The meanings derived are good but I have the following doubts 1) demigod for birth and morning demigod for death and night ... Provide references from where you got the information because it is not mentioned in the mantra 2) I did not get such translations in dictionary save - sham us - naha
initially I thought I will be using the word Angel for "DEVAS". But, In Hinduism there is no angels. So, I thought using demigod will be a apt word
The reason being, vayu, varuna, shani and so on devas who manage various aspects of nature (AIR, WATER, FIRE and so on) with Indra as there leader.
They are not GOD themselves but they are subset of the GOD himself. GOD exhibit super natural powers(RAMA, KRISHNA, HANUMAN). But, Devas don't. So, I have termed devas as "demigod"
I suggest we have to keep them as Devas instead of translating it to something like demi-god which is clearly not conveying the status of whoever has been referred to.
A question to all In spite of the books we refer should we need to cross check if the translations are conforming?
The reason I specified it in English is many might not understand the word deva as it is (people who are not from our culture).
Say for example: panchaswadhikaraneshu pancha = 5 adhikarana = Heading. Instead of saying heading, it can be kept as adhikara as it is. but, many might not know the meaning. The very purpose of translation is defeated. However, I understand, we may not be able to convey the exact meaning, as the reader must be aware of a bit of past.
I dont know how I am qualified to even comment on this :) But still, here are some points:
- I had heard commentary sometime back by Swami Adidevananda of Ramakrishna Mission, who spoke in similar lines, so I deem you are on perfect path.
- There are some comments on choice of words, which I know are hard to translate:
1) SHAM: Somehow I am not able to digest "save" for SHAM. From my understanding SHAM is something close to "auspiciousness" or "favorableness" or "propitiousness", i.e. Shubhakara.
2) With regard to Mitra, Varuna etc as DEMIGODs; I thought it could have been "ruling dieties" or "presiding dieties" or something like that, even though demigod is right too. Indra is the adidevata or abhimana devata for our sensual organs in general and particularly right hand is what I have heard. With regard to urukramah, since He conquered the entire Universe in three steps, He rules the legs (may be) is what I have heard. This you may know, but still, I have also read that these are the prominent Adityas (mitra, varuna, aryama, vishnu, varuNah)
3) When translating "namo brahmaNe | namaste vaayu", you say "Brahmane here adresses the invisible GOD, vaayu Thou indeed art the visible Brahman; salutations to visible and invisble GOD". I think we can go one step at a time here. At this state discussion of "visible and invisible GOD" is a jump, because "pratyaksha brahma" is yet to be discussed.
Moreover, I think it could be "Unmanifested" (yeah, not an easy word, I know; something beyond the sensory perceptions) instead of "Invisible" (may be a good choice for ease but still; one may ask if it can be heard or smelled or touched or tasted :D ;) :P hehe). Further, I am not sure if GOD is the right word because Brahman has different meanings depending on context, and here also I do not see it as a GOD because Vayu is a manifestation of that one GOD and there are multiple manifestations of that one GOD. There is only one GOD and if we are not careful Vayu could be confused with that one GOD. Vayu is more of an "aspect" of GOD, not GOD itself. Anyway, even this is my personal understanding, we can discuss this in detail when we meet, if you are interested :D ;)
4) You have written "tvam eva pratyaksham brahmaasi" and "tvam eva pratyaksham brahma vadishyaami". The second phrase should be "tvaaaam eva pratyaksham brahma vadishyami", it is "tvaam" and not "tvam". Tvam is "neenu" and tvaam is "ninnannu". In the first phrase we sat "neenE pratyaksha brahma aagiddeye", so tvam is right, but in the second phrase we say "ninnannu pratyaksha brahma anta hELteeni" anta so it should be "tvaam".
5) Even with the Rtam and Satyam I have other thoughts :) Rtam is that which is established, fixed and unchanging and Vayu is that aspect. Satyam is that which exists and that which exists by itself independently and Vayu is that aspect. Again, this is my personal understanding, could be wrong. These words have multiple meanings and should be contemplated on every possible meaning, which makes translation a very tricky one. I sincerely aplaud for your effort.
6) What is "It" in "May It protect myself" (I think there is a typo in "listener"). I have been thinking about this, why should we say "tat mam avatu", why "tat" all of a sudden? Is "It" refering to Vayu? If so, why not say "Vayu tvam ava" to Vayu directly, why say "May It protect me"? Because till now we were using direct speech (tvam eva pratyaksham brahma asi etc), why indirect speech all of a sudden?
7) Why say twice? "tat maam avatu" and "avatu maam", why is "tat" dropped in the second recitation?
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
I have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like "I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
I have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like "I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
I have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like "I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
Both has to be done Arya. Translation is the first step where we will be discussing the wording that can be used and so on. For example usage of words like demi gods, ruling deity and so on.
