumasati niravindan hRdi pratISyAkavayo manISA ||

5.tirashcIno vitato rashmireSAmadhaH svidAsI.a.a.at |
retodhAAsan mahimAna Asan svadhA avastAt prayatiH parastAt ||

6.ko addhA veda ka iha pra vocat kuta AjAtA kuta iyaMvisRSTiH |
arvAg devA asya visarjanenAthA ko veda yataAbabhUva ||

7.iyaM visRSTiryata AbabhUva yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na |
yo asyAdhyakSaH parame vyoman so aN^ga veda yadi vA naveda ||

CXXIX. Creation.(Translation by Griffith)

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darknew this All was indiscriminated chaos.All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?TheGods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Jun 2006, 01:21

Thanks CML, SR.

The Nasadiya Suktam is so much consistent, even if metaphorically, with the current quantum cosmology hypothesis/speculations on what happened at time zero.. Scientific theories themselves have not gotten to that time zero yet, though theories of what happened very very shortly afterwords exist. The hypothesis is it is a choatic event arisen due to the nature of the uncertainty inherent in the quantum vacuum state.

Statement like 'That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.' and 'he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.' are how quantum states can be described in normal language. 'darkness concealed in the dark' is a puzzling statement in itself. Also, this clearly states that both Time and Space did not exist before creation, but something existed outside of Time and Space. So that 'One, breathless breathing by its own nature' is a very apt natural language metaphor for a quantum vacuum state.

I do not want to go willy nilly compare our creation hymns to the whatever the latest scientific theory is but I could not resist this one.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 23 Jun 2006, 01:50

Thanks CML, SR.

The Nasadiya Suktam is so much consistent, even if metaphorically, with the current quantum cosmology hypothesis/speculations on what happened at time zero..

Indeed, this is a very interesting subject. The book that I referred in the other thread spends a lot of time on this very discussion.

SR

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Jun 2006, 02:34

SR
Please don't quote the whole passage to add a couple of comments. Interested person will read what is above and a simple citation is enough. Do add your view point and any additional quotes which is not cited. Thank you...

VK/SR

There is a lot of debate about Mind vs Matter. Physics can probe the mysteries of matter. But it cannot probe mind if mind is unrelated to matter. To understand what happened before creation physics cannot help since it is based on what we know about the properties of matter. Quantum Physics still deals with matter but postulates 'beahviour' that cannot be observed but whose outcome can be observed. Hence mathematical formulations which are validated by 'material behaviour' are accepted as valid theories. But as humans we are capable of creating theories which 'cannot' be validated by outcomes. These are in the realms of fantasies which belong to 'abnormal mental conditions'. The concept of God 'who cannot be observed' (nirguNabrhamam) belongs to that area. saguNabrahmam can of course be observed and vaidated (so far we have not succeeded entirely).

The crucial sentence in the sukta is
so aN^ga veda yadi vA na veda|
which is the undecidable. Since if He knows it then He becomes a saguNabrahmam and eventually 'we' will get to know it. If He is nirguNabrahmam then even He does not know it and we will never know it too! Hence that is the 'undecidable'!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Jun 2006, 03:02

>These are in the realms of fantasies which belong to 'abnormal mental >conditions'. The concept of God 'who cannot be observed'
>(nirguNabrhamam) belongs to that area.

That is a prety strong statement, CML. May be I am not catching the drift, do you then imply that the concept of nirguNabrhamam is a fantasy and a result of 'abnormal mental conditions'? Pl. clarify..

On that key suktha, I would have much preferred this ( as if I have a choice

): he verily knows it, AND perhaps he knows not. Though it sounds bizarre at first reading, that can actually refer to the 'potential' for Him to exist in both states.... That is probably quantum philosophy crazy talk!!

BTW, potentilities and probabilities, are they mind or matter or both or neither?

Since QP allows such 'exotic' concepts like 'action at a distance' and 'matter being in two states of a property at the same time', it is too easy to abuse it by dragging it to spiritual matters like what I am trying to do. So, we will have to take all this with a generous pinch of salt...it is fun nonetheless.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Jun 2006, 07:16

VK

These discussions will take us deep into the concepts of Hindu Philosophy. Some of the answers (not all!) are inthe Brahma sutra. I do not profess to know them except sporadically. I will try my best!

>>That is a prety strong statement, CML. May be I am not catching the drift, do you then imply that the concept of nirguNabrhamam is a fantasy and a result of 'abnormal mental conditions'? Pl. clarify..<<

GuNa means characteristic; it may be material or non material (mental for example). Our mind comprehends everything only through their characteristics. We make analogies (consciously and unconsciously) based on our experience (and at times based on the experiences of those we trust) to understand everything. Suppose someone claims that he has seen God. Then we query him about God's characteristics and if he is unable explain (logically) we designate him 'mental case' as they said about Ramakrishna Parmahamsa in his early days. This discriminatory power of knowing through the characteristics is 'knowledge' (or veda in sanskrit). Now veda also denotes the process of knowing. In other words we know through the process of knowing what is to be known (God) through his characteristics. But this is the lower level of knowledge (which is easy and attainable for all and is what is called 'bhakti yoga' by Lord Sri Krishna). Ultimately we wish to know the God who has no characteristics (nirgunabrahmam) by getting rid of our knowledge of all charcteristics pertaining to God. Now if God has no characteristics then how did he create the characteristics. Again he also must know the process of recognizing characteristics. So he does have at least the characteristic of knowing characteristics or he knew the vedas. Already we have started going around in circles. So we may postulate that God is neither a knower of 'existance of creation'(sat AsIt) nor a not-knower of 'non existance of creation' (na asat AsIt)(whence the name nAsAdIya sUktam).

The concepts in this sUkta are consistent with the Sankhya philosophy (of kapila) where he postulates a total dichotomy between the ptakriti (the physical universe) and the PuruSha (God); the God is independent and unaware of the physical universe and the universe operates on its own without any input from God! If you accept that then you should be indifferent to God (as the Communists say ' We are not interested in God since he is not a negotiable commodity')

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Jun 2006, 00:42

The translation of the last sUtra as given by Swami Dayanada Saraswati is quite different from the one given here by CML(and many internet sources)

"From whosoever all this creation sprung from, he himself bears that creation. Or when he does not bear it, he causes praLaya/destruction.Him in lofty sky whosoever is the master of this creation/sky, know Him if thou dost not know him."

The above english translation is mine from the kannaDa text I have. For those who would like the kannaDa version

"I vividha sRShTiyu yAvaninda utpannavAgideyO, avanu adannu dhAraNa mADikoNDiddAne. athavA dhAraNa mAdikoLLadiddAga praLaya mADuttAne. AkASadalliruva yAvanu idara adhyakShanO, avanannu mitranE! nInu ondu vELe tiLiyadiddare tiLidukO!"

The footnote clarifies that "kim" in the mantra should be interpreted from kaH meaning "prajApati paramATma who is the personification of bliss/joy"

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Jun 2006, 00:55

"ಈ ವಿವಿಧ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯು ಯಾವನಿಂದ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನವಾಗಿದೆಯೋ, ಅವನು ಅದನ್ನು ಧಾರಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಅಥವಾ ಧಾರಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಪ್ರಳಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಆಕಾಶದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾಯನು ಇದರ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷನೋ, ಅವನನ್ನು ಮಿತ್ರನೇ! ನೀನು ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ತಿಳಿಯದಿದ್ದರೆ ತಿಳಿದುಕೋ!"

