This post is a continuation of the immediately preceding one where I am attempted to take down the fallacies of typical Hindu apology on the translations of ancient Indian scriptures (esp. Vedas and Upanishads) and issues involved in their interpretations.
I am reproducing that response from M Rao again below but highlighting a different portion of the response for critical analysis and refutation:
"I have problem with any translations or interpretations of the ancient writings because most of them start with preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own. I don’t mind reading those translations but do not attribute them to the Vedic thoughts if they don’t make sense. They are only the translator's interpretations and not necessarily the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis.
The Maharishis were scholarly men of high intellect and spent their lifetime in forests and mountaintops in contemplation. The subject of their contemplation can only inferred. One can be certain they were powerful thoughts because they gave rise to the most colorful civilization of beautiful arts, literature, and philosophy, and world's religions Buddhism and Jainism. With such profound influence it is not rational to consider those thoughts as hallucinations of senile old men sitting high on mountaintops deprived of oxygen.
I am reproducing that response from M Rao again below but highlighting a different portion of the response for critical analysis and refutation:
"I have problem with any translations or interpretations of the ancient writings because most of them start with preconceived personal ideas, self interests, and prejudices of their own. I don’t mind reading those translations but do not attribute them to the Vedic thoughts if they don’t make sense. They are only the translator's interpretations and not necessarily the true thoughts of the ancient Maharishis.
The Maharishis were scholarly men of high intellect and spent their lifetime in forests and mountaintops in contemplation. The subject of their contemplation can only inferred. One can be certain they were powerful thoughts because they gave rise to the most colorful civilization of beautiful arts, literature, and philosophy, and world's religions Buddhism and Jainism. With such profound influence it is not rational to consider those thoughts as hallucinations of senile old men sitting high on mountaintops deprived of oxygen.
If the Rishis talked about Agni, Vayu, Varuna, and Aswins were they worshipping the physical elements and horses? Why did they constantly worry about the strong man Bala stealing cows and hiding them in his cave. Veda Vyasa was a scholarly gentleman but why did he bother to write a treatise about what appears to be a common family quarrel between brothers and their cousins about a piece of land? Why is a kidnap thriller a holy book? If they don’t make sense all this about Hinduism could be BS as you have noted. Or those thoughts and the puranas are not interpreted as the Rishis intended. I strongly believe that it must be the latter. The key perhaps lies in the metaphorical style of Rishis in expressing their thoughts.
The Acharyas. Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madwa did not agree with each other about their interpretation of Vedas. So you have company if did not like Shankaracharya's Vedanta. The three hated each other so much that they have their own communal followings with the segregated communities prohibited some years ago from not even dining together. I would read their interpretations but do not wish to become a blind follower nor needlessly get agitated with the interpretations. Historians say that the rise of Buddhism all over India during Emperor Ashoka's time was a big headache to the Acharayas. They ultimately managed by elevating Buddha to an Avatar level but banished Buddhism from its place of birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who advocated conversion of untouchable into Buddhism hated all three Acharayas because he considered they were responsible for all the social ills. He too read Vedas but came to his own biased interpretations which naturally are all negative. He talks of historical evidence that Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirupati was originally a Buddhist shrine but taken over and converted to a temple by the Acharyas with help of local kings. He says that ceremony of offering hair to the Lord really came from the Buddhist custom. The story doesn’t end there. Initially the temple was said to be controlled Advaita group and so the Lord was branded on his forehead (namam) with horizontal bars. Subsequently the Vaishnavites became stronger - took over the temple and changed the horizontal bars into vertical bars. Even after all these historical turmoils and upheavals the mystery of Vedas still remains".
Let us look again at this statement below:
"The Maharishis were scholarly men of high intellect and spent their lifetime in forests and mountaintops in contemplation."
