About the Anu-Giita

[shvu]

 

A while back there was some discussion about what reason Krishna gave for not being able to repeat the BG and gave the Anu-Giita instead. I found sacred-texts.com has the translation of the Anu-Giita with an introduction. Here is the answer given by Krishna.

 

===============================

 

Arjuna asks -- 'O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki, when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine form of yours. But that, O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics...

 

Krishna replies --

 

From me, O son of Prithaa! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds. It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Paandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman. But I shall relate an ancient story upon that subject, so that adhering to this knowledge, you may attain the highest goal...

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Shvu, can you please present the original in sanskrit ?

[Guest guest]

Shvu, in the absence of the sanskrit original, it is hard to verify the veracity of the translation. Secondly, do you know if there are references to Anu Gita by the acharyas of any vedic school ?

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by ram:

Shvu, in the absence of the sanskrit original, it is hard to verify the veracity of the translation. Secondly, do you know if there are references to Anu Gita by the acharyas of any vedic school ?

I think Adi Sankara referred to it, but I need to check the details. Actually Anu Gita is very much part of Mahabharata. I do agree that we need to check with the original Sanskrit verses and their commentary by a bonafide acharya.

 

In general, I won't give much credence to the translations available in sacred-texts.com, as they are not critically edited. Mostly, they carry translations that are atleast 100 years old and done by British missionaries. Even the western academics don't regard them as worthy. For example, this site carries the translation of the vedas by Griffith and even during his days, he wasn't considered authentic.

 

That doesn't mean every translation is bad either.

[shvu]

 

Sorry Ram, the website I mentioned carries only English translations. I do not have access to the original text.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Shvu, in the absence of the sanskrit original, it is hard to verify the veracity of the translation. Secondly, do you know if there are references to Anu Gita by the acharyas of any vedic school ?

The same source of the above translation says Shankara has quoted from the Anu-Giita in his commentary on the Sanatsugaatiiya (which is part of the Mahabhaarata). However there are some issues with this, which I will post later when I find time.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

That doesn't mean every translation is bad either.

Karthik, as you rightly pointed out there are many vested interests in translations. Even if some are wrong, then it is good enough to show take every thing with a pinch of salt.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by ram:

Karthik, as you rightly pointed out there are many vested interests in translations. Even if some are wrong, then it is good enough to show take every thing with a pinch of salt.

I have a simple golden rule. I take anything written by a western academic with a pound of salt. I have little regard for their scholarship. Most of them can be bought over with money. Unfortunately, very few Hindus have that kind of money. But, on the occasions they extended money, these academics bent over backwards to change their viewpoints.

 

You may have read Shrikant Talageri's systematic deconstruction of Michael Witzel's scholarship of Rk veda. Witel stands for the best of the academic scholarship the west can offer

[shvu]

 

You may have read Shrikant Talageri's systematic deconstruction of Michael Witzel's scholarship of Rk veda. Witel stands for the best of the academic scholarship the west can offer.

Is this available online? btw, the Anu-Giita translation above is by one Kashinath Trimbak Telang.

 

Thanks

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-30-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Is this available online? btw, the Anu-Giita translation above is by one Kashinath Trimbak Telang.

Here is the link to the complete book:

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/

 

You will see a deconstruction of Witzel in Section 3. But, the entire book is a must read.

 

I have other links at home which I can post tomorrow. They contain Witzel's reaction - he was completely rattled and called Talageri a petty bank clerk; he had another Harvard professor send a mail to Talageri offering all expenses paid Ph.D. at Harvard if he is amenable; Talageri turned down the offer and made the mail public; Talageri also deconstructs the Oldenberg's analysis, which formed the very basis of modern western scholarship; he shows in 2 paragraphs, how it falls apart like a pack of cards.

 

You may also enjoy this book by Koenraad Elst:

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Is this available online? btw, the Anu-Giita translation above is by one Kashinath Trimbak Telang.

Yes, I noticed that this translatio was not by a western academic But, is there a dearth of Macaulayite scholars in India?

 

[shvu]

 

Yes, I noticed that this translatio was not by a western academic But, is there a dearth of Macaulayite scholars in India?

Thanks for the links. I had read this a while back and had forgotten the names.

 

In my opinion, all translators/interpreters (Indian, Western, Indians influenced by Western thought, Westerners influenced by Indian thought) tend to view things based on their background. There are no exceptions. Given this, I would take any translation with a grain of salt and not only those by westerners. For instance, Talageri complains about the westerners sticking to the Aryan Invasion theory calling it political motivation, etc. So what does he do? He comes out with a book which states all Aryan-European languages have their basis in India, but (somehow) his theory is not politically motivated. Now I am not saying he is incorrect, but the point is we can interpret things which ever way we want to and we usually do it based on our background.

