Rig Veda 1.1.1 (1st verse of the Hymn to Agni)

This hymn, attributed to the lineage of Vishvamitra and is in the Gayatri metre. It's probably the most translated and familiar Vedic hmyn, being the very 1st hymn in the oldest of the Vedas - the Rig Veda. Yet, as many  online sources as I have seen, there seem to be as many translations... As I said with 'Vande Mataram,' poetic licence is often taken while translating. Add to that the fact that Vedic Sanskrit differs from Classical Sanskrit! I'm sure there are much more beautiful translations you could find but here's what the grammar says:

अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं ऋत्विजं  |

होतारं रत्नधातमम्  ||

vigraha from the padapāṭha:

अग्निम् ईळे  पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं ऋत्विजं होतारं रत्नधातमम् 

I venerate Agni, the priest (lit. who is placed on the seat of honour/in the East), divine ministrant of the sacrifice, bestower of treasure, par excellence. 

अग्निम् - [अग्नि को ] accusative singular of Agni, Vedic god of fire. As you would expect, since the verb is in 1st person, 'I venerate', the rest of the verse is mostly in the accusative. agnim, hotaaram, ritvijam etc.

ईळे  - [I] venerate; 1st person singular from root ईड् (2A) - to implore, to extoll

पुरोहितम् - [पुरोहित को] priest, placed on the seat in the East [पुरः+हित] or placed ahead; accusative singular  

यज्ञस्य - of the sacrifice; genitive singular of यज्ञ masc. noun

देवम् - divine, if taken as an adjective; [देव को] if read as acc. singular of deva, masc. noun 

ऋत्विजम् - priest; accusative singular

होतारम् - priest who recites hymns of the Rig Veda

रत्नधातमम् - superlative of 'bestower of treasure/wealth' रत्न+धाता; accusative bahuvrihi compound, refering to Agni.

I shall continue with the translation of the rest of the hymn verse by verse. Feedback and comments welcome!

Vande Mataram translation: refrain & 1st verse

वन्दे मातरं 

vande mātaram

सुजलां सुफलां

sujalāṃ suphalāṃ

मलयजशीतलां 

malayajaśītalām

शस्यश्यामलां

śasya śyāmalāṃ

मातरं, वन्दे! 

mātaram vande!

शुभ्रज्योत्स्नापुलकितयामिनीं

śubhra jyotsnā  pulakita yāminīm

फुल्लकुसुमितद्रुमदलशोभिनीं 

phulla kusumita drumadalaśobhinīm

सुहासिनीं

suhāsinīṃ

सुमधुरसुभाषिनीं
sumadhura bhāṣiṇīm
सुखदां 
sukhadāṃ 

वरदां 

varadāṃ

मातरं, वन्दे! 

mātaram vande!

The first thing to note is that this song is almost entirely in the accusative case because the singer of vande! is the subject, and the Mother is the object. So it's good practice - specially for Hindi speakers, to whom even the nominative looks fine (Sita ne Ram ko kaha - in Sanskrit it would HAVE to be Raamam), We are used to saying 'maa ko' whereas in Sanskrit there is no 'ko' so you have to be careful to use the accusative case - not maataa but maataram.

A quick word on bahuvrihi compounds, neither member on its own is the object it describes, but together it is an adjective for that object. So neither सु nor जल is the maataa, but together they mean 'she whose waters are good or pure'. Another dead giveaway is that jala is a neuter noun, but here it is declining as a feminine जलां, so we know it is describing a feminine object, which is the mother.

वन्दे  I pay homage, I adore; first person, singular fm  √वन्द्  (1A) 

मातरं accusative singular of मातृ  - to the mother, maa ko

सुजलां सुफलां accusative bahuvrihi compounds, [I bow to her] whose waters are good, pure, and whose fruit is good, excellent.  

मलयजशीतलां - [I bow to her] who's breeze (full form malayaja-maarut) is fragrant, cool शस्यश्यामलां - [I bow to her] whose fields are dark शस्य is a neuter noun meaning corn, and is often used in Lit to mean corn field. श्यामल is an adjective meaning dark coloured. Again here, we know this is a bahuvrihi because otherwise shyaamala would have had a neuter ending agreeing with shasya.

शुभ्रज्योत्स्ना shubhra white, shining; adjective. jyotsnaa - Durga and moonlight; fem noun

पुलकितयामिनीं - accusative bahuvrihi compound: pulakita - thrilled with joy; adj. yaaminiim - accusative singular of Yaaminii, fem noun - night. Together the whole compound comes to mean [I bow to her] whose night is thrilled [perhaps made thrilling] by the splendour of shining moonlight. 

