Volume 1 – Hitaya – ISSN : 2581-7787

[vc_row][vc_column][rev_slider_vc alias=”about-3″][vc_tta_tabs style=”flat” active_section=”1″][vc_tta_section title=”The importance of Pancharatra Studies – Prof. Shrinivasa Varakhedi” tab_id=”1530555764897-31723268-39e7″][vc_column_text css_animation=”fadeInLeft”]

The Importance of

Pancharatra Studies

(with respect to Madhva’s Philosophy)

Prof. SrinivasaVarakhedi.

1.Introduction.

To the students and scholars of Madhva Vedanta, it is indeed well known that the major difficulty lies with the tracing of resources of Madhva’s quotations cited in his Bhashya and other works. The question of authenticity of the sources cited by Madhva was first time raised by Appaya Dikshita, after 300 years after Madhva. All the objections of AD, were efficiently set right by Vijayeendra Tirtha – one of his contemporary Maadhva exponents.

For the three centuries after Madhva, none is recorded to have encountered with such hasty weapons. The sources where Madhva quotes from, were not unknown to contemporary scholars i.e., Shobhana Bhatta (Padmanabha Tirtha), Trivikrama Pandita and others, who later followed and admitted Madhva’s doctrines after a thorough deliberation. Probably those sources were available then and existing in the tradition of study, which might be ceased to continue to 300 years. Hence, the germination of such baseless charges took place.

And again, now the same path is tread by Mesquita Roque. For the same reason, once again this area has drew the attention of scholars worldwide. Recently, one successful attempt is made by Shrisha Rao in guidance of Mm. Dr.B.N.K.Sharma to answer some of Mesquita’s allegations.

In the same context, Dr.Sharma throw a light on the huge corpus of available Pa~ncaraatra Texts, which were believed to be last to us. PR texts are the prominent sources of Maadhva Philosophy, many of which are still unfortunately left out in the dark room of MS libraries.

We getting greatly inspired by Dr.Sharma’s write ups, started to trace out whereabouts of the PRs keeping Madhva’s quotations and tenets in view. In our way, we found some unforeseen faces of PRs, unexplored wealth of knowledge.

In this report we intend to present the importance of PRs, which is first of all necessary, we feel, to put forth in the community of scholars.

[ Note: kindly send your feedback and corrections if any found. We accept your valuable suggestions and appraisals with an open heart.]

1.1. General introduction to Pa~ncaraatras.

Paa~ncaraatras (PR) are the texts which have the subordinate position next only to Vedas, MahaaBharata (MB) and Bhaagavata (Bh). According to the Vedic hierarchy, Vedas are the higher most authority on Spiritual Knowledge[i]. The place after the Vedas is filled by MahaaBhaarata. Then comes the Bhaagavata. The very next position is occupied by P-texts (PRs). Thus PRs are considered as one among the highest authorities on Spiritual Knowledge. And the validity of PRs is unassailed as PRs are not only parasites to Vedas[ii], but also considered the utterances of Lord Narayana[iii].

According to Madhva, PRs are as authority as Vedas[iv], as they are produced by Lord himself.

Unlike the MB and Bh, PRs are of a large mass of literature. According to the traditional belief, PRs together have One and half Crore granthas. In 1919, F.Otto Schrader (OtS) (German Scholar), who was the then Director of the Adyar Library, Chennai, in the second decade of the last century, conducted the very first general survey of PRs. There were 215 PRs totally known to him. (App.1)

The second survey in 1968, by H. Daniel Smith (S), of Syracuse University, US, showed there were 288 PRs known, though out of them only 104 are available in MS form, and the rest of them were known by the later quotations and lists given in various texts. (App.2)

But still continuing further survey conducted by us {2001}, shows many more PRs known to us by later quotations of several philosophers i.e., Madhva, Yamuna and Vedanta Desika. (App.3).

Unfortunately most of them are last to us.

1.1.1. Topics of PRs.

Otto writes mostly the PRs preach the daily conduct and rituals of life in houses, temples to be observed by all i.e., Bachelors, Householders, Monks and Ascetics. He has listed out some important tenets of PRs[v].

Most of the scholars of west and east believe it. But, we trust that these are the Prima facie meanings of the PRs.

Prominent philosophers i.e., Yamuna, Ramanuja, Madhva and Vedanta Desika quote PRs in support of their doctrines. In the age, which spans from 10^th century to 13^th century, is called as `PRs age’ because in this period the texts of PRs found their highest position.

Thus, PRs are not to be underestimated as ordinary taantric literature. They must be regarded as authorities as Vedas.

1.1.2. Origin of the PRs.

Regarding PRs’ origin it is said that most of the PRs are the works of the Sages in times, though the matters they preach, is of God Naaraayan.a (N). But according to Madhvaacaarya (M), each and every text of PRs, which he has quoted in his works, has come out from the Mouth of N[vi].

It is comprehended by various sources that PRs are the compositions of Sages of different ages. However, the source of all these samhitaas is one, which was originated from Lord N[vii].

1.1.2. Name of PRs.

The very name of PRs is amusing. According to one tradition, N taught PRs to different gods like Caturmukha Brahman etc. and to the Sages Naarada etc. in 5 nights. Therefore the texts which are taught in five nights are called “Paa~ncaraatras”[viii].

According to Naarada Pa~ncaratra, the word `raatram’ denotes `knowledge’. The knowledge is fivefold. Hence, this is named as `pa~caraatram’[ix].

Explaing the fivefold knowledge Ahirbudhnya Samhitaa gives another noteworthy meaning of `pa~caraatram’[x]. Lord Vishnu has five forms. The texts which explain these five forms of Lord are called `Pa~caraatram’. There are so many such explanations are given in various `samhitas’.

There is a debate in total No of PRs, as they are said to have spaned about One and half Crore Granthas[xi]. The modern scholars do not believe in such claims.