Is everyone able to read the kannaDa baraha font?

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 24 Jun 2006, 01:28

ಈ ವಿವಿಧ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯು ಯಾವನಿಂದ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನವಾಗಿದೆಯೋ, ಅವನು ಅದನ್ನು ಧಾರಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಅಥವಾ ಧಾರಣ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಪ್ರಳಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಆಕಾಶದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾಯನು ಇದರ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷನೋ, ಅವನನ್ನು ಮಿತ್ರನೇ! ನೀನು ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ತಿಳಿಯದಿದ್ದರೆ ತಿಳಿದುಕೋ

Is everyone able to read the kannaDa baraha font?

I can read it!
It might be better if it is not in bold. Some mAtrAs are confusing...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 24 Jun 2006, 01:44

Yes, I can read it as well and Suji's quote has the kannada text in regular, non-bold font.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 24 Jun 2006, 01:53

CML, I think I understand in general terms what you wrote. Thanks.

One question..

GuNa means characteristic; it may be material or non material (mental for example). Our mind comprehends everything only through their characteristics. We make analogies (consciously and unconsciously) based on our experience (and at times based on the experiences of those we trust) to understand everything.

With respect to those analogies, science uses math as its tool. In some advanced mathematical theories of the physical world, mind can not comprehend those in terms of stuff we know and fail to come up with reasonably close analogies. One example is the expanding nature of space. In that case, the analogy used is a balloon that is being blown into and the surface of the balloon being likened to the expanding space. This is a terrible analogy since even a child would then ask, what is the balloon expanding into? The analogy breaks though that is the best analogy physicists can provide. But the mathematical equations precisely describe the physics.

So, in your description, where would you fit mathematics, especially multi-dimensional mathematics which defies mental imagination, that is the most productive and essential tool of today's scientific endeavor?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Jun 2006, 03:56

VK

In my view Maths is nothing other than playing with symbols according to set rules. The rules are the axiom systems and the 'admissible' opertions. The incompleteness of such a system was proved by Godel. In other words there are always 'undecidables' in any axiom systems and hence elevating Maths to a level of superiority is unwarranted. The logical systems of which 'language' is a subset is equally a valid approach. Our ancient seers adopted 'language' (sUtra) as the means of logical inference. Brahmasutra is one such monumental work. In that system 'God' is the undecidable. You need the metalogic to grasp Him. That idea is succinctly expressed in the 'nAsAdIya sUktam'.

While the western philosophers were tied down to the deductive approach which is closed(based on the Euclidean Geometry!) we Indians always took the inductive approach which is open. An example is the Paninian grammar which tried to compact sanskrit language (but failed to incorporate vedic language (as SR legitiamtely points out)). Codification kills creativity. That again is one of the banes of our CM wherein we rigidly demand classicism. If we permit the 'inductive' approach there is scope for expansion and new visions. I realize now I am digressing!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 24 Jun 2006, 14:17

CXXIX. Creation.(Translation by Griffith)

With all due respect, Griffith's translation of the Vedas is more obscure than the Vedic original. I time and again have to refer back to the original to make sense of his translation.

The translation of the last sUtra as given by Swami Dayanada Saraswati is quite different from the one given here by CML(and many internet sources)

It is my opinion that many people just translate the Vedic verses willy nilly to suit their own preconceived ideas. People like Griffith lack the background knowledge needed to tranlate the Vedas, so their literal translations seemingly done in a hurry, always fall short.

Many swamijis do the reverse. They think they know what it (the verses in question) are supposed to mean, so they impose their own notions in their translation.

Both types are dangerous and misleading. So I think it is better to learn Vedic oneself and read the original directly.

As an example, let me direct our attention to this Rig Vedic verse (from the last mandala):

āpo hi ṣṭhā mayobhuvastā na ūrje dadhātana | maheraṇāya cakṣase ||
yo vaḥ śivatamo rasastasya bhajayateha naḥ | uśatīrivamātaraḥ ||
tasmā araṃ ghamāma vo yasya kṣayāya jinvatha | āpojanayathā ca naḥ ||
śaṃ no devīrabhiṣṭaya āpo bhavantu pītaye | śaṃ yorabhi sravantu naḥ ||
īśānā vāryāṇāṃ kṣayantīścarṣaṇīnām | apoyācāmi bheṣajam ||
apsu me somo abravīdantarviśvāni bheṣajā | aghniṃ caviśvaśambhuvam ||
āpaḥ pṛṇīta bheṣajāṃ varūthaṃ tanve mama | jyok casūryaṃ dṛśe ||
idamāpaḥ pra vahata yat kiṃ ca duritaṃ mayi | yad vāhamabhidudroha yad va śepa utānṛtam ||
āpo adyānvacāriṣaṃ rasena samaghasmahi | payasvānaghnaā ghahi taṃ mā saṃ sṛja varcasā ||

Griffith's translation goes like this:

1. YE, Waters, are beneficent: so help ye us to energy That we may look on great delight.
2 Give us a portion of the sap, the most auspicious that ye have, Like mothers in their longing love.
3 To you we gladly come for him to whose abode ye send us on; And, Waters, give us procreant strength.
4 The Waters. be to us for drink, Goddesses for our aid and bliss: Let them stream to us health and strength.
5 1 beg the Floods to give us balm, these Queens who rule o'er precious things, And have supreme control of men.
6 Within the Waters-Soma thus hath told me-dwell all balms that heal, And Agni, he who blesseth all.
7 O Waters, teem with medicine to keep my body safe from harm, So that I long may see the Sun.
8 Whatever sin is found in me, whatever evil I have wrought, If I have lied or falsely sworn, Waters, remove it far from me.
9 The Waters I this day have sought, and to their moisture have we come: O Agni, rich in milk, come thou, and with thy splendour cover me.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 24 Jun 2006, 14:45

I thought this might interest people who havent heard about it. It is taken from an editorial published in The Matrix Fans website (though not related wholly to the language-discussions of this thread)

Verses from the Upanishads used in the film "Matrix Revolutions":

asato ma sad gamaya
tamaso ma jyotir gamaya
mrtyor mamrtam gamaya

From delusion lead me to truth
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality

vidyam cavidyam ca yas
tad vedobhayam saha
avidyaya mrtyum tirtva
vidyayamrtam asnute

He who knows both knowledge and action, with action overcomes death and with knowledge reaches immortality.

yasmin dyauh prthivi cantariksam otam manah saha pranais ca sarvaih tam evaikam janatha atmanam anya vacah vimuncatha amrtasya esah setuh

In him are woven the sky and the earth and all the regions of the air, and in him rest the mind and all the powers of life. Know him as the ONE and leave aside all other words. He is the bridge of immortality.

indriyebhyah param mano
manasah sattvam uttamam
sattvad adhi mahan atma
mahato vyaktam uttamam

Beyond the senses is the mind, and beyond the mind is reason, its essence. Beyond reason is the Spirit in man, and beyond this is the Spirit of the Universe, the evolver of all.

yada pancavatisthante
jnanani manasa saha
buddhis ca na vicestate
tam ahuh paramam gatim

When the five senses and the mind are still, and reason itself rests in silence, then begins the Path supreme.

Ya ya ya ya yada yadaya
Ya ya ya ya yada yada yada yada
Yada yada yada yada yada

bhidyate hrdayagranthis
chidyante sarvasamsayah
ksiyante casya karmani
tasmin drste paravare

And when he is seen in his immanence and transcendence, then the ties that have bound the heart are unloosened, the doubts of the mind vanish, and the law of Karma works no more

These are the lyrics to Neodammerung, the epic music that plays throughout the Superbrawl. The original language is sanskrit.