फुल्लकुसुमितद्रुमदलशोभिनीं accusative bahuvrihi compound. [I bow to her]  whose splendour is resplendent with  trees whose shoots are furnished with full blown blossoms

सुहासिनीं - [I bow to her] whose laughter is beautiful, dazzling white

सुमधुरसुभाषिनीं - [I bow to her] whose speech is sweet and good 

सुखदां - [I bow to her] who gives pleasure, delight

वरदां - [I bow to her] who grants wishes, confers boons

Now, you can see that this analysis is not very poetic. And you'll find that translators who render the Sanskrit into other languages tend to use a lot of poetic licence - as in Shri Aurobindo's translation below. Two points emerge: a) if you don't understand Sanskrit, you'd have to use at least 2-3 translations to get a sense of what the original probably meant; and b) If you do learn Sanskrit, you can see where the poet has taken liberties. You might love the translation (as I do Aurobindo's) but knowing what the words mean will help you to judge how well the poet has balanced aesthetics with intent of the original.

Translation by Shree Aurobindo

Mother, I bow to thee!

Rich with thy hurrying streams,

bright with orchard gleams,

Cool with thy winds of delight,

Dark fields waving Mother of might,

Mother free.

Glory of moonlight dreams,

Over thy branches and lordly streams,

Clad in thy blossoming trees,

Mother, giver of ease

Laughing low and sweet!

Mother I kiss thy feet,

Speaker sweet and low!

Mother, to thee I bow. 

Brihat Samhita 55.8 A good reason to go green!

Where do the gods reside? What environs do they enjoy themselves in? Pretty much what we like, actually! But the Brihat Samhita says it so much better:

वनोपान्तनदीशैलनिर्झरोपान्तभूमिषु

रमन्ते देवता नित्यं पुरेषूद्यानवत्सु  (बृहत् संहिता 55.8)

Vigraha:

वन उपान्त नदी शैल निर्झर उपान्त भूमिषु
रमन्ते देवता नित्यं पुरेषु उद्यान्वत्सु 

The gods please themselves [on the lands] near the forests, rivers, mountains and springs; and in towns with pleasure gardens.

वन - forest, grove; neuter noun
उपान्त - in the proximity, near
नदी - river; fem noun
शैल - hill, mountain; masc. noun
निर्झर - cascade, spring, stream; masc.noun
उपान्त - near
भूमिषु - in/on the lands; locative plural
रमन्ते - please, delight, rejoice' third person plural from रम्  (1A)
देवता: -  the gods divinities, deities; nominative plural - believe it or not, this is a feminine noun! the visarga is dropped in sandhi
नित्यं -  always, everyday, every time; indeclinable
पुरेषु+उद्यान्वत्सु - those cities that possess gardens - locative plural of उद्यानवत् 

Patañjali's yogasūtra 1:21 Intense desire for Samadhi

Having described the qualities or qualifications needed to bring about Samadhi in the two previous verses, 1:21 adds a qualifier. The speed with which one attains Samadhi depends on how intense the desire for it is. You could be anyone. Even a backpacker.

{1:21}

तीव्रसंवेगानामासनः

For those who desire it intensely, [Samadhi] is nearest

तीव्र+संवेगानाम् आसनः  

तीव्र - quick, fast, intense, ardent 

संवेगानाम् - of those who have intensity, desire for emancipation; genitive plural of संवेग masc. noun from  सम् + विज् . Here the genitive is functioning as a dative (for them)

आसनः obtained, set down; passive past participle from आस् (2A) If you're wondering why it has a visarga, it's because it refers to Samadhi, which is a masculine noun.

Geetagovinda (3.7.11): Perhaps not exactly what you were looking for...

Opinions are sharply polarised on whether Jayadeva's Geetagovinda is an intensely erotic poem or an allegory of the human soul's yearning for God. Regular readers of this blog know that I don't make it my business to tell you what to think. Read it yourself and decide! But an atypical verse tickled me enough to translate and share it with you. Verse 11 in song 7 tells of a bewildered Krishna (मुग्धमधुसूदनः) who abandons the beautiful gopis (व्रजसुन्दरीः), and searches in vain for Radha.  Repenting and suffering, unable to find her, he chides the god of love in a piqued manner. I say atypical, because 'Krishna yearning' seems to be unheard of in popular expression. Try as I might, I couldn't find an image of Krishna yearning for Radha, so we'll have to do with the usual!!

हृदि बिसलताहारो नायं भुजङ्गमनायकः   

कुवलयदलश्रेणी कण्ठे न सा गरलद्युतिः 

मलयजरजो नेदं भस्म प्रियारहिते मयि

प्रहर न हर भ्रान्त्यानङ्ग क्रुधा किमु धावसि   

Lotus stalks garland my heart, not a necklace of snakes!