Later the second is to dig into the meaning. Just like reader has mentioned in his 7th point. So, we should be actually doing the first in the first place to start the second.
gods who control bodily functions once engaged in a contest to determine who among them is the greatest. When a deity such as that of vision would leave a man's body, that man would continue to live, albeit as a blind man, and would regain the lost faculty once the errant deity returned to his post. One by one, the deities all took their turns leaving the body, but the man continued to live on, though successively impaired in various ways. Finally, when Mukhya Prāna started to leave the body, all the other deities started to be inexorably pulled off their posts by force, "just as a powerful horse yanks off pegs in the ground to which he is bound." This caused the other deities to realize that they can function only when empowered by Vayu, and can be overpowered by him easily
@Arlagada Yeah vayu may be considered supreme among the deities who control bodily functions. But we cannot conclude that it is the visible god(well visible here means only manifested form and not in literal sense)? can we conclude that?
Thats right Arya... we cannot conclude. But, at the same time we need to see if Brahma = "GOD". this is a common problem with translation as GodCon as mentioned.
I am going through certain books to see how translation is done and how such problems is taken care. Will come back with some data to help anweekshiki
Sorry for the confusion I may have created with Satyam and Ritam. Satyam cannot be non-eternal, because it exists by itself irrespective of relative aspects. For example, Brahma is Satyam, how can it be non-eternal. So, may be I have created some confusion.
We have to note that these two terms are so intricately / intrinsically related that it is hard to draw a line. Even though I think I understand I am probably incapable of expressing in words. I tried to find some references online but could not, but here is something close to what I was having in mind.
Translation: Truth was born and the Law of Truth, from the kindled fire of Energy of Consciousness.
Purport: The Supreme Reality is not a mere existence, immutable and featureless. It is supremely aware; it is a Consciousness. And this Consciousness is again not a mere awareness. It is dynamic, it is a Power. When this Consciousness as Power moves into action, creation ensues. First the Truth basing the creation, the satyam, formulates itself and then the Law of the working of that Truth, ritam. This self-determination of Truth is the seed of creation and its Law lays down the lines and governs the development of the manifestation.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/504550/Ritam: In the Vedic philosophy, the basic principle of the universe, the ultimate reality on which the cosmos exists, is the principle of Ritam, which is the word from which the Western notion of right is derived. There is thus a belief in a right moral order somehow built into the universe itself. Hence, truth and right...
I am not sure if my take on Ritam and Satyam makes sense. I had described Rtam as that which is established, fixed and unchanging (something which is a law or rule or an order in the system; for example Sun rising in the East or Vayu as the sustainer of living beings, or the understanding that the Soul is indestructible through study of Shastras etc where there is an endeavour of understanding or realization), and Satyam as that which exists and that which exists by itself independently (self-standing truth, example Brahman just exists just as an tree exists within a seed; it just exists; may be irrespective of the emperical approach to it) .
Not sure if I have clarified my understanding or confused more ;) :D
Ritam Satyam Param Brahma Purusham Krishna Pingalam Ūrdhwaretam Virūpāksham Vishwarūpāya Vai Namo Namah
Aralagada, I think that is close to what I understand these terms.
Anweekshiki, I had similar thoughts about point 6. In addition, I was thinking that "tat" could be referring to "BrahmaNe". Here is why. If we observe, there are two aspects mentioned here, "Brahman" (paroksha Brahman?) and "Vayu" (pratyaksha Brahman). We are trying to understand the paroksha by first accepting the pratyaksha. Brahman is a "neutral" entity, genderless, while Vayu is Male. So, "tat" cannot be for Vayu, but could be for Brahman. Since "Namo BrahmaNe" comes before "Namaste Vayu", we first say "Tat mam avatu", i.e. may that (neutral) brahman protect me, and then followed by protection from Vayu (Avatu mam, without the tat).
If we go by the above logic then we can address point 7 also, as to why we repeat it twice.
Other reasons why we could say twice are:
1) Repeatition signifies emphasis. But this does not answer why twice, why not thrice; In Isavasyopanishad also we say: "om krato smara kṛtam smara | krato smara kṛtam smara", repeating twice, so there must be some strong reason.
2) Protection from DUALities of existence; to reach dvandaatita state for both the self and the speaker (guru).
3) Protection to the mind and the soul; why not protection to body, may be because mind and soul are more important than body? :)
Emphasis on the statements, as you have mentioned might be one reason. I can think of an other reason for these repetitions.