It is not clear from this opinion whether the Maharishis were the rishis or sages of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas or the Itihasas (epics) or one or some or all of them. The opinion of the responder that these rishis were scholarly and of high intellect is a subjective one, the reasonableness of which cannot be properly judged or determined unless a proper context and detail is provided.
In the absence of the detail provided by the opinion-maker, the context has to be inferred or deduced. The nature of scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis mentioned here has perforce to be inferred from the understanding of the impression and image that a religiously inclined Hindu has of the term or name Maharishi. It is not very unreasonable to suspect that the image of scholasticism and high intellect of a Maharishi that such Hindu conservatives hold is derived from legends, hearsay and biographical (or rather hagiographical) accounts of particular sages (say like Agastya, Vasistha or Visawamitra) as against any reading and analysis of the verses of Vedas and Upanishads that are supposedly attributed to them. It will also not be off the mark to suppose that this scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis may not be referred to as some kind of excellence in any empirical discipline or branch of knowledge.
Rig Veda (RG) is mostly a book of prayer, dedication and wish-fulfillment versification with most of its stray philosophical and cosmological musings being confined to or concentrated in the 9th and 10th Mandala out of a total of 10 Mandalas. When the overwhelming majority of its content is prayer, dedication and wish-fulfillment versification directed at forces or aspects of nature that were portrayed as deities or aspects of divinity, that should identify the rishis of the Vedas as poets and priests, not scholars or philosophers or even prophets. There are also some descriptions of pastoral and nomadic life of its times in the RG, which would serve to qualify its authors or rishis with the designation of recorders or writers or even some type of biographers or some variety of historians. But to promote them to the level and lofty titles of scholars, diviners and intellectual pioneers seems to be quite a leap of exaggeration.
Though some sections of Hindu conservatives make such far-fetched inferences, the typical Hindu or Indian cultural awe of the reputation of a Maharishi is not credited to their of knowledge of physical or empirical sciences like chemistry or geology or physics or engineering. Advances of ancient and medieval India in the fields of astronomy, medicine and metallurgy, though attributed to inspirations of ancient scriptural texts is more a speculative theory than one based on an analysis and understanding of historical developments of the Post-Vedic age and its cultural and trading exchanges with the civilizations of Greece and Persia.
Therefore the allusion to the scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis appears to be of a non-empirical kind and most likely in the realm of metaphysical theory and opinions or ideas that are sought to be justified by recourse to primacy of idealistic belief ( in contrast with evidence-based belief) in the ability or mastery of these sages in matters that are assumed to exist beyond the reach of experience, perception, investigation and validation.
This reference to the rishis of the Rig Veda and other traditions of the Vedas provides an idea of how assumption and dogma take the place of an informed historical method of evaluating the contribution of Rishis in the composition of the Vedas and Upanishads. If the analysis of the bibliography of the Vedas is taken into consideration, not even 5% of the huge corpus of the Rig Veda is regarded to be philosophical even in its most ordinary connotations, by academic consensus as against the eagerness and default religious reflex of the religious or conservative Hindu in perceiving all kinds of superlative philosophical and mystical grandeur in even the most mundane musings of its verses. The poetry of the Vedas and Upanishads also seems to be assumed to be the metaphoric equivalents of some deep unfathomable mysticism.
Another aspect of this belief system and assumptions of Hindus about their Maharishis is their picturing of the lifestyle of their objects of reverence spending their lifetimes in contemplation in forests and mountain-tops. The existence of texts such as the Aranyakas can some supply some idea of the possibility of forest dwelling recluses and sages. But it seems a bit puzzling that the Hindus also entertain visions and ideas of sages spending their time on tops of mountains. It seems very likely and plausible, though not completely certain and convincing that places like the forest and mountain-tops more so the mountain tops with their topographical crudities and challenges would hardly be places affording the convenience and comforts that are conducive to an intellectually intense exercise of contemplation. Though mountain tops or peaks are good for sports like climbing and hiking, it seems rather odd that they would be stimulating for contemplative exercises. Very little detail is provided on the heights of these mountain-tops and whether higher a peak is or extending higher into the sky, the better it is for meditation and contemplation.