Blue lily petals circle my neck, not a streak of poison! 

Sandalwood powder, not ash, is smeared on my lovelorn body!

Love-god, don't attack me, mistaking me for Shiva!

Why do you rush at me in rage?

(trans: Barbara Stollar Millar)*

Let's see how:

हृदि - on my chest: locative sing of हृद्, heart, chest, breast, mind, soul; neuter noun

बिस+लता+हारः - garland of lotus stalks. While लता means tendril, creeper, बिसलता refers to the lotus plant, and बिस alone often refers to the stalk, or the part which is underground. Miller takes it as lotus-stalk. (Wonder what the garland looked like...Every cooked kamal-kakdi?)

न अयम् - this is not (lit. not this) masc, nom., sing of  इदम् going with हारः and नायकः 

भुजङ्गम+नायकः - necklace of snakes. भुजङ्गम is snake, masc noun; नायकः the central gem of a necklace. 

कुवलय - blue water lily; neuter noun

दल - petal, leaf, blade; neuter noun

श्रेणी - row, line; fem noun

कण्ठे - on [the] neck; locative singular of कण्ठः masc. noun

न सा - it is not; सा because both श्रेणी and द्युतिः  are feminine

गरल+द्युतिः गरल - poision, venom of snake; neuter noun

द्युतिः - flash, brilliance; often associated with lightening; fem noun

मलयज - sandalwood; neuter noun

रजः - powder, dust; masc. noun 

न इदम्  भस्म - (lit not this, nom., sing agreeing with भस्म)

प्रिया+रहिते  locative, singular bahuvrihi compound refering to Kirshna's body - 'without love' or 'deprived of love'

मयि - on me; locative sing of 'asmad'

प्रहर - attack; from प्र+हृ

न हर - Not Shiva

भ्रान्त्यानङ्ग - Vocative karmadhArya compound for KAma - 'confused Ananga' 

भ्रान्त्या instrumental singular of  भ्रान्ति - confusion, error, reeling; fem noun  

अनङ्ग - A name for the Love-god, KAmadeva; vocative case

क्रुधा - instrumental singular of क्रुध्  anger; fem noun 

किमु - किम् +उ why? The उ is a particle which is used in classical Sanskrit to add emphasis, or as in this case, [almost] as an expletive

धावसि  - you run 

Awaiting your responses, comments, suggestions... And hope you enjoy reading the full poem.

I would like to thank Rajeev Deshpande for helping me fix a couple of problems I had when first translating this verse.

* http://www.amazon.com/Love-Song-Dark-Lord-Gitagovinda/dp/0231110979 pg 84

Patañjali's yogasūtra 1:19 & 20

Ramanna Maharshi: a bhavapratyaya yogi

Sūtras 1:19 and 1:20 inform us of the differentiation between two kinds of yogis. Those who reach samādhi as a result of self discipline and regular practice, and those to whom it comes naturally, i.e. by virtue of birth. They are bhavapratyaya (from birth) and upāyapratyaya (through practice) yogis. 

I am not completely clear as to what videha means in the context of samādhi and invite comment on it. 

{1:19}

भव प्रत्ययो विदेहप्रकृतिलयानाम्

bhavapratyayo videhaprakṛtilayānām

भव: प्रत्ययः विदेह प्रकृतिलयानाम् 

Birth is the cause of those who are 'videha' and those who are mergeg in 'prakṛti'

भव: - being, birth; masc noun from √bhū (1P)

प्रत्ययः - ground, cause (hetu) masc noun 

विदेह - bodiless, incorporeal; adjective

प्रकृतिलयानाम् - of those who are merged, dissolved, absorbed in prakṛti; layānām genitive plural of  laya from √lī - to cling, to stick, to disappear into. 

Some practitioners possess the capacity to pass into a yogic trance effortlessly, as a result of their physical and mental constitution - i.e. what they are born with.  

{1:20}

श्रद्धावीर्यस्मृतिसमाधिप्रज्ञापूर्वक इतरेषाम्

śraddhavīryasmṛtisamādhiprajñāpūrvaka itareṣām

श्रद्धा वीर्यम् स्मृति: समाधि प्रज्ञापूर्वक इतरेषाम् 

For these [the others] samādhi is preceded by faith, energy, memory and higher intelligence.