The whole composition of PRs is ascribed to Lord Narayana, may be contents of which thereafter were abridged by later Sages[xii].

Different PRs got different names of Gods and Sages, because these PRs were taught by respective Gods and Sages to their disciples. It seems to us that there were thousands of PR sa.mhitaas separately taught by these Sages of different Vedic “Saakhaas in the same manner as their own Vedic “Saakhaas were taught[xiii]. It is evident as there are separate sa.mhitas of each Sage. This view is supported by a quotation of Brahmaa.nda by M in his Br.Ar.Up.Bhashya[xiv].

1.1.3. Validity and Authority of PRs

All Aacaaryas accepted these PRs as authority. Although “Sa.mkara criticizes some tenets of PR’s, by and large He accepted other tenets of PR’s that are not opponent to his doctrines. The commentators of “Sa.mkara have accepted the validity of PRs[xv] stating that PRs are authored by N solely. Recent controversies raised by Appayya Dikshita seem to be illogical, as it is in clear contradiction to his own preceeding Achryas i.e., Vacaspati and others. And Appayya did rise these objections not because he was a vedaantin, as S’ankara was. It is not unknown to the world of scholars that works like “Aagamapraamaan.ya” of Yamuna, and “Pa~ncaraatraraks’aa” of Vedanata Desika (VD) have efficiently refuted the views of their critics. Thus It is clear that PRs are the highest one authorities.

1.2. M’s philosophy is mainly based on PRs

We see that large corpus of quotations in M’s works is from PRs. It will be clear if we see the total number of works cited by M, and the number of PR’s in it (see appendix-1). Half of the 292 works cited by M, are PRs. Though some of them are not listed by O & S, It does not seem improper to think them as genuine PRs works as some of them are quoted by Yamuna, Ramnuja and Vedanta Deshiaka close contemporary philosophers to Madhva. Recently Dr.B.N.K.Sharma[xvi] claimed that the names of PRs quoted by Madhva that are unknown to others have been listed in the publication of Pa~craatra Parishodhana Parishad, Chennai. But, unfortunately we did not trace some of them in said publication as mentioned by Dr.Sharma.

1.2.1. Importance given to PRs by M

Whenever M counts the authoritative works, PRs are in third place. As we see

“vedaadapi para.m cakre pa~ncama.m vedamuttamam/

bhaaratam pa~ncaraatra.m ca muularaamaaya.n.m tathaa//”

(GB.1.1p. 2)

“artho’yameva nikhilairapi vedavaakyaih.

raamaaya.naih. sahitabhaaratapa~ncaraatraih.”

(MBTN.1.22)

“ityas’e.spuaraanebhya.h pa~ncraatrebhya eva ca/

bhaarataccaiva vedebhyao mahaaraamaaya.naadapi”

(Ma.Bhaa.Taa.Ni.9.118)

“ityeva “srutayao ‘”se.saa.h pa~ncraatramathaakhilam/

muularaamaaya.n.m caiva bhaarata.m smrtayo’khilaa.h//

vai.s.nvaani puraa.nani saa.mkhyayogau paraaupi/

(A.Vyaa.2-2-12)

As we see in all of these lists PRs are in either 2nd or 3rd places in the higherarchy. It shows the importance (next only to the vedas, and MB) given to PRs, by M. It is further supported by other facts.

It should also be noted that It appears to my mind that according to M, PRs are in a more good place, even compared to MB. It is evident from below given facts.

1) There is a mention of PR in BAU.(6-1-2) as “sloka, where as MB is mentioned in a general manner as Itihaasa.

2) Quotation from the Vaaraaha in AV. “iti giitaa ca tacchastrasa.mks’epa iti hiiritam” states the Giitaa is an abridged version of PRs.

3) Quotation from the Naaraaya.nasa.mhitaa

“pa~ncaraatramrgaadyaas’c sarvameka.m puraa’bhavat/

muulaveda iti hyaakhyaa kaale krtayuge tadaa//” states that PRs existed eternally.

4) “Amitaak.sra.m pa~ncaraatra.m vidyetyaahurmanii.s.nah./

mitaak.sra.m s’lokavaacyamubhaya.m veda iiryate//“.

1.2.2. PR’s validity established by M

M did not write a separate treatise to establish the validity of PR’s. Apparently that issue was, more or less, settled by by Yamuna in Aagamapraamaan.ya. But he touched this matter twice, once in Bra.Suu.Bhaa. 1-1-3, and again in A.Vyaa. 2-2-12.

1) The Quotation of Ma.Bhaa. in Bra.Suu.Bhaa.1-1-3[xvii] is given here with detailed translation.

Janamejaya asks

Please explain! Whether Saam.khya, Yoga, Pas’upata, and Veda+Aaran.yaka are of one opinion! Or not!

Vai”smpaayana explaines

All these are of different opinion. Saam.khya is taught by Kapila, Hiran.yagarbha is the preacher of Yoga, Pas’upata is preached by S’iva, while Pancaraatra is told by N himself. Pancaraatra excels in all these sciences.

Here Janmejaya asked whether all these are one or not?. But the Sage answers these are different. Instead of answering, “vedaara.nyaka is different from Saa.mkhya, Yoga, Pas’upata”, he is stating “Pa~ncaraatra excels among them. This implies “Pa~ncaraatra and Vedaara.nyaka are one, and teaching one thing”. In this way Ma.Bhaa. says “pa~ncaraatra is an authority, unlike Saam.khya, Yoga, Paa”supata.

2) In A.Vyaa. (2-2-12)[xviii] M says,

1) “Those, who think this 2-2-12 adhikaran.a is to refute the validity of PR’s, are contradicted to Ma.Bhaa., as Ma.Bhaa. Clearly states, “PR is authoritative”.

2) And Vaaraaha says, “The Giitaa is a summury of PR. God only can be seen by the studies of Vedas and PRs”.