"lekaH salekH sulekH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu
ketaH saketH suketH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu
vivaswagaM adhitirdEvajootiH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu"
Look at the above mantra. Of course there is no repetition, but there is a rhythm in the mantra, there is a obvious poetic feel when sung. If you have observed sangeeta (which is considered as upaveda of sama veda), many a times "charaNa" is now and then repeated, just to give balance the rhythm.
If we take a random sample of mantras from vedopanishd what we see in common is pleasantness in the rhythm. Probably, personally I am attracted to vedas for this feature of it in the first place. later comes contents in it.
Just out of curiosity, could you please cite the refences for these shlokas.
I agree that repetition is certainly a key factor but I get curious and get stuck in such trivial matters as "why twice, why not thrice". I have probably understood the logic for three but still curious about the twice repetition, and I somehow feel that there is something deeper than just the repetition as in the thrice.
As you have said, here the idea is not repetition, it is certainly on pattern/rhythm but slightly above rhythm as it touches different aspects, because lekha (could be a diety or some writing), salekha (along with that lekha) and sulekha (a purer / purified/ improvised/ better form of that lekha) are different from one another. Yes, the pattern is beautiful and thanks for sharing this.
1) About "tat" referring to Brahman is my personal contemplation, not sure how valid or right it is.
2) My understanding of Sanskrit is at a novice level, but I try to understand one thing from multiple perspectives
3) Yes, Avatu means -- a) to defend, to protect, to maintain; avati, aava, avita, aaveet (we will see aaveet in the end) b) To please, to satisfy, to give pleasure to, to do good to; c) to like, desire, wish, love d) to favor, promote, animate e) (in slightly extended forms) to satisfy, to satiate, to promote, to cherish, behave friendly towards etc
I missed adding this in the end. So, we need to take the word in the context of the conversation. Same applies to BRAHMAN or ATMA, which mean so many different things that it enables us to derive a huge combination of meanings to one simple phrase.
Trivia: I think that "avalambane" (dependending on someone) comes from "av" daatu, not sure.
I have just started to appreciate the beauty in Sanskrit, as to how it blossoms into numerous flowers depending on the context and also its appropriate usage.
Tat mam avatu, tat vaktaaraM avatu avatu mam, avatu vaktaaraM
Surprisingly, where ever these statements are used, they are repeated twice. Shanti mantra(Main article), Ganesha Atharva sheersha and couple of other sukthas(which I dont remember now, will get back with those once i refer).
The difference that i have observed is, there in atharava shreesha, Ganapathi is refered as "pratyaksha brahma", here in shanti mantra vayu is refered as "pratyaksha brahma".
GOD is one and cannot be changed, in that case, "Brahma" cannot be GOD as word "Brahma" is used differently in different context.
"yennam brahmopaasate" (Taitriya upanishad, annamaya kosha) - "anna" is called brahma. and so on.
a) to defend, to protect, to maintain; avati, aava, avita, aaveet (we will see aaveet in the end)
this best suits the text avatu in the mantra we are discussing
Now i have the following doubts (pl. don't feel i am asking only questions and not finding solutions)
1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
2) avatu maam - Protect me Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
You are right Anweekshiki. There are three texts in which I found "avatu" sholkas: Taittariya, Aithariya and GanapathyatharvashIrsham.
We are discussing Taittariya in this blog.
In the Ganapathiatharvashirsham it is a bit clear I felt. It uses "ava" (You), which is a direct speech to Ganapathi, unlike "avatu" we have seen which is an indirect speech refering to someone (may that protect me). Here, we have: ava tvam maam (YOU protect me); ava vaktaram (again, YOU protect the speaker), ava shrotraram (protect the listener, which need not be me), ava dAtAram (the giver, donor?), ava dhAtAram (the guardian) etc. So there is little confusion and my interpretation can be applied here.
But interestingly in Aitariyopanishad, we say: Om vaanjme manasi pratishtitaa mano me vaachi pratishTitam-aavirveerma yEdhi; vedasyam ma aNIsthaH, shrutam mE mA prahAsIr-anEna-adhIti-ena-ahOrAtrAn sandadhAmi; Ritam vadishyami, satyam vadishyami; tat mam avatu, tad vaktaram avatu, avatu maam, avatu vaktaaram, avatu vaktaram Here we have just Brahman (paroksha) and we are seeking His vision (pratyaksha). But we have "tad mam avatu and avatu mam". So, my interpretation of Taittariyopanishad Shantih Mantras may not be right. But, here we seek protection for the "vaktaram" thrice :)
So, there must be some reason that I still am not been able to find. I will see if I can contact some experts and find out.
1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
tat means "That" (that in english is certainly from "tat" in Sanskrit) and not "this" (yetat is this). Anwyay. Here Avatu is used, which is a request. If it was "avati" or "avishyati" then we can say it is an assertion, but avatu is more of a request or even order sometimes. Again, it depends on the context and the mood of the agent. You are say "Let it protect me" but one needs to be humble and hence see it as "may it".