 

Other than the portions which point to Aryan Invasion, most other interpretations by the western scholars are quite reliable. Since many Indians translate scriptures incorrectly to reflect their own views, everyone is in the same boat which is why it is not reasonable to differentiate between western and Indian scholars.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-31-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Here is Witzel's criticizm of Talageri's criticizm of Witzel's criticizm of Talageri.

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Talageri-answer.htm

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

He [Talageri] comes out with a book which states all Aryan-European languages have their basis in India

 

Where does he say this? I read all his writings, but I don't remember having seen this. He is very systematic. He only relies on RV [in this edition]. He is proving with the text of RV that it was compiled only in India and there is not even a remembrance of any foreign land. He doesn't even go into linguistic paleantology.

 

Other than the portions which point to Aryan Invasion, most other interpretations by the western scholars are quite reliable.

 

I am afraid not. There is no mention of any invasion in the RV. All western translations depend upon Oldenberg, directly or indirectly. Talageri has shown as to how Oldenberg is wrong. Dr. S. Kalyanaraman has beautifully shown how their translation of the phrases is completely wrong. Sri Aurobindo did that decades ago. Have you read his Hymns to the Agni and Secret of the vedas? If not, they are a must read.

 

Since many Indians translate scriptures incorrectly to reflect their own views

 

Which Indians are you talking about? This is carpet bombing at its worst. What do you think of Sayanacarya, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Nilakanta, Kapali Shastry?

 

Here is Witzel's criticizm of Talageri's criticizm of Witzel's criticizm of Talageri.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Talageri-answer.htm

 

 

I read this long time ago. Last evening, I took my kids and wife out, so couldn't log on to the net. I will try doing so today and send you Talageri's excellent rebuttal to this one by Witzel. He demolishes Witzel completely. If I am free this week-end, I will also show why Witzel is pathetically wrong here.

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

Very quickly, before I head out for lunch, let me refute 2 of the points Witzel has raised here. I will later on present Talageri's excellent and systematic refutal of every point Witzel has raised here.

 

Witzel states:

T. has still not read Oldenberg's seminal work (1888) which describes the ordering of Rgvedic hymns and the way they were collected in several stages. Oldenberg's work stands unopposed by modern scholars, T. excepted of course, but T. offers no systematic refutation, just a little second-hand nibbling at the edges, just as everywhere else in his 'answer'.

Big deal! Oldenberg translated the vedas into German and not English. English translations of his work were available only around 1995 and its Indian edition available only in 1997. Oldenberg himself was never used as an academic work in any university, until Witzel and M.Deshpande introduced him. To expect Indian scholars to learn German, read the translation into that language of the vedas by an obscure "scholar" and refute it, is travesty.

 

Yet, Sri Aurobindo precisely did that in his works, without naming the author. He showed the flaws in the western translations. Obviously, Witzel hasn't read Sri Aurobindo. Is it because Sri Aurobindo wasn't a German?

 

Witzel states:

In sum, T. uses one particular Late Vedic Anukramani to establish the history of Rigvedic times, and compares that with a Rgveda of equally Late Vedic redaction.

If there is an award for dishonesty, Witzel would be nominated for life time achievement. The same Witzel, in 1995, in Erdosy ed., wrote that the Rv is like a tape recording from 1000 BCE. He even wrote that the differences between the redactions are almost non-existent. Here he claims that the RV is of later redaction I will try to get the links where Kalyanaraman, Elst, Talageri and Vishal Agarwal made a mince meat of Witzel on this. If this Witzel wore brown skin, like you and me, he would have long ago got his pink slip. Certainly after his fraudulent and intentional translation of Baudhayana Srauta sutra.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Here is Witzel's criticizm of Talageri's criticizm of Witzel's criticizm of Talageri.

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Talageri-answer.htm

 

Cheers

Here is the first link to the excellent refutal by S. Talageri:

http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/cover.html

 

 

[karthik_v]

Witzel and co. bribes Talageri:

 

http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/part1.html

 

 

[shvu]

 

Where does he say this? I read all his writings, but I don't remember having seen this.

The 2 chapters of Section II of his book "The Rigveda - A historical Analysis".

 

Other than the portions which point to Aryan Invasion, most other interpretations by the western scholars are quite reliable.

 

I am afraid not. There is no mention of any invasion in the RV.

That is what I am saying too. I said "other than that".

 

Which Indians are you talking about? This is carpet bombing at its worst. What do you think of Sayanacarya, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Nilakanta, Kapali Shastry?

 

All of whom differ from one another based on their backgrounds, which is my point. Saayana coming from an Advaitic viewpoint, Gopalacharya from a Maadhva viewpoint and so on. The very fact that they belong to different traditions shows scripture can be interpreted in various different ways so as to alter the entire purport. When Indians themselves vary in their interpretations so widely, what is the point in accusing Westerners of being biased?