It does seem to tickle the fancy and imagination of the religious to fantasize their revered sages spending time in contemplation and meditation among the snow-clad heights and peaks of the Himalayas. Considering that these rishis and sages are pictured to be scantily clad and if there is any truth in such sartorial stinginess of those seers, it seems unlikely that they can subsist in those inhospitable and hostile climes, let alone contemplate and take up the pursuits of higher truths. If we are to believe the accounts of the names and lists of Vedic seers, they seem to number around 360. If the narrative accounts of the Vedas are looked at, these rishis seem to be more terrestrial than mountain-bound or air-borne. The religiously naive also do not pause to think that even though solitude may aid in introspection and deeper processes of thinking, why would the harsh and hostile solitude of the mountains and the forests provide a superior home for the splendor of contemplation and rumination.
The Acharyas. Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madwa did not agree with each other about their interpretation of Vedas. So you have company if did not like Shankaracharya's Vedanta. The three hated each other so much that they have their own communal followings with the segregated communities prohibited some years ago from not even dining together. I would read their interpretations but do not wish to become a blind follower nor needlessly get agitated with the interpretations. Historians say that the rise of Buddhism all over India during Emperor Ashoka's time was a big headache to the Acharayas. They ultimately managed by elevating Buddha to an Avatar level but banished Buddhism from its place of birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who advocated conversion of untouchable into Buddhism hated all three Acharayas because he considered they were responsible for all the social ills. He too read Vedas but came to his own biased interpretations which naturally are all negative. He talks of historical evidence that Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirupati was originally a Buddhist shrine but taken over and converted to a temple by the Acharyas with help of local kings. He says that ceremony of offering hair to the Lord really came from the Buddhist custom. The story doesn’t end there. Initially the temple was said to be controlled Advaita group and so the Lord was branded on his forehead (namam) with horizontal bars. Subsequently the Vaishnavites became stronger - took over the temple and changed the horizontal bars into vertical bars. Even after all these historical turmoils and upheavals the mystery of Vedas still remains".
Let us look again at this statement below:
"The Maharishis were scholarly men of high intellect and spent their lifetime in forests and mountaintops in contemplation."
It is not clear from this opinion whether the Maharishis were the rishis or sages of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas or the Itihasas (epics) or one or some or all of them. The opinion of the responder that these rishis were scholarly and of high intellect is a subjective one, the reasonableness of which cannot be properly judged or determined unless a proper context and detail is provided.
In the absence of the detail provided by the opinion-maker, the context has to be inferred or deduced. The nature of scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis mentioned here has perforce to be inferred from the understanding of the impression and image that a religiously inclined Hindu has of the term or name Maharishi. It is not very unreasonable to suspect that the image of scholasticism and high intellect of a Maharishi that such Hindu conservatives hold is derived from legends, hearsay and biographical (or rather hagiographical) accounts of particular sages (say like Agastya, Vasistha or Visawamitra) as against any reading and analysis of the verses of Vedas and Upanishads that are supposedly attributed to them. It will also not be off the mark to suppose that this scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis may not be referred to as some kind of excellence in any empirical discipline or branch of knowledge.
Rig Veda (RG) is mostly a book of prayer, dedication and wish-fulfillment versification with most of its stray philosophical and cosmological musings being confined to or concentrated in the 9th and 10th Mandala out of a total of 10 Mandalas. When the overwhelming majority of its content is prayer, dedication and wish-fulfillment versification directed at forces or aspects of nature that were portrayed as deities or aspects of divinity, that should identify the rishis of the Vedas as poets and priests, not scholars or philosophers or even prophets. There are also some descriptions of pastoral and nomadic life of its times in the RG, which would serve to qualify its authors or rishis with the designation of recorders or writers or even some type of biographers or some variety of historians. But to promote them to the level and lofty titles of scholars, diviners and intellectual pioneers seems to be quite a leap of exaggeration.