2) avatu maam - Protect me Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
Avatu maam is again an order or request. We did not conclude that it is vaayu, we are just contemplating and trying to understand why it is said twice. Three possibilities have been considered: "It" could be referring to Vayu, Brahman, or One's state of mind afore set (Anweekshiki has written about this in his response: August 31, 2010 10:31 PM)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Vaktara in this context is the Teacher (Guru), who is speaking and the student is the Shrotara (listener). The student is now just reciting what the teacher had originally spoken to him.
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
maam here is the reciter (whoever recites the upanishad requests this), vaktaara is the teacher who teaches/taught this. There are three characters now:
A Student who first received it. A Teacher who first spoke it. A Reciter (we all) who are reading it now.
Does it make sense now? :)
Aaaah! While I am discussing this with you now I get another idea :) can it be that the Shrotara himself will eventually become Vaktara to a new set of people (i.e. a student becoming a teacher eventually), so there are two sets of Teachers and Students here, a recurring loop, may be? So, I am seeking protection for the original teacher and the subsequent teachers, and myself. Not sure, need to think about this a bit more.
1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
tat means "That" (that in english is certainly from "tat" in Sanskrit) and not "this" (yetat is this). Anwyay. Here Avatu is used, which is a request. If it was "avati" or "avishyati" then we can say it is an assertion, but avatu is more of a request or even order sometimes. Again, it depends on the context and the mood of the agent. You are say "Let it protect me" but one needs to be humble and hence see it as "may it".
2) avatu maam - Protect me Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
Avatu maam is again an order or request. We did not conclude that it is vaayu, we are just contemplating and trying to understand why it is said twice. Three possibilities have been considered: "It" could be referring to Vayu, Brahman, or One's state of mind afore set (Anweekshiki has written about this in his response: August 31, 2010 10:31 PM)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Vaktara in this context is the Teacher (Guru), who is speaking and the student is the Shrotara (listener). The student is now just reciting what the teacher had originally spoken to him.
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
maam here is the reciter (whoever recites the upanishad requests this), vaktaara is the teacher who teaches/taught this. There are three characters now:
A Student who first received it. A Teacher who first spoke it. A Reciter (we all) who are reading it now.
Does it make sense now? :)
Aaaah! While I am discussing this with you now I get another idea :) can it be that the Shrotara himself will eventually become Vaktara to a new set of people (i.e. a student becoming a teacher eventually), so there are two sets of Teachers and Students here, a recurring loop, may be? So, I am seeking protection for the original teacher and the subsequent teachers, and myself. Not sure, need to think about this a bit more.
The meanings derived are good but
ReplyDeleteI have the following doubts
1) demigod for birth and morning
demigod for death and night
...
Provide references from where you got the information because it is not mentioned in the mantra
2) I did not get such translations in dictionary
save - sham
us - naha
initially I thought I will be using the word Angel for "DEVAS". But, In Hinduism there is no angels. So, I thought using demigod will be a apt word
ReplyDeleteThe reason being, vayu, varuna, shani and so on devas who manage various aspects of nature (AIR, WATER, FIRE and so on) with Indra as there leader.
They are not GOD themselves but they are subset of the GOD himself. GOD exhibit super natural powers(RAMA, KRISHNA, HANUMAN). But, Devas don't. So, I have termed devas as "demigod"
Cont...
refereed book for these information is Taitriya upanishad by Swami Adidevananda
ReplyDeleteand the
http://www.sankaracharya.org/taittiriya_upanishad.php
I suggest we have to keep them as Devas instead of translating it to something like demi-god which is clearly not conveying the status of whoever has been referred to.
ReplyDeleteA question to all
In spite of the books we refer should we need to cross check if the translations are conforming?
The reason I specified it in English is many might not understand the word deva as it is (people who are not from our culture).
ReplyDeleteSay for example:
panchaswadhikaraneshu
pancha = 5
adhikarana = Heading.
Instead of saying heading, it can be kept as adhikara as it is. but, many might not know the meaning. The very purpose of translation is defeated. However, I understand, we may not be able to convey the exact meaning, as the reader must be aware of a bit of past.
Good Going Anweekshiki! This is a known problem with any translation, so lets move on.
ReplyDeleteI dont know how I am qualified to even comment on this :) But still, here are some points:
ReplyDelete- I had heard commentary sometime back by Swami Adidevananda of Ramakrishna Mission, who spoke in similar lines, so I deem you are on perfect path.
- There are some comments on choice of words, which I know are hard to translate:
1) SHAM: Somehow I am not able to digest "save" for SHAM. From my understanding SHAM is something close to "auspiciousness" or "favorableness" or "propitiousness", i.e. Shubhakara.
