FW: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

[Guest guest]

_____

 

jyotirved [jyotirved]

Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:23 PM

'Indo-Eurasian_research '

Cc: 'indiaarchaeology '; 'hinducalendar '

Re: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Witzel,

 

I am really amused to see your comments like, “No time to do a philological

investigation of the term now. It should instead have been done by Mr. Kaul,

before accusing Eggeling of a mistranslationâ€.

 

Eggeling is certainly wrong in having presumed that the Vedic Hindus resorted to

burying their dead instead of cremating them and what is all the more surprising

is that you are going out on a limb to defend his misinterpretation! I had

given benefit of doubt to Eggeling when I had said, “injustice has been done

to the original texts by such wrong translations, most probably inadvertentlyâ€

but I am afraid I cannot give that “benefit†to a scholar like you!

 

 

That the ritual of cremation has been going on since the earliest recorded

history of India will be evident from the following quotes from the Rig-Veda,

and that also Griffith’s translation!

 

In 10-15----the Hymn of Fathers (the Dead!), even Griffith’s transition should

not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that the “Fathers’ were cremated as

per the Rigveda!

 

 

10 Come, Agni, come with countless ancient Fathers, dwellers in light, primeval,

God-adorers,

 

Eaters and drinkers of oblations, truthful, who travel with the Deities and

Indra.

 

11 Fathers whom Agni's flames have tasted, come ye nigh: ye kindly leaders, take

ye each your proper place.

 

Eat sacrificial food presented on the grass: grant riches with a multitude of

hero sons.

 

12 Thou, Agni Jatavedas, when entreated, didst bear the offerings which thou

madest fragrant,

 

And give them to the Fathers who did eat them with Svadha. Eat, thou God, the

gifts we bring thee.

 

13 Thou, Jatavedas, knowest well the number of Fathers who are here and who are

absent,

 

Of Fathers whom we know and whom we know not: accept the sacrifice well prepared

with portions.

 

14 They who, consumed by fire or not cremated, joy in their offering in the

midst of heaven,-

 

Grant them, O Sovran Lord, the world of spirits and their own body, as thy

pleasure wills it.

 

 

 

Then again, in the Rig-Veda 10/16, the Hymn of Agni (Grifffith’s translation,

again!) it h as been said

 

9 1 send afar flesh eating Agni, bearing off stains may he depart to Yama's

subjects.

 

But let this other Jatavedas carry oblation to the Gods, for he is skilful.

 

10 I choose as God for Father-worship Agni, flesh-eater, who hath past within

your dwelling,

 

While looking on this other Jatavedas. Let him light flames in the supreme

assembly.

 

11 With offerings meet let Agni bring the Fathers who support the Law.

 

Let him announce oblations paid to Fathers and to Deities.

 

12 Right gladly would we set thee down, right gladly make thee burn and glow.

 

Gladly bring yearning Fathers nigh to eat the food of sacrifice.

 

13 Cool, Agni, and again refresh the spot which thou hast scorched and burnt.

 

 

 

*** *** ***

 

What is noteworthy in the above quotes is that we do not find any references to

“burial†or “burying†or “sepulcher†even by mistake by a non-Hindu

Griffith! On the other hand, words like “cremationâ€, “Jatavedaâ€,

“flesh eating Agniâ€, “consumed by fire†etc. etc. have been talked

about. Agni has also been requested to “bring the Fathersâ€! Obviously,

Agni can bring “Fathers†only if He has carried them!

 

Thus these references alone should not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that

by “shmashana†a crematorium and not a sepulcher is meant in the Vedic lore.

 

 

 

I am also quoting below from the Encyclopedia Britanica, Ultimate, regarding

funeral rites of the Budha! It says quite unambiguously that Budha’s body was

cremated because such rites “can be traced back to Indian customsâ€. And

Budha was a personality of at least fifth century BCE if not earlier. Thus

Benjy Fleming’s comments, “One needs be careful before simply assuming the

Vedic usage of a term is the same as in later traditions; such etymologies need

to be considered carefully†are also out of place.

 

 

 

The original word used in the Shatapatha Brahmana 13.8.1.5 is

“parimandalani†and that does not mean “mounds†but “rounded

pillars†in this context.

 

Regarding Monier-Williams translation for shmashana, I was myself amused to see

it, since though he has given a Sanskrit equivalent of “cremation “in his

“English Sanskrit Dictionary†as “agni daha†but the word

“crematorium†is conspicuous by its absence from that dictionary! It is

simply because he had already used the word “shmashana†for

cemetery/sepulchre, even if wrongly!

 

On the other hand, if you consult Amarakosha, you will find that Amara Singh has

clubbed shmashana with pitra-vana but at the same time, put it in the section of

“daha†that is cremation! And Amar Singh was around much earlier than

Monier-Willams!

 

Similarly, “shabdakalpadruma†--- a five volume encyclopaedic work of

Sanskrit lexicon, also defines “shmashana†as a place for cremating (and not

burying!) dead bodies!

 

Regarding “shavah shete asmin it shmashanam†the meaning is very clear,

“As a dead body, before being cremated, is laid to lie on the ground there

that is why it is known as shmashanaâ€.

 

Now that the references from the earliest work viz. the Rig-Veda uncannily talk

of cremation, apart from other “circumstantial†proofs, I am sure scholars

like you will revise their views about cremation versus burial in the Vedic

India.

 

Jai Shri Ram!!

 

A K Kaul

 

 

(Quote from Brittanics 2008)

 

 

Funeral

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.ArticleIdentifier?articleId=109644 & library\

=EB & query=null & title=Funeral#9109644.toc>

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.IndexEntryContentIdentifier?idxStructId=15\

4596 & library=EB> rites

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.ArticleIdentifier?articleId=109494 & library\

=EB & query=null & title=rites#9109494.toc>

 

 

The origin of Buddhist funeral observances can be traced back to Indian customs.