I believe the first three lines sum up the trilogy.

"From delusion lead me to truth" - in the first film Neo becomes aware of the truth about his reality, and escapes the delusion of the Matrix

"From darkness lead me to light" - in Reloaded Neo is enlightened about the true nature of the Matrix.
"From death lead me to immortality" - In Revolutions Neo dies in the real world, but his mind is immortalised in the Source.

Smith's deletion completes the Hindu allegory present throughout the film. The Source manifests itself in the Matrix as white light.

This excerpt from the BrihadÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ranyaka Upanishad describes the death process of the enlightened:

"When consciousness that is in the eye turns back, the dying man no longer sees any form. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not see. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not smell. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not taste. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not speak. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not hear. "He is becoming one," they say; "he does not think or touch or know."

The Smith that Neo becomes does nothing, he does not think or touch or know. Neo has

"The point of his heart lights up, and by that light the Self departs, either through the eye, or the skull, or through some other door of the body."

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Jun 2006, 16:23

It is my opinion that many people just translate the Vedic verses willy nilly to suit their own preconceived ideas. ----
Many swamijis do the reverse. They think they know what it (the verses in question) are supposed to mean, so they impose their own notions in their translation. --.

Maybe the swamijis do know what they are talking about! This is much much more likely than a westerner making a "clinical" translation with their own set of rules and prejudices.

Swami Dayanada Saraswati does not fall into the category of "run-of-the-mill" swamis. Maybe Iam biased as I studied in DAV school. But at least I know something about him and his work.

Coming to the mantra in question "yadi" is generally used in the sense of "if/in case/", "ondu vELe/akasmAt" in kannaDa and "agar/yadi" in hindi. NOT in the sense of "perhaps" as given in the "Popular" translation.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Jun 2006, 16:47

---On that key suktha, I would have much preferred this ( as if I have a choice ): he verily knows it, AND perhaps he knows not. Though it sounds bizarre at first reading, that can actually refer to the 'potential' for Him to exist in both states.... That is probably quantum philosophy crazy talk!!--.

I think this way of looking at things is more near home than others. The limitation we have as "humans" is that we look at things in terms of time and space and dichotomies. We can only percieve and understand through our senses. It is "Impossible" to think otherwise except by giving up all shackles of science and human limitation by meditating on "That Supreme".

For example, I find it impossible to imagine a "limitless/boundless" universe that is "expanding". ANd if I try to imagine a universe with boundary/end, which in itself is immense beyond imagination, I cannot fathom what is beyond it. A simpler example much closer home and easier to understand:- we see everything in colour and that is how "It is" as far as we are concerned. But most other animals and insects see everything in black and white and as far as they are concerned, that "is how it is". To us, their perception is limited. And to all those animals, "Our perception" is confounding and falsely copmplex. Now who is to decide which is "true" to original. Perhaps neither. Maybe everything that we percieve is distorted and false. Which could well be the origin of the concept of "mAyA".

God is beyond dichotomies and hence the question of "know" and "not know" is redundant. Because if "That" "knows" then there is possibly something that "That" does "Not know" which is impossible if God is "Allpervading" and "omniscient" Our language is created for our convenience and thus has all limitations that our faculties impose. Or perhaps it is our "interpretations" that are limited and not the language per se.

We cannot impose our limitations on God. This is what our SAstras and vEdas say- that God is "dESakAlAtIta". This is exactly the same as "beyond time and space". Hence "That" is nirguNa.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Jun 2006, 20:14

A small correction here!
nirguNa means without guNa which implies that He once had guNa (saguNa) lost it and became nirguNa! Just like nirdhana means a person with dhana(sadhana) lost it and became nirdhana. In fact God is 'aguNa' i.e., to start with he never had guNa to lose it. He is indeed 'aguNabrahmam' (though the word is not found or discussed in philosophical texts!). The 'aguNabrahmam' out of compassion for humanity acquired guNa to become saguNabrahmam in His several avataras and once we realize Him through those avataras (bhakti yoga for example) gnaana dawns (gnaana yoga) whence we attain the nirguNabrahmam (by getting rid of the guNas). Again the aguNabrahmam acquires guNas for creation ( assuming the form of brahma the creator) which again dissolves as nirguNabrahmam into the eternal aguNabrahmam.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Jun 2006, 21:22

so aN^ga veda yadi vA naveda|
deserves a lexical analysis. here is a word by word meaning!
so = saH = He
aN^ga = indeed/verily
veda = I/he knew (past perfect); also means I/he know(s) (present tense; but this usage is in the classical sanskrit and cannot be applied to the vedic sanskrit!)
yadi = if
vA = or
na = not

The sentence literally translates to
'he indeed (knew) if not (knew)'

Hence Griffith's translation
'he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. ' fits if we make allowance for his use of classical sanskrit (knows for knew) and equating perhaps to 'doubtful if'.

Dayananda's
'know Him if thou dost not know him.'
does not fit since the verb is not in the imperative second person (viddhi).

Now let us see whether the 'first person' makes any sense here. let us take 'so aN^ga' as complete in itself when it would mean
He indeed/verily (is) (the verb is implied)
In otherwords the author (bharadvAja) admits that He exists (whatever be the controversy about his creation or non creation of the world).
Now the latter part is
I knew if or I not knew
or I knew (Him) or if I did not know (Him).
Or in other words the seer doubts his knowledge or non-knowledge of Him who indeed exists (whether he created the world or not). I believe this explanation is logical and consistent with the theistic faith of the vedic seers (cf. the puruShssUktam..' vEdAhamEtam puruSham mahAntaM..."

Or in summary these final words are the expression of faith by the seer on the existance of the Almighty and an expression of doubt regarding his comprehension of Him irrespective of the fact of creation!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 24 Jun 2006, 23:15

Also with all due respects, saying that the Vedas are divine revelations is quite a twist. That is blind theology that makes no allowance for science or logic. I agree our understanding may be limited, but that does not necessarily mean it is stunted enough to not be able to understand anything.

The origin of the Rig Veda, for example is traced to Angirases (Angirasa and his clan/family) and to a lesser extent to the Bhargavas (Bhrigu & family). This is also evidenced by the cognates existing in the zoroastrian religion (like "Aingra Mainyu").

Maybe that is why we find a lot of people claiming Bharadvaja lineage.

Sorry if I offended anyone's notions.

In the case of the nAsadIya suktam, I too found Griffith's translation better than Dayanand Sarasvati's, though with all humility, I am too small to stand in judgement over the Swami's calibre or knowledge.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 24 Jun 2006, 23:26

CML guNa is attribute, AkAra is form - right?

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 25 Jun 2006, 00:01

The origin of the Rig Veda, for example is traced to Angirases (Angirasa and his clan/family) and to a lesser extent to the Bhargavas (Bhrigu & family). This is also evidenced by the cognates existing in the zoroastrian religion (like "Aingra Mainyu").

The vEdas are believed to have been "revealed through" and "codified by" these sages rather than "created by" them. It is interesting that you mentioned zorastrian and aingra mainyu. I actually was reading a book today about zarathushtra, avestan, aingra mainyu etc. I wonder why we both were reminded of the avestan connection.