2) With regard to Mitra, Varuna etc as DEMIGODs; I thought it could have been "ruling dieties" or "presiding dieties" or something like that, even though demigod is right too. Indra is the adidevata or abhimana devata for our sensual organs in general and particularly right hand is what I have heard. With regard to urukramah, since He conquered the entire Universe in three steps, He rules the legs (may be) is what I have heard. This you may know, but still, I have also read that these are the prominent Adityas (mitra, varuna, aryama, vishnu, varuNah)
3) When translating "namo brahmaNe | namaste vaayu", you say "Brahmane here adresses the invisible GOD, vaayu Thou indeed art the visible Brahman; salutations to visible and invisble GOD". I think we can go one step at a time here. At this state discussion of "visible and invisible GOD" is a jump, because "pratyaksha brahma" is yet to be discussed.
Moreover, I think it could be "Unmanifested" (yeah, not an easy word, I know; something beyond the sensory perceptions) instead of "Invisible" (may be a good choice for ease but still; one may ask if it can be heard or smelled or touched or tasted :D ;) :P hehe). Further, I am not sure if GOD is the right word because Brahman has different meanings depending on context, and here also I do not see it as a GOD because Vayu is a manifestation of that one GOD and there are multiple manifestations of that one GOD. There is only one GOD and if we are not careful Vayu could be confused with that one GOD. Vayu is more of an "aspect" of GOD, not GOD itself. Anyway, even this is my personal understanding, we can discuss this in detail when we meet, if you are interested :D ;)
4) You have written "tvam eva pratyaksham brahmaasi" and "tvam eva pratyaksham brahma vadishyaami". The second phrase should be "tvaaaam eva pratyaksham brahma vadishyami", it is "tvaam" and not "tvam". Tvam is "neenu" and tvaam is "ninnannu". In the first phrase we sat "neenE pratyaksha brahma aagiddeye", so tvam is right, but in the second phrase we say "ninnannu pratyaksha brahma anta hELteeni" anta so it should be "tvaam".
5) Even with the Rtam and Satyam I have other thoughts :) Rtam is that which is established, fixed and unchanging and Vayu is that aspect. Satyam is that which exists and that which exists by itself independently and Vayu is that aspect. Again, this is my personal understanding, could be wrong. These words have multiple meanings and should be contemplated on every possible meaning, which makes translation a very tricky one. I sincerely aplaud for your effort.
6) What is "It" in "May It protect myself" (I think there is a typo in "listener"). I have been thinking about this, why should we say "tat mam avatu", why "tat" all of a sudden? Is "It" refering to Vayu? If so, why not say "Vayu tvam ava" to Vayu directly, why say "May It protect me"? Because till now we were using direct speech (tvam eva pratyaksham brahma asi etc), why indirect speech all of a sudden?
7) Why say twice? "tat maam avatu" and "avatu maam", why is "tat" dropped in the second recitation?
Sorry if I have confused you.
Good Luck.
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
ReplyDeleteI have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like
"I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
I shall make correct in the typo
7. Something which I have no clarity. :).
You have not confused me. But, enlightened :)
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
ReplyDeleteI have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like
"I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
I shall make correct in the typo
7. Something which I have no clarity. :).
You have not confused me. But, enlightened :)
"Reader" - is a friend of mine who responded with his inputs through a mail to me. I have copied the mail and posted it here.
ReplyDeleteI have following point addressing his inputs
1,2,3,4: I have made a mistake in these point. I shall make correction there.
5: Ritam, Satyam: My understanding was slightly different. I had understood that "Ritam" - is the right thought, "satyam" - is the same thought when spoken out. But, as you said "Ritam" is eternal, unchanged. "Satyam" is non-eternal, subjected to change.
6. "IT" - I don't think "IT" refers to "Vayu". As per my understanding "IT" refers to the thus proclaimed that has been made in previous statements. Something like
"I have proclaimed you as un-manifested and manifested Brahma. My IT(Thus proclaimed) protect me".
I shall make correct in the typo
7. Something which I have no clarity. :).
You have not confused me. But, enlightened :)
Are we analyzing the meaning of the mantra or are we trying to find a correct translation for the mantra?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the objective?
Both has to be done Arya. Translation is the first step where we will be discussing the wording that can be used and so on. For example usage of words like demi gods, ruling deity and so on.
ReplyDeleteLater the second is to dig into the meaning. Just like reader has mentioned in his 7th point. So, we should be actually doing the first in the first place to start the second.
Vayu is made the supreme among the other deities.
