04-02-2007, 10:09 PM
I apologise if this has been dealt with already, or I am posting in the wrong section. I am a relatively new member, so please excuse any errors due to my ignorance.
I have long believed that the <i>Devas</i> in Santana Dharama, which foreign interpreters have taken to mean demi-gods, is a misrepresentation of what they really denote.
Reading the Western interpretations of the Vedas on sacred-text.com; I find primitive incantations to various gods, magic spells and sacrificial rituals. It is consistent with the Western perception of history; tree-dwelling tribal communties to advanced modern civilisation. However, supposedly from the Vedas the Darsanas have come forth. They even attribute their knowledge to the Vedas. The Darsans, even Western scholars admit, are highly sophisticated knowledge and philosophical schools. How can you reconcile then, the schism between Western interpretation of Vedas which suggest a primitive and Agrian society with an advanced philosophial-scientific society suggested by the Darsanas.
You can't. So either it is is untrue that the Darsanas are based on the Vedas or the Western interpretations are untrue.
If we accept that the former is untrue, then that accuses the Darsanas of lieing. It is hard to digest that such an advanced rationalist people would lie about the origins of their knowledge, and why?
If we accept the latter is untrue, then that implies that the Western interpreters mistranslated the Vedas(whether unintentionally or intentionally) This is far more likely given their ignorance of Sanskrit and their imperialist political designs.
But I am not somebody who goes on faith alone. If it is true that the Vedas are the origin of the Darsanas, then we should be able to find this in the Vedas e.g., the Vaiseshika, Yoga and Nyaya theories etc, should be in the Vedas in some form or the other.
After some study, I have found the schism between the Western interpretation of the Vedas and the Indian interpretation stems from the understanding of what Deva means. The popular Devas are: Agni, Indra, Surya, Asvins, Brahma, Savitiri(and countless more)
There are according to the Western scholars(I use the term loosely) millions of Indian Devas. Now, here is what is interesting. In the Vedas you find that Devas come out of Devas e.g., Agni from Surya. You even have plurals of Devas e.g., many Agni's, Suryas, Murats. Sometimes you have different names for the same Deva.
Therefore they cannot be taken to be individual deities or people as the Westerners interpret this. You find varying western interpretation on what the Devas denote: from Indra being a commanding chief of the Aryan army, who slays Vritra(the chief of the Dasyus) to taking them to be demi-gods as in Odinism.
To confuse us further in the Puranaic, the Devas are likened to deities and Westerner scholars use to reinforce their translations. However, the Puranas came much later than the Vedas, so it would be contextually inaccurate to use their definitions to interpret the Devas in the Vedas.
A more accurate and correct method of interpretation would be to contexually anaylse the Devas in Vedas, and supporting texts, such as the Brahamans to clarify meaning. If we do that, we actually find that the Devas maybe denoting natural phenomena or goverening principles of natural phenomena. Surya is the Sun; Agni is energy; Savitri is speech.
It makes sense therefore that Agni is in Surya. There is a Vedic Sanskrit couplet that says <b>Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaha, Suryaha, Suryaha</b> which means there are suns in all directions. Not only does this support that Surya means Sun, it also demonstrates that the Vedic Risis understood that the Sun is a star.
Therefore if we take the code that each Deva refers to a natural phenomena or a governing principle, the Vedas can be reinterpreted as a scientific text, wholly consistent with the Darsanas that sprung from it. There is certainly no suggestion of a primitive tree-dwelling civilisation.
The beauty of Sanskrit is its morphology is perfect. We can break down each word to it's root to understand the meaning. The Sanskrit word, gurutvakarsha, refers to the sun and its role in upholding the solar system. If we break it down it's into it's parts guru(master) and akarsha(attraction) and I am assuming tv means of. Then it means that the sun is the master attractive force that upholds the solar system. This implies the the Vedic Risi's understand the heliocentric theory of gravitation.
There are yet many other Devas in the Vedas, which I cannot understood yet because of my limited knowledge of Sanskrit. But I am sure that if we were able to reinterpret the Vedas more accurately, we would uncover all kinds of scientific knowledge and learn what what each Deva represents.