 

For instance, tattavamsi of the Chaandogya upanishad is read as is, by Shankara to mean "You are that", leading to an advaitic interpretation. However Maadhva reads it as atattvamasi, with the first letter 'a' meaning Vishnu and so on, leading to an entirely different meaning. aham brahmaasmi to Shankara is aheyam brahmaasmi to Maadhva and so on. Even the Gita which is supposed to be simple and straightforward is interpreted so differently. For example, Maadhva's interpretation of brahmaNohi pratishhThaaham is totally different from Shankara's. I can safely bet, the Ramanuja tradition has such differences too. This is what I am talking about.

 

I read this long time ago. Last evening, I took my kids and wife out, so couldn't log on to the net. I will try doing so today and send you Talageri's excellent rebuttal to this one by Witzel. He demolishes Witzel completely.

Unless/Until Witzel comes back with another reply criticizing Talageri. Unfortunately, since I am not acquainted with the contents of the Rig-veda, I am not in a position to accept or reject either of these two guys. My next task is to read Talageri more closely to see where he is coming from, which will take a while.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu,

 

Vedas themselves state that they can be interpreted differently. So, if the different seers interpret differently, I am not surprised. But, our commentators defended their interpretation with references to other texts and Nirukta. On the other hand, western academics and missionaries, don't stick to any such rigour. They base it on linguistic paleantology, a discredited study.

 

As you have rightly said, please read everything that Talageri has written and form your opinion. That is the best course. Even without havinfread the RV, it is obvious to anyone that Talageri has exposed Witzel with solid arguments.

[shvu]

 

Here is the first link to the excellent refutal by S. Talageri:

http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/cover.html

Talageri wrote a book. Witzel critcized the book. Talagarei has criticized the crticism, in the link you have posted. The reply by Witzel that I posted earlier covers this refutal of Talageri's. I coudn't find a reply from Talageri to this one.

 

btw, can you post that verse which says the Vedas can be interpreted in multiple ways? I remember you posted it before, but I am unable to find it now using the search option.

 

Thanks

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

I just posted the first link. There is a whole series in which Talageri has exposed the criticism of Witzel. I need to find them and post them here. BTW, even here, if you have read all the parts of Talageri's response, it criticizes virtually all the points of Witzel.

 

I will post the verse this evening. I need to refer to RV.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by shvu:

btw, can you post that verse which says the Vedas can be interpreted in multiple ways? I remember you posted it before, but I am unable to find it now using the search option.

 

Thanks

ekam sat vipra bahudha vadati.

 

Ofcourse, this can be interpreted in multiple ways too.

[Guest guest]

In the absence of the originals, I will rely on the translation and show that it is consistent with the theology of Bhagavad Gita unlike what people like Basham claim. With the originals, I can come up with a more accurate interpretation.

 

Basham for example claims that there is no mention of the Supremacy of the Lord in Anu Gita. But Arjuná's statements counter that directly. Basham argues that the later chapters of Gita - 3 onwards - were interpolated because they are inconsistent with the Gita. But the Lord is talking about everlasting worlds. This is referred to in later chapters of the Gita - tad dhAma paramam mama. He is also talking about the seat of brahman, which again is referred to in later chapters - brahmano hi prathitaaham. This again exposes Basham's arguments as flawed.

 

 

I am not saying that Anu Gita did not happen. As Sanjaya says at the end of the Gita, he relishes this wonderful conversation repeatedly. It is definitely possible that Arjuna wants to hear the Supreme Lord speak again.

 

The Vedas declare that they are anAdi and apourEshyA. But the indologists claim that Vedas are very recent in origin and perhaps authored by the ridhis thereof. Either the authors of the VedAs had to be liars or the indologists. From the quality of the descendants one can see that the rishis were interested in higher principles, truth and welfare of the society. On the other hand, the indologists are interested in funding and establishing their intellectual credentials. Even though, we can never come to a firm conclusion on the other person, we can definitely make a judgement - which all of us do in life as mature individuals - to say that the rishis are more reliable than the modern scholars. This is just an understatement.

 

The Vedas can be understood only by the blessings of the acharyas - not just by our intellect. Least, with an attitude of challenging the rishis, which is what the western scholars almost always do. This is why towering scholars get crushed so easily. Through the Vedas we are trying to learn something beyond our immediate reach. You are learning about the highest possible experiences of life. This is definitely distinct from the other branches of knowledge like science, history etc. As in Plato's cavemen example, for learning that an element of faith is necessary. But the western and macaulay's scholars disount the element of faith, rather give in to their own flawed reason alone. And their reason fails badly not because they are not scholarly but because they do not worship the Lord.

 

Any one of us who decided to expose the opponents of Vedic culture will be immediately be blessed with eloquence and knowledge. There are definite socio-cultural influences on any scholar - Indian or Western. But when one relies on the Supreme, then he will become free of biases. Even though our reliance on the Lord may not be complete, we can rest assured that even a little reliance will put us on a plane above the mundane scholars. As Sankara a dumb devotee of the Lord Krishna will sing eloquent poetry and a lame person climb tall mountains.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-01-2002).]