ReplyDeleteI read the following story in wiki
gods who control bodily functions once engaged in a contest to determine who among them is the greatest. When a deity such as that of vision would leave a man's body, that man would continue to live, albeit as a blind man, and would regain the lost faculty once the errant deity returned to his post. One by one, the deities all took their turns leaving the body, but the man continued to live on, though successively impaired in various ways. Finally, when Mukhya Prāna started to leave the body, all the other deities started to be inexorably pulled off their posts by force, "just as a powerful horse yanks off pegs in the ground to which he is bound." This caused the other deities to realize that they can function only when empowered by Vayu, and can be overpowered by him easily
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteYeah vayu may be considered supreme among the deities who control bodily functions. But we cannot conclude that it is the visible god(well visible here means only manifested form and not in literal sense)? can we conclude that?
Thats right Arya... we cannot conclude. But, at the same time we need to see if Brahma = "GOD". this is a common problem with translation as GodCon as mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI am going through certain books to see how translation is done and how such problems is taken care. Will come back with some data to help anweekshiki
Dear Anweekshiki,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the confusion I may have created with Satyam and Ritam. Satyam cannot be non-eternal, because it exists by itself irrespective of relative aspects. For example, Brahma is Satyam, how can it be non-eternal. So, may be I have created some confusion.
We have to note that these two terms are so intricately / intrinsically related that it is hard to draw a line. Even though I think I understand I am probably incapable of expressing in words. I tried to find some references online but could not, but here is something close to what I was having in mind.
http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/rigVeda/wov/satyamRitam.asp
(RV 10.190.1)
ŗtam cha satyam ch-ābhīdhdāt-tapaso-adhyajāyata
Translation: Truth was born and the Law of Truth, from the kindled fire of Energy of Consciousness.
Purport: The Supreme Reality is not a mere existence, immutable and featureless. It is supremely aware; it is a Consciousness. And this Consciousness is again not a mere awareness. It is dynamic, it is a Power. When this Consciousness as Power moves into action, creation ensues. First the Truth basing the creation, the satyam, formulates itself and then the Law of the working of that Truth, ritam. This self-determination of Truth is the seed of creation and its Law lays down the lines and governs the development of the manifestation.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/504550/Ritam: In the Vedic philosophy, the basic principle of the universe, the ultimate reality on which the cosmos exists, is the principle of Ritam, which is the word from which the Western notion of right is derived. There is thus a belief in a right moral order somehow built into the universe itself. Hence, truth and right...
I am not sure if my take on Ritam and Satyam makes sense. I had described Rtam as that which is established, fixed and unchanging (something which is a law or rule or an order in the system; for example Sun rising in the East or Vayu as the sustainer of living beings, or the understanding that the Soul is indestructible through study of Shastras etc where there is an endeavour of understanding or realization), and Satyam as that which exists and that which exists by itself independently (self-standing truth, example Brahman just exists just as an tree exists within a seed; it just exists; may be irrespective of the emperical approach to it) .
Not sure if I have clarified my understanding or confused more ;) :D
Ritam Satyam Param Brahma Purusham Krishna Pingalam Ūrdhwaretam Virūpāksham Vishwarūpāya Vai Namo Namah
Reader,
ReplyDeleteThats a very beautiful post. One more such person who writes like you is GodCon. ;) :)
Just to clarify.
Ritam is a kind of a law, Satyam is a kind of facts. Is that what you said?
Aralagada, I think that is close to what I understand these terms.
ReplyDeleteAnweekshiki, I had similar thoughts about point 6. In addition, I was thinking that "tat" could be referring to "BrahmaNe". Here is why. If we observe, there are two aspects mentioned here, "Brahman" (paroksha Brahman?) and "Vayu" (pratyaksha Brahman). We are trying to understand the paroksha by first accepting the pratyaksha. Brahman is a "neutral" entity, genderless, while Vayu is Male. So, "tat" cannot be for Vayu, but could be for Brahman. Since "Namo BrahmaNe" comes before "Namaste Vayu", we first say "Tat mam avatu", i.e. may that (neutral) brahman protect me, and then followed by protection from Vayu (Avatu mam, without the tat).
If we go by the above logic then we can address point 7 also, as to why we repeat it twice.
Other reasons why we could say twice are:
1) Repeatition signifies emphasis. But this does not answer why twice, why not thrice; In Isavasyopanishad also we say: "om krato smara kṛtam smara | krato smara kṛtam smara", repeating twice, so there must be some strong reason.
2) Protection from DUALities of existence; to reach dvandaatita state for both the self and the speaker (guru).
3) Protection to the mind and the soul; why not protection to body, may be because mind and soul are more important than body? :)
We can speculate a lot :)
Emphasis on the statements, as you have mentioned might be one reason. I can think of an other reason for these repetitions.