3) “Sruti (Br.Aa.U.6-1-2) tells “The “Slokas, i.e. PRs are authority”.

4) “God should be meditated through Vedas and PRs” “PRs and Vedas are one scince, manifested as two”.

All these texts are showing us PRs are Valid. So how can one refute the validity of PRs.

And what is the fault here “paramakaara.naat parabrahmabhuutaat Vaasudevaat sa.mkar.s.no naama jiivo jaayate; sa.mkar.s.naat pradyumnasa~njna.m mano jaayate; tasmadaniruddhasa~nj~no’ha.mkaaro jaayate” (Paramasamhitaa.[Pa.Sa.m]).

As the generation of jiiva is described here (“J^~nota eva” 2-3-11, BS.) also. The generation of Jiiva who was not before, is not told in PRs also. “Jiiva travels in the sa.msaara, caught by eternal karma, by the order of God” It is the tenet of PRs. The internality of Jiiva is not told in PRs.

The meaning of the sentence of Pa.Sam. is like this…” The S’es.a who is the god of jiiva, namely Sam.kars.n.a is generated by God. Then Kaama the god of mind, namely Pradyumna is generated by Sam.kars.n.a.”.

And it can also be said “Lord himself took four Vyuuharuupa in name of Sam.kars.n.a etc”.

Hence the refutation of validity of PRs which is a mere product of furious minds, is not teneble.

1.2.3. Various quotations from PRs

According to our estimation, out of 292+ works, nearly 75 are PRs. This total is worked out after excluding the suspected works. If we take other suspected works as PRs, It will be more than 1/3 of the 292 works. In GB the first work of M, we find 18 PRs cited in the total of 64 works. The number increased further in later works.

It is our hypothesis that the quotations like naaradiiye, skaande, mahaakaurme, vaaraahe, gaaru.de, brahmavaivarte, and padme etc., probably refer to PR texts of that respective name. We have seen such style of quoting in works of Yamuna and Vedanta Deshika. While quoting `Paadmasmhita’, VD quotes it simply by name `paadme….’ etc.. And Acarya Madhva too quotes `Pravrttasamhita’ as `pravrtta’ and similarly `Mularamayana’ as `Maharamayana’.

There are enough indications if we see the sarvamuula carefully. Whenever M is quoting from a Puraa.na, he has given an adjective to that text, as we see in following contexts Aaditya puraa.ne (GB.p.29) or skaande “saive, padme “saive (GB.p.19). When he is quoting the paadma and skaanda (PR) he simply quotes it as paadme, skaande (GBp.36).

If he is quoting the same text in both occasions, he could have quoted it as paadme, and not as padme “saive. Even if we think that  padme “saive is to show that even in a shivite work vi.s.nu is extolled as Paramount  it is evidently useless, as we know the paadma is a saivapuraa.na as it belongs to that group.

It is more evident in the case of Aadityapuaraa.ne. He could have cited it simply as Aaditye, to refer Aadityapuraa.na. But he chose to call it as Aadityapuaraa.ne. mostly to differentiate it from other PRs quoted.

And the priority given to PRs in all contexts, support this fact.

Hence those who criticized M, for citing the non-existing verses from puraa.na, and, those who defended this action are proved to be left behind the curtain of ignorance.

One more thing is to be noted here that, all the quotations from paadma, skaanda, and gaaru.da seem to be clear-cut, where as the general pura.nic style is mostly confusion, except those of MBh, and Bh.

Thus we can accept that unless stated as a a puraa.na, or otherwise, all cited works are the PRs. Sometime We get the support of lists of O & S, sometimes not, as it is evident, that the lists are not comprehensive, as stated earlier.

1.3. Some important tenets M’s Philosophy found in PRs

It is already seen in last pages, some of the important contributions of M’s Philosophy to the world are found in PRs. Jiiva-traividhya, saak.si-vicaara, nava-vidha-dve.sa-varjana, are all found in PRs.

It is interesting to note that M’s first teaching of jiiva-traividhya is with a quotation from prakaa”sasa.mhitaa (PS) (GT.p.45). Still it is available in PS, even now, in a fragment of PS, with only two pa.talas, though the original verses are not traced.

And s.r.tivicaara, li”ngadehavicaara, saak.sivicaara are all found in PS. Surely much of M’s philosophy is found PRs, if we dig the whole texts of PRs.

If we come to M’s other works related to rituals like `tantrasaara’, no doubt, sources could be traced out in PRs with no difficulty.

Most of Madhva’s quotations in Bhagavata-taatparya, are from various samhitaas of PRs. Similarly the area of epistemology dealt by Madhva is greatly influenced by PRs.

Studies already conducted

There were not many sa.mhitaas were available in print at the dawn of last century. Only a few PRs were printed. Most PRs were restricted to the pockets of Tamil Country.

2.1. First Servey

The first ever man to survey the available PRs, and to make a systematic survey and philosophical study of PRs was the F.Otto Schrader. When Adyar Library (AL) was bringing the edition of ahirbudhnya sa.mhitaa, German indologist, Otto was working as the Dierector of the AL and he wrote the book “Introduction to Pa~caraatra and ahirbudhnya sa.mhitaa ” in 1919.

At the beginning of the Ist world war, Otto was detained in Aurangabad, as he was of Germany, which was waging the war with British. But, fortunately, he was able to write the Introduction due to the courtesy of Jail authorities, as he had collected all the materials necessary to write the Introduction. His Introduction was printed in 1919, but soon he had to leave the country for Motherland.

In his book he gave the synopsis of sa.mhitaa-lists found in the kapi~jala, paadma, vi.s.nu, haya”siir.s, and agnipuraa.na. According to those lists the total number of the PRs came to 215 (210+5 with some PRs were available in MSs). Among them only 23 texts were available in MSs, and upto 1919, only 9 PRs were in print.