श्रद्धा - faith, belief, trust; fem noun

वीर्यम् - virility, bravery, power, valour, energy; neuter noun

स्मृति: - memory, mindfulness, thinking upon; fem noun

समाधि: - intense contemplation, trance; masc. noun

प्रज्ञापूर्वक - preceded by prajñā viz. keen intellect, higher knowledge, insight; fem noun

इतरेषाम् = इतः एषाम्  इतः - this, here; एषाम् genitive plural of इदम् = of these [people, persons] Here the genitive operates as the dative - 'For these' i.e. the others with reference to the previous verse.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – I

Please welcome guest writer Bibek Debroy, who scarcely needs an introduction.* Bibek has kindly agreed to write a monthly column on concepts relating to Hinduism on this blog. He kicks off the series with some searching thoughts about the correspondence (or rather the lack of it) between the religio-philosophical lexicon of Western thought and Hinduism. For an enduring comprehension, it is critical to  understand a system or a concept in its cultural, linguistic and historical context, and Bibek sets the scene for just such an understanding in this introductory piece. 

I hope to write this series once a month and I have chosen to call it dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa.  Those aren’t terms I will talk about in this first piece. They will come later. I often meet people who say they are atheists or agnostics.  I feel uncomfortable with those terms, because I don’t know what they mean. Take the word “atheism”. It comes from a Greek word “atheos” meaning without “theos”. “Theos” is god. Therefore, atheism or atheist is a negative word. I don’t understand what atheism/atheist means unless people who use it tell me which god this is with reference to.  Whose existence is being negated?  

The word agnostic is no different. Actually, one should say “agnostos,” which is the original word, a+gnostos. Gnostos means something that can be known.  Therefore, a+gnostos actually means to be against knowledge. That’s not logically tenable, is it? How can anyone be against knowledge?  It is a different matter that atheist came to be interpreted as someone who didn’t believe in god, theist as someone who believed in god and agnostic as someone who believed that god could neither be shown to exist, nor not to exist.  The background of agnostic was the gnostic movement that existed within the Christian church.  All these terms, atheist, theist, agnostic are with reference to a context, and that happens to be Western. I would strongly advise against using them in the context of Hinduism.

Agnostic has no real Sanskrit counterpart.  The best we can probably do is निरीश्वरवादिन्  (nirīśvaravādin) But as the term itself indicates, it is more atheism.  We have several Sanskrit words for atheism, नास्तिक (nāstika), अनीश्वरवादिन् (anīrśvaravādin), करट (karaṭa), लोकायत (lokāyata) वेदनिन्दक (vedanindaka), सौगतिक (saugatika).  There are a few more, but we can ignore those.  

Let’s think of the word “Philosophy,” again closely allied with another Western word, “religion”.  How will you translate the word philosophy in Sanskrit?  Philosophy means the love of wisdom, or love of knowledge. The Sanskrit word दर्शन (darśana) is so much better.  It carries the nuance of sight.  Traditionally, there were six schools of Hindu philosophy – sāṃkhya, yoga, nyāya, vaiśeṣika, mimāmsā and vedānta.  There were further divisions later.  If you ignore the later divisions, did any of these believe in a god in a Western sense?  With the exception of  Vedānta (where you can both say yes and no), the answer is not really.  Hence, आस्तिक (āstika) in an Indian दर्शन (darśana) cannot and should not be interpreted as belief in a god. By the same token, नास्तिक does not mean disbelief in god.  

As those terms I have given for atheism indicate, it was more about not believing in the Vedas.  Let me leave aside Buddhism and Jainism.  I don’t have sufficient knowledge about either.  In addition to those six schools, we also had the ājīvika and lokāyata schools, the latter associated with cārvāka.  These are described as नास्तिक (nāstika) and again the reference is essentially to non-belief in the Vedas.  We will return to these issues later.  For the moment, when I am asked “Do you believe in god?”, I don’t know what to answer.  And my problem is not that such a question is asked by Westerners.  That I can accept.  My problem is that I am also asked such questions by Hindus who have accepted a Western discourse.  Let’s stick to our discourse and stop asking and answering such questions.

When confronted with questions about religion, there is another English word I have a lot of discomfort with and that is “proof”.  The best Sanskrit word for proof is प्रमाण (pramāṇa).  The nyāya school had quite a bit about logic.  Don’t worry.  I have no intention of getting into details about what each of these schools proposed.  For the moment, in the process of getting proof or प्रमाण, the nyāya texts talked about four different methods –प्रत्यक्ष (perception), अनुमान (inference), उपमान (comparison) and शब्द (testimony from those you can trust). Perhaps one should say a little bit more about प्रत्यक्ष.  Those nyāya texts divided perception into two types, the first being लौकिक (laukika) or साधारण (sādhāraṇa).  This is essentially what we perceive through the senses.  The second type is अलौकिक (alaukika) or असाधारण (asādhāraṇa).  We look at everything through the lens of science now.