ReplyDelete"lekaH salekH sulekH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu
ketaH saketH suketH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu
vivaswagaM adhitirdEvajootiH tEna aadityaa aajyaM jushaaNa viyaMtu"
Look at the above mantra. Of course there is no repetition, but there is a rhythm in the mantra, there is a obvious poetic feel when sung. If you have observed sangeeta (which is considered as upaveda of sama veda), many a times "charaNa" is now and then repeated, just to give balance the rhythm.
If we take a random sample of mantras from vedopanishd what we see in common is pleasantness in the rhythm. Probably, personally I am attracted to vedas for this feature of it in the first place. later comes contents in it.
Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, could you please cite the refences for these shlokas.
I agree that repetition is certainly a key factor but I get curious and get stuck in such trivial matters as "why twice, why not thrice". I have probably understood the logic for three but still curious about the twice repetition, and I somehow feel that there is something deeper than just the repetition as in the thrice.
As you have said, here the idea is not repetition, it is certainly on pattern/rhythm but slightly above rhythm as it touches different aspects, because lekha (could be a diety or some writing), salekha (along with that lekha) and sulekha (a purer / purified/ improvised/ better form of that lekha) are different from one another. Yes, the pattern is beautiful and thanks for sharing this.
I dont exactly remember, But, I guess this portion is in "Bhoo Suktha". I shall Confirm you once I refer the book (which is at my home).
ReplyDelete@Reader,
ReplyDeleteSorry since i am not that good at sanskrit and since it looks like you have reasonable knowledge on the language i wanted some clarifications
say "Tat mam avatu", i.e. may that (neutral) brahman protect me, and then followed by protection from Vayu (Avatu mam, without the tat).
Tat - It
which is neutral. As you said it is referring to brahman and not vayu
Avatu - ?
what does Avatu mean? Does it mean protect?
@Anweekshiki
ReplyDeleteYou have posted this article with an image of the shanti mantra.
From my view, the shanti mantra has been posted to
1) Translate the mantra from sanskrit to english by carefully using words which tend to give the same meaning as the source in sanskrit
2) Then discuss the inherent meaning contained within this mantra
3) The occasion/purpose/time the mantra should be recited.
Please correct me if these are not the objectives of the discussion. Please add if more objectives are there
Yes, exactly... The objective is properly stated arya.. Thank you
ReplyDeleteArya,
ReplyDelete1) About "tat" referring to Brahman is my personal contemplation, not sure how valid or right it is.
2) My understanding of Sanskrit is at a novice level, but I try to understand one thing from multiple perspectives
3) Yes, Avatu means --
a) to defend, to protect, to maintain; avati, aava, avita, aaveet (we will see aaveet in the end)
b) To please, to satisfy, to give pleasure to, to do good to;
c) to like, desire, wish, love
d) to favor, promote, animate
e) (in slightly extended forms) to satisfy, to satiate, to promote, to cherish, behave friendly towards etc
I missed adding this in the end. So, we need to take the word in the context of the conversation. Same applies to BRAHMAN or ATMA, which mean so many different things that it enables us to derive a huge combination of meanings to one simple phrase.
ReplyDeleteTrivia: I think that "avalambane" (dependending on someone) comes from "av" daatu, not sure.
I have just started to appreciate the beauty in Sanskrit, as to how it blossoms into numerous flowers depending on the context and also its appropriate usage.
Typo: Dependending == Depending :)
ReplyDeleteTat mam avatu, tat vaktaaraM avatu
ReplyDeleteavatu mam, avatu vaktaaraM
Surprisingly, where ever these statements are used, they are repeated twice. Shanti mantra(Main article), Ganesha Atharva sheersha and couple of other sukthas(which I dont remember now, will get back with those once i refer).
The difference that i have observed is, there in atharava shreesha, Ganapathi is refered as "pratyaksha brahma", here in shanti mantra vayu is refered as "pratyaksha brahma".
GOD is one and cannot be changed, in that case, "Brahma" cannot be GOD as word "Brahma" is used differently in different context.
"yennam brahmopaasate" (Taitriya upanishad, annamaya kosha) - "anna" is called brahma. and so on.
@All
ReplyDeleteConsidering the translations given by Reader
a) to defend, to protect, to maintain; avati, aava, avita, aaveet (we will see aaveet in the end)
this best suits the text avatu in the mantra we are discussing
Now i have the following doubts (pl. don't feel i am asking only questions and not finding solutions)
1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me
It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
2) avatu maam - Protect me
Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
You are right Anweekshiki. There are three texts in which I found "avatu" sholkas: Taittariya, Aithariya and GanapathyatharvashIrsham.
ReplyDeleteWe are discussing Taittariya in this blog.