In his book, he also dealt with compehensible theory of PRs, their nature, origins, authors, contents etc.

It is unfortunate that such a man was not able to work more on PRs, for reasons, completely other than academic ones.

2.2. Second Servey

The next man to deal with PRs after long pause is the H. Daniel Smith (S). Inspired by the monumental work of O, he treaded the path shown by O. Fortunately he did more work than O’s. felicitated by the liberal scholarships of the US varsities.

S was working as the professor of religion in the Syracuse University, New York[xix].

His works are these—

1) Paa~caraatrapraasaadasaadhana (1963), which dealt with various aspects of the Temple building. It was his Doctoral theses, which comprised note from unpublished works.

2) Paa~caraatra nuulvi.lakkam (1967), which dealt, exclusively, with PR literature. All the available works of PRs were surveyed, and their contents (adhyaaya-wise) were summarized. It dealt with 104 sa.mhitaas, which were available in different MS libraries. Besides it included a good synopsis of sa.mhitaa lists found in kapi~jala, j~naanam.rtasaara, paadma, paarame”svara, puru.sottama, bhaaradvaaja, maarka.deya, vi”svaamitra, vi”s.nutantra, haya”siir.s, agnipuraa.na and mahe”svartantra. This synopsis also included some works quoted by Utpala[xx] (U) one of leading Kashmiri Taantriks. But apparently this synopsis left out some texts quoted by M and VD. This work is the tamil translation of the original notes of S in English, by K.K.A. Venakatachary. Original notes are not available to us.

3) Then came “Source Book of Iconography of Sri Vaishnavism”, which dealt with iconography in 1969.

4) The last of S’s work is the “A descriptive bibliography of the printed texts of Pancaraatraagama” in two parts (1975,1980). First part of this book dealt with a detailed summary (adhyaaya-wise) of 30 printed works of PRs, while the second volume served as index or first volume(GOS.168).

Besides these books, The “Paancaraatra Parishodhana Parishat”, which he founded with KKAV and others, in Madras, published a critical edition of the Paadmasa.mhitaa, jointly edited by Seetha Padmanabhan and R N Sampath[xxi].

2.3 Other Studies

Others who worked on PR are a few like Vrajavallabha Dwivedi who edited saattvatasa.mhitaa with com of A.lasinga Bha.t.ta, and wrote vai.s.navaagamavimar”sa ; Lakshmi Narasimha Bhatta who edited vi.svaksenasa.mhitaa and paa~caraatrapraamaa.nya (of Uttamuru Veeraraghvacharya)[xxii] ; P B Ananthacharya of ii”svaras.mhitaa ; Yatiraraja Sampatkuamaraswamy of Melkottai ; Parthasarathy Iyengar etc.(see appendix of the printed texts of PR). There are many other scholars, who studied PRs. But, many of them relied upon previous inventions of O or DS group.

2.3. Conclusion

Thus, we strongly urge the scholars of our system, not to fail to notice our recommendations on the studies to be conducted on PRs literature. As it is described, PRs play an important role in Maadhva Philosophy and a gigantic collection that are ignored for the centuries in Maadhva traditional studies of philosophical sources.

[i] rgaadyaa bhaarata.m caiva pa~ncaraatramathaakhilam |

muularaamaaya.n.m caiva puraa.na.m caitadaatmakam// Vi.Ta.Ni.

[ii] vedamekaayanam naama vedaanaam shirasi sthitam |

tadarthakam pa~caraatram moks”dam tatkriyaavataam || Sriprashna.Sam 2-38.

[iii] paa~caraatrasya krtsnasya vaktaa naaraaya.na.h svayam | MB.Santi Parv. 359-65.

[iv] “vedaadapi para.m cakre pa~ncama.m vedamuttamam/

bhaaratam pa~ncaraatra.m ca muularaamaaya.n.m tathaa//” (GB.1.1p. 2)

[v] See Pg 30. Introduction to Paa~ncaraatra, published by ALRC, Chennai, in 1995.

[vi]

[vii] See Pg 9. Into.to Naradiya Sam. Pub. By RSV Titupati, in 1959.

[viii] Pa~caapi prthagekaikam divaaraatram jagatprabhu.h |

adhyaapayaamaasa yata.h………

………………..pa~caraatramitiiryate || Ishvara.Sam.

[ix] raatram ca j~naanavacanam j~naanam pa~cavidham smrtam |

tenedam pa~caraatram hi pravadanti maniis”.n.h || Narada.Pa.Sam. 1-44.

[x] tat para-vyuuha-vibhava-svabhaavaadiniruupa.nam |

pa~caraatraahvayam tantram moks”aikaphalalaks”a.nam || Ahi.Sam. 11-63.

[xi] Saardha-kotipramaa.nena kathitam tasya vish.nunaa |

raatribhi.h pa~cabhi.h sarvam pa~caraatramata.h srtam || Markandeya.Sam.

[xii] See yaa”stottarashataadhyaayaa mahatii vis”s.nusamhitaa |

tatroktaanam tu sarve”saamrthaanaamiha sa.mgraha.h || Vishnu. Sam. 1-30.

[xiii] Yathaa tu vedavrks”asya shaakhaabhedaa hyanekasha.h |

tathaa bhedaa.h samaakhyaataa.h pa~caraatrasya suuribhi.h || Vishnu.Sam. 2-22/23.

[xiv] p. 323 Amitaak.sara.m Pa~ncaraatram.

[xv] Buddhipuurvakrti.h pa~caraatram nishvasitam shruti.h |

tena jiivajanistatra siddhaa gau.nii niyamyate || kalpataru, Sh.Bh. 2-2-42.

[xvi] See `My latest four Research Papers’ by Dr.BNKS pub in 2001.