Do you remember I mentioned on Sangeetham Bboard about Ahun and avestan similarity to sanskrit? You were keen on continuing the discussion elsewhere? In this book also some of the connectionns are dwelt upon. Ahun and aum(as alos amen) are connected and according to the author aum is derived from Ahun and the Indian aryans are descendants of Iranian Aryans(Turanians).

Maybe that is why we find a lot of people claiming Bharadvaja lineage.

Sorry I did not get the connection. Please explain.

CML guNa is attribute, AkAra is form - right?

That is correct. AkAra and rUpa are form while guNa/lakShaNa/viSEShaNa/upAdhi is attribute

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2006, 00:24

vedas are considered 'apauruShaM' meaning not created by 'man'. The vedic seer (see--> seer) is the mantra draShTa (d^Rish=see), he is the one who 'discovers' it through meditation! The same word became 'pArppAn' (pArppavan =one who sees) which became 'pAppAn' (now used in the derogatory sense

). (from the talks of parmaachaarya...)

The Iranian (and Greek connections) are fascinating and worth investigating. But vedic sanskrit is native to India and not borrowed from those sources. It is equally likely words found in those languages may have found their way from sanskrit!(while westerners prefer it the other way around!)

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 25 Jun 2006, 00:47

The same word became 'pArppAn' (pArppavan =one who sees) which became 'pAppAn' (now used in the derogatory sense ). (from the talks of parmaachaarya...)

Yes. Its the same as "pArva/pARuva/hARuva" etc in kannaDa. Incidentally I was reading the book "chandOdarSana" yesterday(published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan) which is extolled as the latest revealtion and part of RgvEda. The seer lived in the 20th century in gOkarNa, Karnataka. Very fascinating.

It is equally likely words found in those languages may have found their way from sanskrit!(while westerners prefer it the other way around!)

I agree CML. The very sound and form of the samskRta words make it clear that they are the uncorrupted form and that the other language equivalent words are derived from samskRta. It is very similar to the feeling of "ancience" you get on hearing "kempu" and "kivi" in kannaDa alongside cemmai and cevi in tamizh. It is "ka" which is older and is palatalized to "ca".

But "Ahun" in avestan is "derived"(Author says) from Ah meaning "To be". This is a suspicion I have always had in my mind that aum and Ahun and Amen are related to "A"(Agu, Ahu^) in kannada/tamizh(Dravidian).

Agum/Avum--aum and independently leading to Ahun by the nasal twang replacing the terminal full "M'.(Which is a common occurrence in telugu/tamizh etc even today). Incidentally the sankEti form of Agum is "Ahu~n" whic is identical to avestan!

Amen means "So be it"/tathStu. It is not inconceivable to derive Amen as Am+en(kannaDa/tamizh) meaning "say yes" that is the same as "so be it"!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Jun 2006, 01:22

Amen means "So be it"/tathStu. It is not inconceivable to derive Amen as Am+en(kannaDa/tamizh) meaning "say yes" that is the same as "so be it"!

That is new... and I like it very much!!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Jun 2006, 01:54

DRS
have a look at
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birod ... klore.html

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 25 Jun 2006, 03:55

Do you remember I mentioned on Sangeetham Bboard about Ahun and avestan similarity to sanskrit?

Avestan is definitely a sister of Old Sanskrit (Vedic). There is no ambiguity in this assertion. The relation between them is crystal clear. So it is too at the religious level. All historians and linguists (consensus) accept this as a fact.

I guess you remember the Naqsh-E-Rustam inscriptions of Persian Emperors Dharayaush (Darius the Great) and Kurush (Cyrus the Great) in Avestan and the Sanskrit translation which I posted on BBoard? I'm posting it here again.

In Avestan:
Adam Darayavaush Khshaayathiya vaazraka,
Khshaayathiya Khshaayathiyaanaam,
Khshaayathiya Dekhyaanaam
Parsyha Parshya Puthra Arya, Arya Chitra.

Translated to Sanskrit:
Aham Darayavaush Kshatriya Vajraka
Kshatriya Kshatriyanaam
Kshatriya Deshyanaam
Parashya Parashyaputhra, Arya Aryachitra

In english:
I am Darayavaush, strongest king (compares himself to diamond's strength)
King among kings, King of many nations
Persian, Son of a Persian, Aryan of the Aryan Distinction.

Other words:
Skt Soma = Avestan Haoma
Skt Sindhu = Avestan Hindu
Skt Sapta = Avestan Hapta = Greek Hepta
Skt Deva = Avestan Daeva = Latin Dei
Skt Asura = Avestan Ahura
Skt Vritrahana (Indra, the slayer of Vritra) = Avestan Verethraghna
Skt Mithra = Avestan Mithra

I can go on and on and on about this connection.

The Baltic people have a close affinity with us too.

See this relation between Sanskrit and Lithuanian:

Skt sunus son - Lith. sunus;
Skt viras man - Lith. vyras;
Skt avis sheep - Lith. avis;
Skt dhumas smoke - Lith. dumas;
Skt padas sole - Lith. padas;
Skt antaras second - Lith. antras;
Skt vrkas wolf - Lith. vilkas;
Skt mamsa meat - Lith mėsa;
Skt dwaya two - Lith du;
Skt traya three - Lith trys;
Skt chatura four - Lith keturi.

The ancient baltic people (latvians, lithuanians, old prussians etc) venerated "fire".

Some common religious symbols:

Hindu Dharma - Baltic Darna
Hindu Lakshmi - Baltic Laima
Hindu Prajapati - Baltic Pradziapatis
Hindu Devas - Baltic Dievas
Hindu Vaidika - Baltic Vaidilos
Hindu Devata - Baltic Dievaitis
Hindu Ushas - Baltic Aušra

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Jun 2006, 05:47

The vEdas are believed to have been "revealed through" and "codified by" these sages rather than "created by" them.

I would like to augment your statement further. This would mean one of the following:

(1) The rshis already spoke the language that is called "Vedic Sanskrit" and used this pre-existing language to codify the Vedas which were revealed to them.

(2) Not only were the Vedas revealed to the rshis, but they were also somehow indoctrinated with the language of the Vedas which they did not know prior to the revelation.

(3) The rshis received the knowledge of the Vedas through divine connection, and then invented Vedic Sanskrit themselves to codify this knowledge.

(4) The Vedas, Vedic Sanskrit, and the rshis who carry the knoweledge of the Vedas along with its means of transmission (Vedic Sanskrit) were all manufactured at the same time by divine force.

I find the scenarios (1) and (2) unlikely. I don't believe that Vedic Sanskrit existed before the Vedas, and probably neither did the rshis. Also, Vedic Sanskrit has not used for anything except for codifying the Vedas and their ancillary literature (I am not counting the evolution of other languages out of Vedic). Hence I tend to believe (4) and possibly (3).

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Jun 2006, 06:12

It is equally likely words found in those languages may have found their way from sanskrit!(while westerners prefer it the other way around!)

The "western" scholars should not be considered a monolithic entity with uniform beliefs. There are all types, from those who believe that everything Indian originated in the steppes of Central Asia to those that believe the Indians basically civilized the western world.

Regarding the 19th- and early 20th-century western scholars (Muller, Monier-Williams, Griffith, et al), my characterization of them is that they were "useful idiots". In other words, they did the present generation a service in translating the vast Sanskrit literature and make it accessible to a wider audience. On the other hand, their knowledge and appreciation of Indian civilization is not enough to make good interpretations overall. In some cases however, they approached difficult issues more logically than many traditional Pandits and "Swamiji"s. Overall, I think the nomenclature of "useful idiot" is apt.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Jun 2006, 06:25

Do you remember I mentioned on Sangeetham Bboard about Ahun and avestan similarity to sanskrit?