In the Ganapathiatharvashirsham it is a bit clear I felt. It uses "ava" (You), which is a direct speech to Ganapathi, unlike "avatu" we have seen which is an indirect speech refering to someone (may that protect me). Here, we have: ava tvam maam (YOU protect me); ava vaktaram (again, YOU protect the speaker), ava shrotraram (protect the listener, which need not be me), ava dAtAram (the giver, donor?), ava dhAtAram (the guardian) etc. So there is little confusion and my interpretation can be applied here.
But interestingly in Aitariyopanishad, we say: Om vaanjme manasi pratishtitaa mano me vaachi pratishTitam-aavirveerma yEdhi; vedasyam ma aNIsthaH, shrutam mE mA prahAsIr-anEna-adhIti-ena-ahOrAtrAn sandadhAmi; Ritam vadishyami, satyam vadishyami; tat mam avatu, tad vaktaram avatu, avatu maam, avatu vaktaaram, avatu vaktaram Here we have just Brahman (paroksha) and we are seeking His vision (pratyaksha). But we have "tad mam avatu and avatu mam". So, my interpretation of Taittariyopanishad Shantih Mantras may not be right. But, here we seek protection for the "vaktaram" thrice :)
So, there must be some reason that I still am not been able to find. I will see if I can contact some experts and find out.
Arya,
ReplyDelete1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me
It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
tat means "That" (that in english is certainly from "tat" in Sanskrit) and not "this" (yetat is this). Anwyay. Here Avatu is used, which is a request. If it was "avati" or "avishyati" then we can say it is an assertion, but avatu is more of a request or even order sometimes. Again, it depends on the context and the mood of the agent. You are say "Let it protect me" but one needs to be humble and hence see it as "may it".
2) avatu maam - Protect me
Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
Avatu maam is again an order or request. We did not conclude that it is vaayu, we are just contemplating and trying to understand why it is said twice. Three possibilities have been considered: "It" could be referring to Vayu, Brahman, or One's state of mind afore set (Anweekshiki has written about this in his response: August 31, 2010 10:31 PM)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Vaktara in this context is the Teacher (Guru), who is speaking and the student is the Shrotara (listener). The student is now just reciting what the teacher had originally spoken to him.
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
maam here is the reciter (whoever recites the upanishad requests this), vaktaara is the teacher who teaches/taught this. There are three characters now:
A Student who first received it.
A Teacher who first spoke it.
A Reciter (we all) who are reading it now.
Does it make sense now? :)
Aaaah! While I am discussing this with you now I get another idea :) can it be that the Shrotara himself will eventually become Vaktara to a new set of people (i.e. a student becoming a teacher eventually), so there are two sets of Teachers and Students here, a recurring loop, may be? So, I am seeking protection for the original teacher and the subsequent teachers, and myself. Not sure, need to think about this a bit more.
Arya,
ReplyDelete1) Tat mam avatu - It(this) protects me
It is an assertion as we see it. Is there any reason why we should add "May (May that/this/it protect me)" to make the statement as an expectation.
tat means "That" (that in english is certainly from "tat" in Sanskrit) and not "this" (yetat is this). Anwyay. Here Avatu is used, which is a request. If it was "avati" or "avishyati" then we can say it is an assertion, but avatu is more of a request or even order sometimes. Again, it depends on the context and the mood of the agent. You are say "Let it protect me" but one needs to be humble and hence see it as "may it".
2) avatu maam - Protect me
Again it is an assertion as we see it. How did we conclude it is vaayu. Based on Tat mam avatu we can only conclude that avatu maam is being asked to the same listner(tat,in this case Brahman) by the asker(who is reciting the mantra)
Avatu maam is again an order or request. We did not conclude that it is vaayu, we are just contemplating and trying to understand why it is said twice. Three possibilities have been considered: "It" could be referring to Vayu, Brahman, or One's state of mind afore set (Anweekshiki has written about this in his response: August 31, 2010 10:31 PM)
3) Vaktara - A person who orates [correct me if i am wrong]
Vaktara in this context is the Teacher (Guru), who is speaking and the student is the Shrotara (listener). The student is now just reciting what the teacher had originally spoken to him.
Who is me(maam)? who is vaktaara? Are both different/same?
maam here is the reciter (whoever recites the upanishad requests this), vaktaara is the teacher who teaches/taught this. There are three characters now:
A Student who first received it.
A Teacher who first spoke it.
A Reciter (we all) who are reading it now.
Does it make sense now? :)
Aaaah! While I am discussing this with you now I get another idea :) can it be that the Shrotara himself will eventually become Vaktara to a new set of people (i.e. a student becoming a teacher eventually), so there are two sets of Teachers and Students here, a recurring loop, may be? So, I am seeking protection for the original teacher and the subsequent teachers, and myself. Not sure, need to think about this a bit more.