OBJECTIONS TO DAYANAND SARASWATI’S VERSION
Devi Chand, who otherwise justifies RDS’s view, agrees that a large many people object upon RDS’s view. Says he: “People at all times have raised objections to the philological and etymological method by which RDS arrived at his results, especially in his dealing with the names of god-heads (Devatas). Those adhering to RDS’s school, have given several reasons to justify their stand but adherents of other school have always found them as baseless.”
RDS and Aurobindo Ghosh are of the view that Vedas hymn the One Deity of many names and powers, and talk of One God alone. However, when puzzled by that One God’s name being described as a mortal human being, or two or more such names described together, they take the literal meaning of fire or air or sun and carry on the discussion to include fire-sacrifice, oblations, airplanes, steam engines, cars and what not. They are confounded to such an extent that the same word that at one point is taken to mean One God, is interpreted as meant for wind, air, fire or sun at another place, and for yet another thing at another place.
For instance, at a place RDS takes Saraswati as God, out of her one hundred names enumerated in the first chapter of the Satyartha Prakash, but interprets the word as wife when discussing marriage, as instructive speech elsewhere and knowledge and learning at some other place. Why can’t he give one meaning to the word ‘Saraswati’ that is accepted throughout? This is so because one meaning would not have fitted everywhere. Perplexed indeed must he be but at no instance did he confess that his lack of understanding and not God were the cause of this confusion.
In order to endorse RDS’s commentary, Aurobindo Ghosh writes: “According to etymological formation of the Nirukta, all so-called historical names denote ordinary things according to science of rhetoric.” We might have accepted this logic as true had the “so-called historical names” were of ordinary nature. Instead, we find Indra, Vayu, Agni, Saraswati, etc., mentioned in almost all scriptures of Hindus. Not just the Vedas, but Upanishads are full of their mention. Puranas go to the extent of associating myths and legends to their names, so much so they are talked about as siring children. Hanuman is Vayuputra. Rama is said to have given Sita in the custody of Agnideva. Krishna in Gita talks of ‘Indra’s Heaven’. Arjuna sees various Devatas in the revealed image of God shown to him, as per Gita, and is also believed to have received weapons and training from Devatas, as per Mahabharata. And even today, Saraswati is worshipped as goddess and Indra is prayed, when too less or too much of rain comes.
It is clear from our study of various Upanishads and Puranas that people worshipped Indra as a superior Devata, Agni was chief deity of all sacrifices, and talked of Vayu reverentially. With such profound literature abounding on the Devatas, prior to Gita and upto this time, how could the commentators ignore all this? In the backdrop of all this literature, it seems illogical that even Vedas would have used the terms like Indra as meaning the material sun, without giving clear indications that it is meant for the material sun.
And it is not that there are only a few names. Vasishtha, Bharadwaja, Jamadagni, Viswamitra, Devas, Angiras, Gautama, Kashyap, Urvashi, Bhrigu, Bharata, Parashara, etc. are not just mere historical persons, but are sure to have some significance, in imparting of God’s Message. Lest you have forgotten, we remind you that we are talking of Vedas, which are believed to be words of God. Parashara may be denoting some ordinary thing, as per RDS or Aurobindo Ghosh, but we must remember that it is Parashara who teaches the entire Vishnu Purana to us.
Moreover, if you have seen any of the translations of Vedas, you must have seen that each Veda comprises of several hymns. We were of opinion that each hymn must be pertaining to a particular subject and were expecting some sort of continuity in meaning. What we find from RDS’s translation though is that there is no continuity and the subject keeps changing so much so that it is better to treat every verse separately. It may move from a religious sacrifice to an airplane and from there to subject of God, to cars, to oblations by the fire, and vice versa. We were unable to digest this as we had expected God to stick to some logic or subject.
There is no denying the fact that most commentators including RDS have tried to mould the translation as per their liking. They have given their own explanation instead of the word-by-word translation, though the ideal approach would have been to stick to the word-by-word translation and then write whatever they wanted in the commentary that followed. This too confirms that they knew that the word-by-word translation would not lead them to the direction where they wanted to take the Vedas.
A very clear example of our claim that RDS has not relied on the real meaning but devised his own meanings can be seen from RDS’s translation of Mantra 14 and 19 in Chapter I of Yajur Veda. In the Sanskrit text, the first half of both the Mantras is exactly the same. The second half is different but it has several common words. This should have meant that the meanings of the two should have been similar. And since the Mantra consists of only 2 lines, then half or at least a portion of the translation should have same meaning. But since the meaning that RDS derived for the first line of Mantra 14 was not fitting with his meaning of the second line of Mantra 19, he gave altogether different meanings, in spite of the fact that one line was common to both the Mantras. See for yourself, while keeping in mind that first half of both the Mantras is identical and only the second line differs.
Mantra 14:
May your house be comfortable. It should afford no shelter to the wicked and the uncharitable. May your house serve on as skin of the Earth. May all persons acquire such a house through the grace of God. Clouds receive moisture from forests, reside in the vast space, and receive water from air. May God impart you this knowledge of clouds and building houses. May the learned understand the building of houses, which serve as skin of the earth.
Mantra 19:
The yajna is the giver of happiness, puts an end to the selfish and miserly habits and protects the mid-regions as skin protects the body. May the performer of the yajna realize its significance. The proper recitation of the Vedic hymns is the yajna itself. The yajna performed on special occasions also protects truth as skin protects the body. The yajna is the sustainer of the illustrious sun, the embodiment of Vedic lore. May we realize the yajna as the bringer of rain, and the giver of spiritual knowledge.
Also note that the subject keeps changing from a comfortable house to the wicked and the uncharitable, to clouds that receive moisture from forests, knowledge of the clouds and back to building houses.
The translation of Mantra 19 is actually a small paragraph, when there were merely a few words in the original Mantra.
No comments:
Post a Comment