Avestan is most likely a derivative of Vedic Sanskrit. The Iranian Avesta is essentially in the same spirit as the Atharva Veda, which is the latest of the four Vedas. The Iranian texts do not have the same antiquity as the Indian ones.

As you have pointed out, there are many miscellaneous cultures that carry similarities with Indian civilization. For example here is one chap that says the Croatians came out of India:

http://www.dalmatiahus.com/Hrvatat/Croats01.html

kaapi · Post by **kaapi** » 25 Jun 2006, 18:49

A small correction here!

CML you are right. I feel the appelation of Nirguna is purely from the seeker's perspective. The seeker starts of worshipping the suguna brahmam and as he progresses slowly "strips" it of the gunas and ultimately sees it as nirguna brahmam.
I think the vedas call it consistently as asat.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 25 Jun 2006, 20:05

I find the scenarios (1) and (2) unlikely. I don't believe that Vedic Sanskrit existed before the Vedas, and probably neither did the rshis. Also, Vedic Sanskrit has not used for anything except for codifying the Vedas and their ancillary literature (I am not counting the evolution of other languages out of Vedic). Hence I tend to believe (4) and possibly (3).

I'd like to put another possibility... the scientific one, which is that the Vedas were not divine revelations but were rather composed or compiled by several generations of rishi families starting with the Angirasas and Bhargavas.

The vedic language obviously is one that was already in existence for a thousand years or more before the Vedas came to be first expressed. This, in linguistic circles is what is called Proto-Indo-European.

It's fine to think that they were divine revelations, but years of hard work and research by hundreds or thousands of linguists the world over cannot be dismissed so presumptuously.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Jun 2006, 20:34

The vedic language obviously is one that was already in existence for a thousand years or more before the Vedas came to be first expressed. This, in linguistic circles is what linguists call Proto-Indo-European.

This is what was believed in the 19th and early 20th century, and propagated by the "western" historians and linguists. How are we sure of the date of the Vedas ? Most of the proposed dates are controversial.

And even if we assume the date is fixed, and if the language existed for a thousand years before, how come we have this copious Vedic literature in a highly advanced language but not a single word before that ? Of course anything is possible, but what is probable ?

Proto-Indo-European is a nice castle for the linguists to construct, but how does one know that Proto-Indo-European was not Vedic Sanskrit. Much effort has been expended in trying to prove that other languages/dialects (even most miscellaneous and minor ones) are older than Vedic, with no success. Is there a single piece of literature or any other proof of a language that is older than Vedic ? Most of the attempts presented have been discredited.

I am not a "Hindu nationalist" or anything, but it seems to me that after one cuts through the thick layer of academic dryness in which the whole debate is couched, all this fuss is essentially an attempt to prove that Indo-European civilization could never have originated from India.

*Somehow or the other*, small (both in geographical extent and content) ancient civilizations like Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt et al *must* be put on an equal footing as ancient Indian civilization which covered an area several times all the others put together and produced literature several times all the others put together.

It's fine to think that they were divine revelations, but years of hard work and research by hundreds or thousands of linguists the world over cannot be dismissed so presumptuously.

I think that linguistics is powerful when dealing with analysis of real languages and backed up with other physical evidence. But when one starts creating an imaginary language, asserting where it came from, and using it to date Vedic texts and what not, then that is a bit much (for me at least).

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 25 Jun 2006, 21:38

Avestan is definitely a sister of Old Sanskrit (Vedic). There is no ambiguity in this assertion. The relation between them is crystal clear. So it is too at the religious level. All historians and linguists (consensus) accept this as a fact.

Srkris. I have/had no doubts about the relationship between these languages. Apart from the translations you have given, there are a few more mentioned in various internet sources.

It is firmly established that Sanksrit, Greek, Latin and their derivatives are all related closely. Not just in vocabulary but in the grammatical construction which is more important in establishing relationships. Simply looking at shared words will be very misleading.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 25 Jun 2006, 21:42

It's fine to think that they were divine revelations, but years of hard work and research by hundreds or thousands of linguists the world over cannot be dismissed so presumptuously.

Actually the two need not be mutually exclusive. Why shoud not God reveal The Truth through an earthly language? When all creation is God's, every language is divine.

Going back to "chandOdarSana" I mentioned in my earlier post, that was revealed to this seer who was not very well-versed in sanskrit. So when God chooses to reveal, language is not a barrier

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Jun 2006, 01:45

While we are quarelling about Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Iranain civilizations we are conveniently ignoring our native 'dravidian' civilization. I am not stating that the 'Aryans' were invaders but were migrants. The flourishing 'Harappan civilization' at that time was distinctly 'southern' and it is still alive in some parts of South. It is chauvinistic to label it 'Tamilian' since there is room to believe 'kannada' co-existed at that time. In fact the fusion between the Aryan and dravidian languages and thought processes took place at the 'Sindhu-Indogangetic plains'. The survival of 'zha' among the sama vedins in the south (cited by parmAcArya)is proof that the lingusitic developments were universal in the sub continent. The segregation to 'classical sanskrit' led to the evolution of local dialects and other Indo-dravidian languages. Perhaps the classical Tamil was the least corrupt among them but the thought process was similar whether it was vedic sanskrit or classical Tamil. We need linguistic research to explore the relations between the vedic sanskrit and ancient Tamil. It is no accident that 'tolkaapiyar' wrote Tamil grammar about the time Panini was polishing his sutras. Scholars who could do such comparative studies are fast becoming extinct!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 26 Jun 2006, 07:01

While we are quarelling about Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Iranain civilizations we are conveniently ignoring our native 'dravidian' civilization.

See for example:

http://www.indiaforum.org/india/hinduis ... age18.html

Frawley summarizes many of the issues including the "migration versus invasion" (see the links to the side).

Is "Dravidian" civilization really any more or less "native" to India than "Indo-Aryan" civilization ? And what about the Vedic rshi Agastya ? Also, "Dravidian" lanaguages are spread over just as large and area of Asia and Europe as the "Indo-European" languages.

Just some interesting thoughts...the whole "Aryan/Dravidian" debate has become quite voluminous with much information available on the internet. Here is another "Out of India" theorist: http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 26 Jun 2006, 14:59

This is what was believed in the 19th and early 20th century, and propagated by the "western" historians and linguists. How are we sure of the date of the Vedas ? Most of the proposed dates are controversial.

I am not putting forth any proposed dates. For a language to have reached the required complexity and structure as that of Vedic, it must have already been in existence for about a thousand years if not more. Languages dont just appear, they evolve.

And it does not matter if it was believed in 19th century or 15th century as long as it is backed up by credible research and evidence.

And even if we assume the date is fixed, and if the language existed for a thousand years before, how come we have this copious Vedic literature in a highly advanced language but not a single word before that ?

Vedas were deemed fit to be preserved and passed down. And this happened orally for hundreds/thousands of years before they were first put down in writing. Other literature did not survive since they did not merit oral retention and preservation. Please note there was most probably no script for Vedic by the time the Vedas were composed. The language was not a written language. Writing was invented probably much later.

Proto-Indo-European is a nice castle for the linguists to construct, but how does one know that Proto-Indo-European was not Vedic Sanskrit. Is there a single piece of literature or any other proof of a language that is older than Vedic ? Most of the attempts presented have been discredited.