Though some sections of Hindu conservatives make such far-fetched inferences, the typical Hindu or Indian cultural awe of the reputation of a Maharishi is not credited to their of knowledge of physical or empirical sciences like chemistry or geology or physics or engineering. Advances of ancient and medieval India in the fields of astronomy, medicine and metallurgy, though attributed to inspirations of ancient scriptural texts is more a speculative theory than one based on an analysis and understanding of historical developments of the Post-Vedic age and its cultural and trading exchanges with the civilizations of Greece and Persia.
Therefore the allusion to the scholarly temper and high intellect of Maharishis appears to be of a non-empirical kind and most likely in the realm of metaphysical theory and opinions or ideas that are sought to be justified by recourse to primacy of idealistic belief ( in contrast with evidence-based belief) in the ability or mastery of these sages in matters that are assumed to exist beyond the reach of experience, perception, investigation and validation.
This reference to the rishis of the Rig Veda and other traditions of the Vedas provides an idea of how assumption and dogma take the place of an informed historical method of evaluating the contribution of Rishis in the composition of the Vedas and Upanishads. If the analysis of the bibliography of the Vedas is taken into consideration, not even 5% of the huge corpus of the Rig Veda is regarded to be philosophical even in its most ordinary connotations, by academic consensus as against the eagerness and default religious reflex of the religious or conservative Hindu in perceiving all kinds of superlative philosophical and mystical grandeur in even the most mundane musings of its verses. The poetry of the Vedas and Upanishads also seems to be assumed to be the metaphoric equivalents of some deep unfathomable mysticism.
Another aspect of this belief system and assumptions of Hindus about their Maharishis is their picturing of the lifestyle of their objects of reverence spending their lifetimes in contemplation in forests and mountain-tops. The existence of texts such as the Aranyakas can some supply some idea of the possibility of forest dwelling recluses and sages. But it seems a bit puzzling that the Hindus also entertain visions and ideas of sages spending their time on tops of mountains. It seems very likely and plausible, though not completely certain and convincing that places like the forest and mountain-tops more so the mountain tops with their topographical crudities and challenges would hardly be places affording the convenience and comforts that are conducive to an intellectually intense exercise of contemplation. Though mountain tops or peaks are good for sports like climbing and hiking, it seems rather odd that they would be stimulating for contemplative exercises. Very little detail is provided on the heights of these mountain-tops and whether higher a peak is or extending higher into the sky, the better it is for meditation and contemplation.
It does seem to tickle the fancy and imagination of the religious to fantasize their revered sages spending time in contemplation and meditation among the snow-clad heights and peaks of the Himalayas. Considering that these rishis and sages are pictured to be scantily clad and if there is any truth in such sartorial stinginess of those seers, it seems unlikely that they can subsist in those inhospitable and hostile climes, let alone contemplate and take up the pursuits of higher truths. If we are to believe the accounts of the names and lists of Vedic seers, they seem to number around 360. If the narrative accounts of the Vedas are looked at, these rishis seem to be more terrestrial than mountain-bound or air-borne. The religiously naive also do not pause to think that even though solitude may aid in introspection and deeper processes of thinking, why would the harsh and hostile solitude of the mountains and the forests provide a superior home for the splendor of contemplation and rumination.
Great blog! Keep it up!!!
ReplyDeleteYou should read this book " A Journey of self discovery" from the following link
http://www.e-vedas.com/elib.htm
Regards
Hi Causeless M
DeleteI hope your sentiment and understanding of the blog posts is sincere and that you are not a trojan. I was quite intrigued by your reference to Hinduism as a degraded religion and yet you are pointing me to works of clowns like AC Bhaktivedanta. With fools and bufoons like him Hinduism does not need enemies.