[xvii] “saa.mkhyam yoga.h paashupatam vedaara.nyakameva ca” ityaarabhya

vedapa~ncaraatrayoraikyaabhipraaye.na pa~caraatrasyaiva praamaa.nyamuktamitar’saam

bhinnamatatvam pradarshya mokxadharme”svapi. B.S.Bh of Madhva 1-1-3.

[xviii] Pa~caraatrani”shedhaarthametaanyaacaxate yadi |

sutraa.nyativiruddham tad yata aaha sa bhaarate ||

pa~caraatrasya krtsnasya vaktaa naaraya.na.h svayam |

j~naanehvateshu raajendra sarveshvetad vishi”shyate ||

pa~caraatravido ye tu yathaakramaparaa nrpa |

ekaantabhaavopagataa vaasudevam vishanti te ||

iti giitaa ca tacchaastrasa.mkshepa iti hiiritam |

vedena pa~caraatre.na bhaktyaa yaj~nena caiva hi ||

drshyo.aha.m naanyathaa drshyo varshakotishatairapi |

iti vaaraahavacanam shlokaa iti vacah shrutau ||

vedaishca pa~caraatraishca dhyeyo naaraaya.na.h para.h |

pa~caraatra~ca vedaashca vidyaikaiva dvidheyate ||

…………………………………………………….

yadi vidyaaccaturvedaanitivad vedapura.nam |

pa~caraatraaditi kuto dvesha.h shaandilyavartane ||

ata.h paramashaastrorudveshhadyditamaasurai.h |

duushha.nam pa~caraatrasya viixaayaamapi na xamam || anu.Vyaa. 2-2-12.

[xix] He is reachable at dansmith@twcny.rr.com (Syracuse, NY – USA).

[xx] We found that some of works quoted by Madhva i.e., “.Shaa.du.nya”, are mentioned by Utpala.

See `Vaish.navaagamavimarsha.h’ by prof. Vrajavallabha Dvivedi,

published by Sampurnananda Sanskrit University in 1997.

[xxi] See My latest four research papers by Dr.BNK.Sahrma, 2001.

[xxii] Pub. by RSVP, Tpt, in 1991.[/vc_column_text][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=” A Study on the Misconceptions and Mistranslations of the Samskrit Texts ” tab_id=”1530555765000-2725e8f4-39e7″][vc_column_text el_class=”articles”]– डा. उदयन हेगडे, संशोधनसहायकः, कर्णाटकसंस्कृतविश्वविद्यालयः, चामराजपेटे, बेङ्गलूरु – 560018.
E mail : udayanahegde@gmail.com ; Phone : 94810 26366

Abstract : We all know that the Samskrit Texts were translated by various scholars in different periods and to different languages all over the world. The Colonial regime has played a major role in the translations of Samskrit Texts. Most of the texts are Misinterpreted as well as Mistranslated.

We all know about the famous statement of Macaulay. The main intention of the colonial thought was to divide and rule our country. We must sadly say that they succeeded in brainwashing the young minds for which even today we are experiencing the colonial hangover without our knowledge.

Many a times the youth of this country are feeling ashamed of their ancestors without having the right knowledge of the history. We all know that there was a time in ancient Bharat –

etaddeśaprasūtasya sakāśādagrajanmanaḥ । svaṃ svaṃ caritraṃ śikṣeran pṛthivyāṃ sarvamānavāḥ ।।

We have forgotten our past. We are reading the history books written by the west thinking that it is the truth. Irony is even today, many of us are not able to understand Samskrit which is our own language.

In my paper, I would like to throw light upon the Misconceptions in the translation of Samskrit Texts and the Mistranslations in those Texts. Many scholars have done this job in different period of time.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

पीठिका –

A conglomeration of three hundred million souls, resembling men only in appearance, crushed out of life by being downtrodden by their own people and foreign nations, by people professing their own religion and by others of foreign faiths; patient in labour and suffering and devoid of initiative like the slave; without any hope, without any past, without any future; desirous only of maintaining the present life anyhow, however precarious; of malicious nature befitting a slave, to whom the prosperity of their fellow-men is unbearable; bereft of Shraddhâ, like one with whom all hope is dead, faithless; whose weapon of defence is base trickery, treachery, and slyness like that of a fox; the embodiment of selfishness; licking the dust of the feet of the strong, withal dealing a death-blow to those who are comparatively weak; full of ugly, diabolical superstitions which come naturally to those who are weak and hopeless of the future; without any standard of morality as their backbone; three hundred millions of souls such as these are swarming on the body of India like so many worms on a rotten, stinking carcass: This is the picture concerning us, which naturally presents itself to the English official! Maddened with the wine of newly acquired powers; devoid of discrimination between right and wrong; fierce like wild beasts, henpecked, lustful; drenched in liquor, having no idea of chastity or purity, nor of cleanly ways and habits; believing in matter only, with a civilisation resting on matter and its various applications; addicted to the aggrandisement of self by exploiting others’ countries, others’ wealth, by force, trick, and treachery; having no faith in the life hereafter, whose Âtman (Self) is the body, whose whole life is only in the senses and creature comforts: Thus, to the Indian, the Westerner is the veriest demon (Asura).