PIE was indeed very close, but not the same as Vedic. Dating literature is not as easy as dating physical objects. That said, it is accepted that the Vedas are the most ancient existing literature of any language, but that does not mean Vedic was invented with the Vedas. This PIE language was a stage earlier than when the Vedas came into the picture. Again, it was very close to Vedic.

all this fuss is essentially an attempt to prove that Indo-European civilization could never have originated from India.

On the contrary, this has nothing to do with where it originated. It just means that Vedic did not just appear out of nowhere, but was rather already existing as a spoken language (not written language) at the time the very first verses of the Vedas came into being. My knowledge (by no means authoritative) also suggests India was the original homeland, simply because the vedas do not contain any reference to any other place outside India. Geography in the Vedas never extends beyond the Indus.

But when one starts creating an imaginary language, asserting where it came from, and using it to date Vedic texts and what not, then that is a bit much (for me at least).

It is not an imaginary language. The existence of PIE is almost universally accepted and proved by thousands of independent researchers. "What it was actually like", is where the research is still going on. One could call PIE as Vedic, because that is actually what it was, but it is called PIE to distinguish it from the Vedic corpus and account for the minor differences that the language of the Vedas does not reconcile. If it has gone as far as to affect Persian, Greek, Latin, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Armenian, Anatolian, Slavic and other language groups, it cannot be called purely as an Indian language, even though its roots might have been in India.

DRS

Not just in vocabulary but in the grammatical construction which is more important in establishing relationships. Simply looking at shared words will be very misleading.

Very right.

Actually the two need not be mutually exclusive. Why shoud not God reveal The Truth through an earthly language? When all creation is God's, every language is divine.

OK, but as far as I know, the Vedas do not contain revelations. Their content is far from the stuff found in revelations. They display some of the earliest forms of human expressions - fears, exultation, prayers, dialogues and so on.

CML

I am not stating that the 'Aryans' were invaders but were migrants.

You can say that people from the HinduKush mountain ranges and Pakistan/Afghan/Kashmir areas were migrants into India, but at that time, that was "India" for them. There is no evidence whatever that they came from Central Asia or Europe. The Aryan Migration Theory that suggests migration to India, has no grounding.

The survival of 'zha' among the sama vedins in the south (cited by parmAcArya)is proof that the lingusitic developments were universal in the sub continent.

This is unique to the Jaiminiya shaka (found mostly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and not in the Kauthuma or Ranayaniya shakas. The "zha" was a very late borrowal from Tamil and was not in existence very long ago.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:16

It is not an imaginary language. The existence of PIE is almost universally accepted and proved by thousands of independent researchers. "What it was actually like", is where the research is still going on.

Both PIE and proto-dravidian languages have been propounded by researches to account for the similarities between various langages geographically widespread. It is a logical extrapolation and hence accepted although there is no other proof/evidence for the existence of these languages.

as far as I know, the Vedas do not contain revelations. Their content is far from the stuff found in revelations. They display some of the earliest forms of human expressions - fears, exultation, prayers, dialogues and so on.

Yes. Some of the stuff talks of really mundane topics

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:33

Vedas were deemed fit to be preserved and passed down. And this happened orally for hundreds/thousands of years before they were first put down in writing. Other literature did not survive since they did not merit oral retention and preservation. Please note there was most probably no script for Vedic by the time the Vedas were composed. The language was not a written language. Writing was invented probably much later.

Rightly said

My knowledge (by no means authoritative) also suggests India was the original homeland, simply because the vedas do not contain any reference to any other place outside India. Geography in the Vedas never extends beyond the Indus.

ALthough I do not disagree with your thoughts about Indian origin of Vedas, your logic is not necessarily fault-proof. Things need not be so straightforward. People, when they migrate enmasse, carry their memories with them which include names of countries, cities, rivers etc. This is a well-documented fact in recorded history- kAmbhOja(Afghanistan to Cambodia), New York, New Jersey etc. Infact, the author of that book I quoted sais present-day Iran was actually named after another original Iran situated elsewhere.

One could call PIE as Vedic, because that is actually what it was, but it is called PIE to distinguish it from the Vedic corpus and account for the minor differences that the language of the Vedas does not reconcile.

Yes. Even when handed down meticulously and devoutly, changes in the language would have crept in surreptiously here and there when the handing over takes place over millenia. This is clear even from the article (Frawley?) quoted by CML(?) earlier:- that people were horrified to note differences in written down Vedas and spoken language, It would be ridiculous to say that Vedic sanskrit did not change at all until after a script was devised and the Vedas written down. The differences/changes were not noticed earlier only because there was no other "older" reference to compare the "contemporary" spoken language. I think the initial "Sa" sound gave way to "ha" in some words. Avestan has replaced it with "za". But vedic sanskrit as we know today is still the closest representative of PIE and very likely the PIE that has continued forward with some changes.

OK, but as far as I know, the Vedas do not contain revelations. Their content is far from the stuff found in revelations. They display some of the earliest forms of human expressions - fears, exultation, prayers, dialogues and so on.

There is some ambiguity in the statement. Not all of Vedas is "prayer/exultation etc". Many of the Rks are very cleaaly philosophical and easily seen as revealations.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:48

Is "Dravidian" civilization really any more or less "native" to India than "Indo-Aryan" civilization ? And what about the Vedic rshi Agastya ? Also, "Dravidian" lanaguages are spread over just as large and area of Asia and Europe as the "Indo-European" languages.

The connections between dravidian language family and the finno-ugric/Alraic family of languages is as yet unproven and tenuous. SO at the moment it is a tall claim to say the Dravidian languages are spoken in Europe and Japan. The farthest it gets at present is Baluchistan with lot of research and debate about Sumerian/ Elam and kannada/tamizh. There is indeed a "hypothesis" that the original homeland of Dravidians is the Mediterranean region. A few seeming similarities between languages could be purely by co-incidence or because of contact/exchange in prehistoric/historic times . This is by no means evidence of a commom origin. For instance, Greek play by Ptolemy(oOxyrhynchus papyri) have several kannaDa words. Does that prove that Greek is Dravidian or Kannada is a IE language? It is obvious that this is purely a case of borrowal secondary to extensive trade contact.

Some of the North AMerican Indian languages have some kinship terms that are identical or nearly so with Dravidian kinship terms. This is mentioned by Karl Marx in his writings! Now this is something that could be investigated further. It may come to nothing but kinship terms are integral to th core of ones culture and language and hence are more likely to suggest relationship/common origin.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:58

There are 3 major prehistoric substrata of languages(possibly races) in India- IE, Dravidian and Munda.(4 if you include the Mongoloid but this is much more recent). Munda is considered the oldest substratum, dravidian coming next and IE last of all. Of these Munda has been sidelined completely and is spoken only by various tribes, IE and Dravidian have both survived, thrived and flourished as literary languages. But dravidian also has its share of tribal languages. There are no IE tribals except the gypsies.

Exchanges and mutual influences have definetely occured between all the three groups at a very fundamental level, perhaps because they were all associated at a very early stage of language development. Researchers find it difficult at times what is natoive and what is borrowed when it comes to Dravidian and Munda. Sanskrit also has been influenced significantly by Dravidan and Munda. In fact, some of the letters in ths sanskrit alphabet are considered by scholars as having occured entirely due to Dravidian influence(Ta, Tha, D, Dha Na and of course La and zha). All these interchanges have occured not only at the level of word borrowal but more fuindamentally.