Do you know of any scholars who have attempted to reinterpret the Vedas in this way?
I have long believed that the <i>Devas</i> in Santana Dharama, which foreign interpreters have taken to mean demi-gods, is a misrepresentation of what they really denote.
Reading the Western interpretations of the Vedas on sacred-text.com; I find primitive incantations to various gods, magic spells and sacrificial rituals. It is consistent with the Western perception of history; tree-dwelling tribal communties to advanced modern civilisation. However, supposedly from the Vedas the Darsanas have come forth. They even attribute their knowledge to the Vedas. The Darsans, even Western scholars admit, are highly sophisticated knowledge and philosophical schools. How can you reconcile then, the schism between Western interpretation of Vedas which suggest a primitive and Agrian society with an advanced philosophial-scientific society suggested by the Darsanas.
You can't. So either it is is untrue that the Darsanas are based on the Vedas or the Western interpretations are untrue.
If we accept that the former is untrue, then that accuses the Darsanas of lieing. It is hard to digest that such an advanced rationalist people would lie about the origins of their knowledge, and why?
If we accept the latter is untrue, then that implies that the Western interpreters mistranslated the Vedas(whether unintentionally or intentionally) This is far more likely given their ignorance of Sanskrit and their imperialist political designs.
But I am not somebody who goes on faith alone. If it is true that the Vedas are the origin of the Darsanas, then we should be able to find this in the Vedas e.g., the Vaiseshika, Yoga and Nyaya theories etc, should be in the Vedas in some form or the other.
After some study, I have found the schism between the Western interpretation of the Vedas and the Indian interpretation stems from the understanding of what Deva means. The popular Devas are: Agni, Indra, Surya, Asvins, Brahma, Savitiri(and countless more)
There are according to the Western scholars(I use the term loosely) millions of Indian Devas. Now, here is what is interesting. In the Vedas you find that Devas come out of Devas e.g., Agni from Surya. You even have plurals of Devas e.g., many Agni's, Suryas, Murats. Sometimes you have different names for the same Deva.
Therefore they cannot be taken to be individual deities or people as the Westerners interpret this. You find varying western interpretation on what the Devas denote: from Indra being a commanding chief of the Aryan army, who slays Vritra(the chief of the Dasyus) to taking them to be demi-gods as in Odinism.
To confuse us further in the Puranaic, the Devas are likened to deities and Westerner scholars use to reinforce their translations. However, the Puranas came much later than the Vedas, so it would be contextually inaccurate to use their definitions to interpret the Devas in the Vedas.
A more accurate and correct method of interpretation would be to contexually anaylse the Devas in Vedas, and supporting texts, such as the Brahamans to clarify meaning. If we do that, we actually find that the Devas maybe denoting natural phenomena or goverening principles of natural phenomena. Surya is the Sun; Agni is energy; Savitri is speech.
It makes sense therefore that Agni is in Surya. There is a Vedic Sanskrit couplet that says <b>Sarva Dishanaam, Suryaha, Suryaha, Suryaha</b> which means there are suns in all directions. Not only does this support that Surya means Sun, it also demonstrates that the Vedic Risis understood that the Sun is a star.
Therefore if we take the code that each Deva refers to a natural phenomena or a governing principle, the Vedas can be reinterpreted as a scientific text, wholly consistent with the Darsanas that sprung from it. There is certainly no suggestion of a primitive tree-dwelling civilisation.
The beauty of Sanskrit is its morphology is perfect. We can break down each word to it's root to understand the meaning. The Sanskrit word, gurutvakarsha, refers to the sun and its role in upholding the solar system. If we break it down it's into it's parts guru(master) and akarsha(attraction) and I am assuming tv means of. Then it means that the sun is the master attractive force that upholds the solar system. This implies the the Vedic Risi's understand the heliocentric theory of gravitation.
There are yet many other Devas in the Vedas, which I cannot understood yet because of my limited knowledge of Sanskrit. But I am sure that if we were able to reinterpret the Vedas more accurately, we would uncover all kinds of scientific knowledge and learn what what each Deva represents.
Do you know of any scholars who have attempted to reinterpret the Vedas in this way?