These are the views of observers on both sides—views born of mutual indiscrimination and superficial knowledge or ignorance. – एवम् परस्परयोः विषये प्राच्य-पाश्चात्त्यानां दृष्टिं विशदयति स्वामी विवेकानन्दः । दौर्भाग्यमेतत् यत् एतादृशेन दुराग्रहेण ग्रस्ताः सन्तः एव अनेके पाश्चात्त्याः विद्वांसः उच्चाधिकारिभिः प्रेरिताः, धनदानेन च प्रलोभिताश्च भूत्वा भारतस्य इतिहासं समरचयन् । एतदाग्रहपुरस्सरमेव भारतीयसंहिताः, स्मृतीः च व्याख्यातवन्तः । इतोऽपि दौर्भाग्यकरः विषयश्चैषः यत् अस्मद्देशीयाः पण्डितम्मन्याः, विद्वद्वरेण्यपीठालङ्कारिणो बहवः तादृशमेव अनुवादं तादृश्यः एव व्याख्याः प्रसादं मन्यमानाः तस्यैव प्रचारे परायणाः दृश्यन्ते । भारतीयपरम्परायां श्रद्धामन्तः अन्यविभागीयाः तु बहवः पण्डिताः तेषां विरोधेऽपि अनादरवन्तः असमर्थाः वा सन्तः बहुधा कालमयापयन्, येन अन्यथाप्रचारकर्तॄणां सौकर्यं कल्पितमभवत् इत्येतत् पुनरस्माकं भारतीयानां ललाटदुर्लिखितं विधिना ।

आस्तां तावत् – परिवर्तता कालेन एतादृशानां पूर्वाग्रहपुरस्सरानां ग्रन्थानां सतर्कखण्डनं, समीचीनार्थामण्डनं च इत्यादि प्रवर्तते इत्येतत् मोदावहम् । एषा वेदिकामपि तादृशमेव कञ्चन प्रयत्नं मन्ये । अहमपि एतस्मिन्नवसरे आङ्ग्लशासनकालीनानां तथाविधपाश्चात्त्यपण्डितानां केषाञ्चन, (केषाञ्चन पाश्चात्त्यप्रेरितानां च) विवरणेषु दुराग्रहयुक्तानां व्याख्यानां दर्शने, तेषां च वास्तविकार्थकथने च यथामति प्रयते ।

अनुवादक्षेत्रम् अत्यन्तं विस्तृतम् इति वयं जानीमः एव । अन्यस्यां भाषायां विद्यमानस्य विषयस्य अथवा ग्रन्थस्य अध्ययनाय/ज्ञानाय अनुवादः आश्रीयते इति तु सर्वैः ज्ञातपूर्वः एव विषयः । अस्मिन् क्षेत्रे कार्यं कृतवन्तः जनाः यद्यपि अल्पाः, कृतवन्तोऽपि केचन प्रसिद्धिपराङ्मुखाः दृश्यन्ते । यदा एतद्विषये मया ऐदम्प्राथम्येन अन्वेष्टुम् आरब्धं, मम बहुभिः मित्रैः साहाय्यं कृतम् । “स्मारये, न तु शिक्षये” इति वचनानुसारम्, अन्वेषणकाले यत् किञ्चित् मया लब्धं, तस्य प्रस्तावः भवतां पुरस्तात् क्रियते । एते विषयाः भवद्भिः न ज्ञाताः इति न । तथापि किञ्चित् प्रस्तौमि ।

१.१ विवादार्णवसेतुः – अनुवादश्च

अस्याः सङ्गोष्ठ्याः आद्ये सूचनापत्रे यथा निर्दिष्टं, ब्रिटिश्-शासनकाले संस्कृतग्रन्थानाम् आङ्ग्लानुवादपरम्परा आरब्धा इति वक्तुं शक्यते । यथा तत्रैव पत्रे उल्लिखितं – भगवद्गीतायाः प्रथमः अनुवादः तदा जातः, तदपि पर्षियन्-भाषायाम् अनूदितस्य गीताग्रन्थस्य । ’विवादार्णवसेतुः’ इति प्राचीनस्य प्रसिद्धस्य ग्रन्थस्य (पर्शियन्-भाषया अनूदितस्य) आङ्ग्लानुवादः A Code of Gentoo Laws or Ordinations of the Pundits इति नाम्ना कृतः १७७६ तमे वर्षे Nathaniel Brassey Halhed इत्याख्येन ।

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखामासीद्वाहू राजन्यः कृतः । ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत[i] – इत्ययं प्रसिद्धः पुरुषसूक्तमन्त्रः सर्वैः अपि प्रायः ज्ञातपूर्वः एव । पाश्चात्त्यानाम् अपव्याख्यानस्य आरम्भः अत्रैव जातः इति वक्तुं शक्यते। भारते वर्णव्यवस्था पुराकालादपि आसीदिति जानीमः । तत्तद्वर्णाश्रमानुसारं तेषां वृत्तिः भवति स्म । शास्त्राध्ययनं विहितानां सर्वेषामपि आसीदेव । वर्णाश्रमधर्माः उच्चनीचभावप्रतिपादकाः कदापि न आसन् । गीतायामपि भगवता श्रीकृष्णेनापि अभिहितम् –

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः। तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम्[ii] ।।

किन्तु, A Code of Gentoo Laws[iii] इत्यस्मिन् ग्रन्थे इत्थम् अपव्याख्यानं कृतं दृश्यते – the Principle of Truth, having first formed the Earth, and the Heavens, and the Water, and the Fire, and the Air, produced a Being, called Brahma, the Devata, for the Creation of all Beings (Devata is that to which all offer their Worship) afterwards he created the Bramin from his Mouth, the Kshatriya from his Arms, the Vaishya from his Thighs, and Shudra from his Feet : And he ordered Brahma to complete the other Creations, and to fettle the several Employments respectively of the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra, that he had created ; and he committed the Government of all Beings to Brahma,—brahma, according to Order, produced in the World Mankind, and Beads innumerable, and Birds, and Vegetables, and all inanimate Things, and Serpents of all Kinds and Varieties, and Piety, and Morality, and Justice, and Continence, and Lust, and Anger, and Avarice, and Folly, and Arrogance, and Drunkenness. And whereas the Brahmin proceeded from the Mouth of the Principle of Truth, for this Reason this Rank is the most eminent; the Kshatriya sprung from his Arms, his Rank therefore is Second; the Origin of the Vaishya is from the Thighs, and his Rank is the Third in Eminence; and the Shudra, who sprung from the Feet, is therefore the least in degree of them all इत्यादिरूपेण अविद्यमानः उच्चनीचभावश्च प्रदर्शितः स्फुटं परिलक्ष्यते ।