If one goes far back into the past(say 1 lakh years), it is most probable that all languages have a common origin(Going by the theory of African origin of humanity). But that is too far back and for one, makes it impossible to study as there cannot be any surviving evidence and for another, would be unintelligible due to the passage of time.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 26 Jun 2006, 21:33

People, when they migrate enmasse, carry their memories with them which include names of countries, cities, rivers etc.

Right. There is evidence that the Persians have done just that. In Avestan, the letter 's' becomes 'h', so we have sindhu called as "hindu" by Persians. Soma (Vedic deity/drink) is called Haoma. They named a river in Iran as Harahvati (after Sarasvati).

However the original Sarasvati has to be a river that has lakes in its course (which I think the Rig Vedic river would have satisfied). Also take note of the nadhi stuti in the Rig Veda (10.75), it mentions the big rivers of that time, which cannot be the case if it was composed outside India.

pra su va āpo mahimānamuttamaṃ kārurvocāti sadanevivasvataḥ |
pra sapta-sapta tredhā hi cakramuḥ prasṛtvarīṇāmati sindhurojasā ||
pra te.aradad varuṇo yātave pathaḥ sindho yad vājānabhyadravastvam |
bhūmyā adhi pravatā yāsi sānunā yadeṣāmaghraṃ jaghatāmirajyasi ||
divi svano yatate bhūmyoparyanantaṃ śuṣmamudiyartibhānunā |
abhrādiva pra stanayanti vṛṣṭayaḥ sindhuryadeti vṛṣabho na roruvat ||
abhi tvā sindho śiśumin na mātaro vāśrā arṣantipayaseva dhenavaḥ |
rājeva yudhvā nayasi tvamit sicau yadāsāmaghraṃ pravatāminakṣasi ||
imaṃ me ghaṅghe yamune sarasvati śutudri stemaṃ sacatā paruṣṇyā |
asiknyā marudvṛdhe vitastayārjīkīye śṛṇuhyāsuṣomayā ||
tṛṣṭāmayā prathamaṃ yātave sajūḥ sasartvā rasayāśvetyā tyā |
tvaṃ sindho kubhayā ghomatīṃ krumummehatnvā sarathaṃ yābhirīyase ||
ṛjītyenī ruśatī mahitvā pari jrayāṃsi bharate rajāṃsi |
adabdhā sindhurapasāmapastamāśvā na citrāvapuṣīva darśatā ||
svaśvā sindhuḥ surathā suvāsā hiraṇyayī sukṛtāvājinīvatī |
ūrṇāvatī yuvatiḥ sīlamāvatyutādhi vastesubhaghā madhuvṛdham ||
sukhaṃ rathaṃ yuyuje sidhuraśvinaṃ tena vājaṃ saniṣadasminnājau |
mahān hyasya mahimā panasyate.adabdhasyasvayaśaso virapśinaḥ ||

Many of the Rks are very cleaaly philosophical and easily seen as revealations.

Where does God have the need for philosophical statements? If it is a revelation, it is expected to contain truth, not philosophy. That means they are clearly not revelations, right?.

Anyways, I am not interested in probing into this. It contains enough interesting stuff, whether revelations or not.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 21:53

Right. There is evidence that the Persians have done just that. In Avestan, the letter 's' becomes 'h', so we have sindhu called as "hindu" by Persians. Soma (Vedic deity/drink) is called Haoma. They named a river in Iran as Harahvati (after Sarasvati).

Spot on. But strangely, Avestan has Za in place of some Ha in sanskrit.

Where does God have the need for philosophical statements? If it is a revelation, it is expected to contain truth, not philosophy. That means they are clearly not revelations, right?. .

Perhaps philosophy was not the right choice of word. ANd I cannot think of any word that is "right". Let it be. If it was clear to very Tom, Dick and Harry like you and me, where is the place for Human effort Kris?

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 22:12

Right. There is evidence that the Persians have done just that. In Avestan, the letter 's' becomes 'h', so we have sindhu called as "hindu" by Persians. Soma (Vedic deity/drink) is called Haoma. They named a river in Iran as Harahvati (after Sarasvati).

Well apart from your interpretation, there can be 2 other interpretations

1) That Both our sarasvatI and Iran,s harahvati were named after another sarasvati in the original homeland

2) That our sarasvatI was named after Iran's sarasvati(which later changed to harahvati as the language changed).

However the original Sarasvati has to be a river that has lakes in its course (which I think the Rig Vedic river would have satisfied).

Lots of rivers would satisfy this criterion. I of course have seen the rest of your reasoning..

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 22:49

nice article on RgvEda from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 26 Jun 2006, 23:07

Languages dont just appear, they evolve.

That is a conventional (and rather obvious) viewpoint. But there is no reason to discount that languages could *just appear*, not evolve. Please consider the fact that there is no other literature in Vedic Sanskrit apart from the Vedas and the ancillary literature pertaining to them. What prevents someone from inventing a language for the sole purpose of preserving the information contained in the Vedas ?

Your statement that "languages evolve" is correct if we are talking about languages that are commonly used on a daily basis. Vedic does not fall in this category. Is there any evidence that anyone spoke Vedic Sanskrit ?

And it does not matter if it was believed in 19th century or 15th century as long as it is backed up by credible research and evidence.

I do not believe this research and evidence is credible when held to the same scientific standards that are applied in the natural sciences.

Vedas were deemed fit to be preserved and passed down. And this happened orally for hundreds/thousands of years before they were first put down in writing. Other literature did not survive since they did not merit oral retention and preservation.

This is only a conjecture which cannot pass muster by any modern scientific standards.

Please note there was most probably no script for Vedic by the time the Vedas were composed. The language was not a written language. Writing was invented probably much later.

Rather than accept the conventional "wisdom", please consider the potential absurdity of the above statement. What this means is that we have a people who were capable of an extremely intricate and advanced language (starting from the arrangement of the alphabet to myriad grammatical rules) to encode the Vedas, but did not know how to write!

What is furthermore absurd is the Indus valley civilization. If we are to believe the AIT and its variants, we have a civilization that was vast in extent but has not left a single piece of literature even though they had a script. Is there such a parallel anywhere ? And the double whammy is that the supposed "Aryans" who apparently were illiterate, have left us the Vedas.

I think that we can discuss this for ever, but to me this simply does not make sense, and I am amazed that this passes muster in linguistics and other social sciences.

On the contrary, this has nothing to do with where it originated. It just means that Vedic did not just appear out of nowhere, but was rather already existing as a spoken language (not written language) at the time the very first verses of the Vedas came into being.

The problem is these are all conjectures which can *never* be presented as fact or even as highly probable by any decent standards of scientific validity. It may pass muster elsewhere but then anything goes.

It is not an imaginary language. The existence of PIE is almost universally accepted and proved by thousands of independent researchers.

It is "universally accepted" by linguists and not by others. This is like saying, "I am universally liked, although I am not known to anyone other than my family members." I do not know if you have any familiarity with the academic world, but things are not so cut-and-dried as they seem. The "thousands of independent researchers" are by-and-large products of a small group of prior researchers, and they have all "grown up" being trained in the PIE hypothesis which then becomes a truth unto itself with little thought for "reality checks". Especially in social sciences, where the stakes are so low in comparison to fields like engineering/medicine/natural sciences, the shelf life of untenable theories can stretch for decades or even centuries.

OK, but as far as I know, the Vedas do not contain revelations.