The

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.IndexEntryContentIdentifier?idxStructId=14\

2492 & library=EB> cremation

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.ArticleIdentifier?articleId=27838 & library=\

EB & query=null & title=cremation#9027838.toc> of the body of the Buddha and the

subsequent distribution of his ashes are told in the

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.IndexEntryContentIdentifier?idxStructId=35\

7926 & library=EB> Mahaparinibbana Sutta (“Sutta on the Great Final

Deliveranceâ€). Early Chinese travelers such as Faxian described cremations of

venerable monks. After cremation the ashes and bones of the monk were collected

and a

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.IndexEntryContentIdentifier?idxStructId=57\

0059 & library=EB> stupa

<ebcid:com.britannica.oec2.identifier.ArticleIdentifier?articleId=70036 & library=\

EB & query=null & title=stupa#9070036.toc> built over them. That this custom was

widely observed is evident from the large number of stupas found near

monasteries.

 

 

 

Re: [indo-Eurasia] Re: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

 

 

 

Well... As Benjy has already pointed out, things are not as easy as

modern speakers and readers of classical Sanskrit suppose...

 

Even a very quick look in a Skt. dictionary such as Monier-Williams

(i.e. = Petersburg Dict.) will tell that zmazaana- has the meaning of

grave as well, since the Atharvaveda. No time to do a philological

investigation of the term now.

 

 

 

It should instead have been done by Mr. Kaul, before accusing

Eggeling of a mistranslation.

 

 

 

And: read the Pitrmedhasutras for square burial mounds ofte Vedic

people ... Thus: " there is thus absolutely no

reference to any " burial mound " in any of the Vedic text "

is just an empty assertion. 125.

 

 

 

Read the texts...

 

 

By the way, Mayrhofer's Etym. Dict. (etymology unlcear) gives

" Leichenstätte, Friedhof " , thus 'cemetery', since AV.

 

Further cf. the seminal book by W. Caland, Die altindischen Todten-

und Bestattungsgebräuche, Amsterdam 1896, p. 30 sq.

and K. Mylius, Wörterbuch des altindischen Rituals, Wichtrach 1995, p.

125

 

Michael

 

 

On Jan 8, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Krishen wrote:

[Mod. Note: A,K. Kaul below, appears to have overlooked the word -

parimaNDala - in the text, clearly indicating a rounded structure

and also clearly within the " bounds of imagination " and hardly an

" injustice " . Also, earlier in the passage (in 13.8.1.1), is an

etymology of zmazAna (see, e.g., Eggeling's note 3 there, and does

not have a definitive sense of the term (e.g., as the later

cremation ground, crematorium, etc.), relating it to zavAnna - zava

(corpse) and anna (food); nothing to overtly connect it to cremation

in any case. One needs be careful before simply assuming the Vedic

usage of a term is the same as in later traditions; such etymologies

need to be considered carefully. I am sure Michael will have more to

say on zmazAna – BF

 

Dear Dr. Witzel,

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

The original word in the Shatapatha Brahmana is

" Å›maÅ›ÄÂnÄÂni " (shmshanani) as rightly quoted by you.

Eggeling has translated it wrongly as " seplchral mound " instead of

" crematorium " .

" shmshanani " cannot be translated as burial grounds by any stretch of

imagination. It thus shows as to what great injustice has been done

to the original texts by such wrong tranlsations, most probably

inadvertantly.

It can therefore be safely said that there is thus absolutely no

reference to any " burial mound " in any of the Vedic texts.

A K Kaul

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Witzel

 

Sorry, typo, as Steve noticed; it was 13.8.1.5

The common divisions of the text: chapter 13, etc.

-- UFT 8: 13.8.1 from my electronic texts

catuḥsrakti devÄÂÅ› ÄÂsurÄÂÅ› cobhaye prÄÂjÄÂpatyÄÂ

diká¹£v

aspardhanta. te devÄ devÄ asurÄÂnt sapatnÄÂn

bhrÄÂtá¹›vyÄÂn digbhyo 'nudanta. te 'dikkÄÂḥ ÄÂbhavaṃs.

tasmÄÂd yÄ daivyaḥ prajÄÂÅ› catuḥsraktÄ«ni tÄÂḥ

Å›maÅ›ÄÂnÄÂni kurvate. 'tha yÄ ÄÂsuryaḥ prÄÂcyÄÂs tvad

ye

tvat parimaṇá¸ÂalÄÂn. te 'nudanta hy enÄÂn digbhya.

ubhe diÅ›ÄÂvantareṇa vidadhÄÂti, prÄÂcīṃ ca

daká¹£iṇÄÂṃ

caitasyÄÂṃ ha diÅ›i pitá¹›lokasya dvÄÂraṃ. dvÄÂraivainam

pitá¹›lokam prapÄÂdayati. sraktibhir diká¹£u

pratitiṣṭhatÄ«tareṇÄÂtmanÄÂvantaradiká¹£u. tad

enaṃ

sarvÄÂsu diká¹£u pratiṣṭhÄÂpayati

Michael

On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:44 AM, Krishen wrote:

[Mod. note. 13.8.1.5 in Eggeling. - SF.]

 

 

Dear Dr. Witzel,

 

 

<the passage you have in mind is Shatapatha-Brahaman 12.8.1.5>

Would you kindly elucidate as to what you mean by the figures

12.8.1.5 in Shatapatha-Brahmana.

 

A K Kaul