We demand proof.  But when we demand proof, we really mean proof based on the senses.  Let me leave you with some thoughts to ponder.  First, while we pretend in our beliefs that everything is based on sensory proof, is that really true?  Or do we quite often depend on inference, comparison and testimony from others? Second, are our senses infallible?  Third, science also often depends on measuring instruments, not on human senses, precisely because human senses are fallible.  The accuracy of measuring instruments varies and improves over time.  Has science itself not been wrong on several counts, several times?  I will recommend a book to you. It is by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons and it is titled “The Invisible Gorilla” (2010).**  This is about how our cognitive senses often go wrong.  Therefore, this series is about being less arrogant about knowledge based on our physical senses.  Arrogance, in any form, is against knowledge.  Next time, be a little careful before saying that you are an atheistic or agnostic, or that you do not believe in god.  I have deliberately left the expression “Hinduism” dangling.  But this is only the first of a series.

* More information about Bibek Debroy can be found here: 

http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/en/content/bibek-debroy

and here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibek_Debroy

**Chabris & Simon's book can explored here: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/

Parvati Yoni

A poem by Neha Naruka sent to me by Shalini Sharma. Thought provoking. If you like it, you can read Shalini's poetry here: www.shalpoems.blogspot.com


'पार्वती योनि'

ऐसा क्या किया था शिव तुमने ?
रची थी कौन-सी लीला ? ? ?
जो इतना विख्यात हो गया तुम्हारा लिंग
माताएं बेटों के यश, धन व पुत्रादि के लिए
पतिव्रताएँ पति की लंबी उम्र के लिए
अच्छे घर-वर के लिए कुवाँरियाँ
पूजती है तुम्हारे लिंग को,

दूध-दही-गुड़-फल-मेवा वगैरह
अर्पित होता है तुम्हारे लिंग पर
रोली, चंदन, महावर से
आड़ी-तिरछी लकीरें काढ़कर,
सजाया जाता है उसे
फिर ढोक देकर बारंबार
गाती हैं आरती
उच्चारती हैं एक सौ आठ नाम

तुम्हारे लिंग को दूध से धोकर
माथे पर लगाती है टीका
जीभ पर रखकर
बड़े स्वाद से स्वीकार करती हैं
लिंग पर चढ़े हुए प्रसाद को

वे नहीं जानती कि यह
पार्वती की योनि में स्थित
तुम्हारा लिंग है,
वे इसे भगवान समझती हैं,
अवतारी मानती हैं,
तुम्हारा लिंग गर्व से इठलाता
समाया रहता है पार्वती योनि में,
और उससे बहता रहता है
दूध, दही और नैवेद्य...
जिसे लाँघना निषेध है
इसलिए वे औरतें
करतीं हैं आधी परिक्रमा

वे नहीं सोच पातीं
कि यदि लिंग का अर्थ
स्त्रीलिंग या पुल्लिंग दोनों है
तो इसका नाम पार्वती लिंग क्यों नहीं ?
और यदि लिंग केवल पुरूषांग है
तो फिर इसे पार्वती योनि भी
क्यों न कहा जाए ?

लिंगपूजकों ने
चूँकि नहीं पढ़ा ‘कुमारसंभव’
और पढ़ा तो ‘कामसूत्र’ भी नहीं होगा,
सच जानते ही कितना हैं?
हालांकि पढ़े-लिखे हैं

कुछ ने पढ़ी है केवल स्त्री-सुबोधिनी
वे अगर पढ़ते और जान पाते
कि कैसे धर्म, समाज और सत्ता
मिलकर दमन करते हैं योनि का,

अगर कहीं वेद-पुराणऔर इतिहास के
महान मोटे ग्रन्थों की सच्चाई!
औरत समझ जाए
तो फिर वे पूछ सकती हैं
संभोग के इस शास्त्रीय प्रतीक के-
स्त्री-पुरूष के समरस होने की मुद्रा के-
दो नाम नहीं हो सकते थे क्या?
वे पढ़ लेंगी
तो निश्चित ही पूछेंगी,
कि इस दृश्य को गढ़ने वाले
कलाकारों की जीभ
क्या पितृसमर्पित सम्राटों ने कटवा दी थी
क्या बदले में भेंट कर दी गईं थीं
लाखों अशर्फियां,
कि गूंगे हो गए शिल्पकार
और बता नहीं पाए
कि संभोग के इस प्रतीक में
एक और सहयोगी है
जिसे पार्वती योनि कहते हैं

- नेहा नरुका