The problem with that statement is that it reduces the Vedas to triviality. If revelations were obviously visible and straightforward and easy to understand, then there would be no need for the massive corpus of commentaries (bhashyas) and no need for the six darsanas of Indian philosophy.

Could it be that orthodox Indian philosophy, which focused primarily on the Vedanta (i.e. the Upanishads), has not even touched the tip of the iceberg in comprehending the Veda ?

Their content is far from the stuff found in revelations. They display some of the earliest forms of human expressions - fears, exultation, prayers, dialogues and so on.

And why should that be exclusive of revelation ?

This is unique to the Jaiminiya shaka (found mostly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and not in the Kauthuma or Ranayaniya shakas. The "zha" was a very late borrowal from Tamil and was not in existence very long ago.

Yes, you are right about this.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Jun 2006, 23:26

What prevents someone from inventing a language for the sole purpose of preserving the information contained in the Vedas ?

A language, especially one so refined , complex and nearly perfect one as sanskrit cannot be 'Invented" by anyone(Except God himself). It is nonsensical to believe a human being can do that. Such languages evolve over millenia.

Is there evidence that anyone spoke Vedic Sanskrit ?

Is there any evidence that it wasnt?

Rather than accept the conventional "wisdom", please consider the potential absurdity of the above statement. What this means is that we have a people who were capable of an extremely intricate and advanced language (starting from the arrangement of the alphabet to myriad grammatical rules) to encode the Vedas, but did not know how to write!

There is nothing odd or absurd in this. Speech is essential but NOT writing.
Speech is vital for survial. And the tradition of handing down poetry/mantras orally is well documented in Indian history. Dont we ourselves do it. So many kRtis/dEvaranAms/kAvyas have been handed down orally without finding the need to write them down. Isnt the sandhyAvandane set of mantras itself not handed down orally. What is so strange or incongruous about it? And scripts always occur much later in the development of language. Even today we know o scountless "cultured and refined" languages that have not found the necessity to have their own script- tuLu, konkaNi, sankEti.

What is furthermore absurd is the Indus valley civilization. If we are to believe the AIT and its variants, we have a civilization that was vast in extent but has not left a single piece of literature even though they had a script. Is there such a parallel anywhere ? And the double whammy is that the supposed "Aryans" who apparently were illiterate, have left us the Vedas.

Nice reasoning.

It is "universally accepted" by linguists and not by others. This is like saying, "I am universally liked, although I am not known to anyone other than my family members."

Sorry. This is a lame argument. Are you saying the whole world should accept the existence of PIE. 80% of the world,s population has no clue about the language malayalam or the poet kALidAsa. Do they cease to exist because of this? The overwhelming majority of world(A helluva lot of Indians too) does not understand Classical music or its rules and regulations. Do these cease to exist just because of this?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 26 Jun 2006, 23:29

The connections between dravidian language family and the finno-ugric/Alraic family of languages is as yet unproven and tenuous.

Aha! But I am sure some linguist will succeed in "proving" this connection in a few years. Just you wait! :cheesy: And if we want to follow this up further, let me say that I am not referring to "loanwords" but rather the structure of the language (inflected versus agglutinative). If you have any faith in linguistics, then the connection between Dravidian and Finno-Ugric languages is not so "tenuous". Indo-European languages are inflected whereas Finnish and Hungarian are essentially agglutinative languages like Tamil.

So at the moment it is a tall claim to say the Dravidian languages are spoken in Europe and Japan. The farthest it gets at present is Baluchistan with lot of research and debate about Sumerian/ Elam and kannada/tamizh.

I totally agree with you. The thing is, one can trace ancient languages all over the world, reconstruct PIE, and still have only an extremely fuzzy idea of who moved where and when. Another decisive factor is that we still have little idea of the time scales involved. Every year we hear of some archaeological discovery that pushes back the date of civilization by a few hundred years. Once you get to 5000+ years it is anyone's guess as to how reliable the PIE and Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Dravidian hypothesis are and whether they actually give any useful information.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 27 Jun 2006, 00:03

[quote=""Sangeet Rasik""]If you have any faith in linguistics, then the connection between Dravidian and Finno-Ugric languages is not so "tenuous". Indo-European languages are inflected whereas Finnish and Hungarian are essentially agglutinative languages like Tamil./quote]

SR. Lots of considerations are taken into account in determining kinship between languages/families.

Just being 'Agglutinative" is likely necessary but not sufficient condition. That could be merely a coincidence.

1- Similarity in structure and construction which includes tenses, case endings, noun and verb endings, pronouns, gender classification etc

2- similarity in vocabulary- especially core vocabulary like parts if the body, kinship, food, eating/sleeping, numbers etc.

3- Similarity in cultural practices/folk legends/myths

4- A plausible explanation of geographical contiguity(present/past) and cultural identity

5- Reasons for separation route of migration if the same has occurred

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 27 Jun 2006, 00:04

A language, especially one so refined , complex and nearly perfect one as sanskrit cannot be 'Invented" by anyone(Except God himself). It is nonsensical to believe a human being can do that. Such languages evolve over millenia.

I have no trouble with believing that such a language could have been invented only by God (I mentioned this as a possibility). But it hard to see why a human being (especially one who received divine enlightenment) could not invent it. If you believe this is a "nonsensical" argument then there is nothing much to discuss furhter. Your final statement is simply a conjecture (of course, not yours but that of others) with little to show for it.

By the way, why does Sanskrit have such an unusual name ? Most (or maybe all) other languages are named after a region or tribe.

Is there any evidence that it wasnt?

No there isn't - but I did not claim it to be a fact that Vedic Sanskrit was not a spoken language. I said there is no evidence for such a thing. However, srkris mentioned confidently that it has been spoken and has also confidently told us why there is no other literature except for the Vedas.

There is nothing odd or absurd in this. Speech is essential but NOT writing.

Advanced civilizations have a lot of things that are not "essential". We do not need cars - we can walk. Again, when you try to put two and two together, they don't add up. So who are the Vedic people - pastoral herders/agriculturalists with no writing but a wonderful language of thousands of grammatical rules ? How many pastoral/agricultural communities are there which need such a sophisticated language for a simple life ? Or if they were advanced in intellect to evolve Vedic Sanskrit over millenia, does it make sense that they were illiterate ? It is not as if they were living in an illiterate world. There were literate civilizations left and right during the Vedic age (China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus). And in the middle of this we have our friends the illiterate Vedic speakers! Anything is possible, but what is probable ?

Speech is vital for survial. And the tradition of handing down poetry/mantras orally is well documented in Indian history.

I don't dispute that. The question is, if you have a society that has enough time and creativity to compose the Vedas and evolve Vedic Sanskrit, they were not in a stage where they are worried about mere survival.

It is "universally accepted" by linguists and not by others. This is like saying, "I am universally liked, although I am not known to anyone other than my family members."

Sorry. This is a lame argument. Are you saying the whole world should accept the existence of PIE. 80%

Did I say this ? I am saying that the "well accepted evidence" stems largely from a relatively small group of people in one field, that further cannot be corroborated directly. Please consider the process of PIE generation. It is by internal reconstruction, which by definition is a circular process. This is a completely different standard of evidence than is scientifically acceptable.

I am not saying that everyone needs to learn engineering in order to believe what engineers say - one can take it for granted but if one wanted, one can try it oneself and reproduce the result as many times as we like. This is not possible in historical linguistics (of course, this is not the fault of the linguist !) and hence by definition, "accepted theories" in linguistics should by their very nature be considered much more tenuous than theories of natural science.