महाभाष्ये चापि शूद्रादीनामपि व्याकरणाध्ययनादिविषये बहवः उल्लेखाः दृश्यन्ते यथा – “एवं हि कश्चिद्वैयाकरण आह – कोऽस्य रथस्य प्रवेता ? सूत आह अहमायुष्मानस्य रथस्य प्राजिता ”[iv] इत्यादि ।

१.२ भगवद्गीता – अनुवादश्च

भगवद्गीतायाः प्रथमः आङ्लानुवादः कृतः चार्ल्स् विल्किन्स् इत्याख्येन । तत्र भगवद्गीतायाः आङ्ग्लानुवादे[v]ऽपि आदावेव तेन अनुवादकेन –

इति अभिहितं दृश्यते । इदं सर्वथा अङ्गीकर्तुं न शक्यम् । यद्यपि भारतीयानाम् अस्माकं दृष्ट्या कालगणनायां न तथा तात्पर्यं, तथापि उपनिषदां कालस्य अत्यन्तं प्राचीनः इति तु निर्विवादं वक्तुं शक्यम् ।

एवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद् यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि[vi] इत्यत्र अथर्वणवेदस्य स्पष्टमेव उल्लेखः लक्ष्यते । एवमेव मुण्डकेऽपि – तत्रापरा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्ववेद शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरण निरुक्तं छन्दो ज्योतिषमिति । अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते[vii]। अन्येऽपि बहवो हि विषयाः सन्ति भगवद्गीतानुवादविषये । किन्तु, एतावता एव अन्येन अयं विषयः प्रस्तुतः इत्यतः चर्वितचर्वणदोषनिवारणाय नात्र प्रस्तूयते ।

वस्तुतस्तु इदं महत् अध्ययनक्षेत्रम् । प्रायः संस्कृतविद्वद्भिः अत्र अवधानं न तथा दत्तम् इत्येव वक्तव्यं भवति । एषु वर्षेषु राजीव मल्होत्र[viii] इत्याख्येन कृतानि कार्याणि बहुभिः ज्ञातानि, विशेषेण सामाजिकमाध्यमानां प्रभावः तत्र आसीदिति वक्तुं शक्यम् । यद्यपि तेन महाशयेन बहुभ्यः वर्षेभ्यः एतानि कार्याणि क्रियमाणानि आसन् एव, तथापि एषु वर्षेषु एव अधिकः परिणामः दृश्यते । अधिकाः तरुणाः कार्येस्मिन् आसक्ताः अवलोक्यन्ते । किन्तु, अस्य महोदयस्य कार्यं तावत् षेल्डन् पोलाक्[ix], वेण्डि डानिगर्[x] इत्याद्यानाम् एतत्-शताब्दवर्तिनां पाश्चात्त्यानां खण्डनपर्यन्तमेव विद्यते । अस्याः सङ्गोष्ठ्याः विषयस्तु तस्मात्पूर्वतनः (ब्रिटिश्-शासन)कालः इत्युक्तत्वात् अस्य महोदयस्य कार्याणां कृतीनां वा न तथा विशिष्य उल्लेखः मया क्रियते । ब्रिटिश्-शासनकाले विद्यमानानां पाश्चात्त्यलेखकानां प्रभावस्तु तेषां कृतिषु विशेषेण परिलक्ष्यते ।

एतादृशं संशोधनं कृतवस्तु मया दृष्टं जालपुटं[xi] – स्वामिनां प्रकाशानन्द-सरस्वतीवर्याणाम् । एभिः स्वामिभिः बहु संशोधनं कृतं जालपुटे दृश्यते । The True History and the Religion of India[xii] (A concise encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism) इत्याख्यः ग्रन्थः तैः रचितः । तस्मिन् ग्रन्थे विस्तरशः तैः एतादृशाः बहवो विषयाः प्रतिपादिताः । तेषां विषयाणां सङ्ग्रहरूपम् एव तेषां जालपुटेषु विद्यते । एतेषां विषयाणाम् अध्ययनाय महान् कालः अपेक्षते । तैः प्रतिपादितानाम् अंशानाम् आधारेण मया अत्र किञ्चित् प्रस्तूयते ।

१.३ विष्णुपुराणम् – अनुवादश्च

बङ्गालस्य प्रसिद्धा एशियाटिक्-सौसैटि-संस्था विलियं जोन्स्[xiii] इत्याख्येन आरब्धा इति वयं स्मरामः एव । एच्.एच्. विल्सन् इत्याख्येन विष्णुपुराणस्य अनुवादः कृतः । अस्य प्रथमं प्रकाशनं १८३२ तमे वर्षे जातम् । विष्णुपुराणस्य प्रस्तावनायाम् एव तस्य स्वभावः अस्माभिः अवगन्तुं शक्यः । तस्य अत्यन्तं प्रियाणि पदानि – absurd, thieves, imposters, myth, fiction, barbarous, degraded, outcast, puerile, speculations इत्यादीनि सः आधिक्येन प्रयुङ्क्ते ।

विष्णुपुराणस्य प्रथमम् अन्तिमं च वाक्यम् उदाहरणरूपेण स्वीकुर्मः । आद्यं वाक्यम् अस्ति – ’सदक्षरब्रह्म य ईश्वरः पुमान्’[xiv] इति । अनुवादकः विल्सन् – “May that Vishnu, who is the existent, imperishable Brahm, who is Ishwar, who is spirit.” इत्येवम् अनुवदति। वास्तविकः अर्थस्तु – यः सन्, अक्षरः, ब्रह्म, ईश्वरः, पुमान् इति (Wilson changed the meaning of the word puman from ‘personal form’ to ‘spirit,’ because the Bible describes God as ‘spirit.’)

अन्ते विद्यमानः श्लोकभागः – ’यस्य रूपं प्रकृतिपरात्ममयं सनातनस्य[xv]’ इति । विल्सन् अस्य अनुवादम् एवं करोति – “Eternal Hari, whose essence is composed of both nature and spirit.” इति । स्वामिनः एवं लिखन्ति – The God of Wilson, in the holy Bible, is said to be ‘spirit,’ and probably Wilson was trying to bring his ‘stone, and spirit’ God into the Puranas. That’s why he has translated the Vishnu Puran like this and has tried to destroy the Divine and the Gracious theme of the Vishnu Puran.

१.४ ऋग्वेदः – अनुवादश्च

वेदानामपि अनुवादः बहुभिः कृतः । किञ्चित् पश्यामः –

अवर्त्या शुन अन्त्राणि पेचे न देवेषु विविदे मर्डितारम् ।
अपश्यं जायाममहीयमानामधा मे श्येनो मध्वा जभार[xvi] ॥

सायणभाष्यस्य आङ्ग्लानुवादे H.H. Wilson महोदयेन एवंविधः अर्थः वर्णितः अस्ति – “In the extreme destitution I have cooked the entails of a dog: I have not found a comforter among the gods: I have beheld my wife disrespected: then the falcon, (Indra), has brought to me sweet water”.

दयानन्दसरस्वतीस्वामिनां आङ्लभाष्ये एषः मन्त्रः शासकस्य कर्तव्यविषये उक्तः इति अभिप्रैति । तस्य मन्त्रस्य अनूदितार्थः एवम् अस्ति – “O king! I see you as one who provides protection from the mean person, who elopes with my disrespected wife like a falcon. Such a wicked person cannot achieve genuine knowledge from the enlightened persons. You must severe your connections from such a man”.

In deep distress I cooked a dog’s intestines. Among the Gods I found not one to comfort. My consort I beheld in degradation. The Falcon then brought me the pleasant Soma – एषः अनुवादः ग्रिफ़ित्-वर्येण कृतः ।

मनुः ऋषिं वामदेवं कुत्रचित् स्मरति –

श्वमांसमिच्छनार्तोऽत्तुं धर्माधर्मविचक्षणः ।
प्राणानां परिरक्षार्थं वामदेवो न लिप्तवान् [xvii]॥ इति ।

कस्मिंश्चित् भीकरक्षामे तीव्रबुभुक्षया ग्रस्तः, महर्षिः वामदेवः श्वमांसं भुङ्क्ते । सः तु धर्माधर्मविचक्षणः । केवलं प्राणधारणाय कृतमित्यतः एतेन सः अपवित्रः न अभूत् ।

नाहं वेदवित्, न च अधीतभाष्यो वा । अतः मन्त्रस्यास्य अर्थनिर्णयः प्रायः मादृशेन कर्तुं सर्वथा अशक्यः, आपातनिर्णयः असमीचीनश्च । किन्तु सामान्यज्ञानवान् यः कोऽपि पुरुषः अवगन्तुम् अत्र शक्नोति, यत् अस्मिन् मन्त्रे श्वमांसभक्षणस्य कृते अङ्गीकारः वा अनुमतिः वा न दत्तः । एतं मन्त्रं प्रगृह्य यदि कोऽपि एवं वक्तुं प्रयतते, यत् आर्याः श्वमांसभक्षकाः आसन्, ननु तत् हास्यास्पदम्? किन्तु एवंविधाः प्रयत्नाः बहुधा कृताः दृश्यन्ते दुर्बुद्धिभिः । यदि केनचित् ऋषिणा श्वमांसभक्षणमपि कृतम् इत्येव तस्य मन्त्रस्य अर्थः स्यात्, – यथा मनुना उक्तं, तत्तु आपद्धर्मरूपेण, स्वप्राणधारणार्थं च । प्राणेभ्यो गरीयः किमिहास्ति? सः ऋषिः अपि तेन कार्येण स्वगृहजनैरेव अवमाननम् अनुभूतवान्, अनन्तरं इन्द्रेण रक्षितः इत्यपि उक्तम् । अतः मन्त्रे केनचित् कृतमित्युक्तं चेदपि तत् तेन जनाङ्गेन एव अनुमतम् आसीत् इति सामान्यीकरणं सर्वथा अनुचितम् – इति मम अभिप्रायः ।

अन्यत् उदाहरणम् –

सखा सख्ये अपचत्तूयमग्निरस्य क्रत्वा महिषा त्री शतानि ।

त्री साकमिन्द्रो मनुषः सरांसि सुतं पिबद्वृत्रहत्याय सोमम्[xviii] ॥

अस्य मन्त्रस्य अनुवादः विल्सन् महोदयेन एवं कृतः -“To aid (the understanding of) his friend, Agni, the friend (of Indra) has quickly consumed three hundred buffaloes; and Indra, fordestruction of Vrtra, has at once quaffed vessels of Soma offered by Manu[xix]”

[xx]As friend to aid a friend, Agni dressed quickly three hundred buffaloes, even as he willed it. And Indra, from man’s gift, for Vrtra’s slaughter, drank ofr at once three lakes of pressed-out Soma. – एषः ग्रिफित् महोदयस्य अनुवादः ।

महर्षिणा दयानन्दसरस्वतिना कृतम् अस्य मन्त्रस्य अर्थनिर्वचनम् एवमस्ति – “The Agni (in the form of the fire/energy and sun) soon illuminates three worlds in the middle of the universe and drinks the water of the tanks (by drying it up), and for the slaying the clouds ripens Soma and other things that lead to prosperity in the long run (by increasing physical and mental strength). In the same manner, a friend by the power of his intellect or actions, protects three hundred big animals (cattle wealth) for the welfare of his friend”.

अस्य मन्त्रस्य तात्पर्यम् इत्थमस्ति यत् – यथा सूर्यः सर्वाणि वस्तूनि जीवांश्च रक्षति सर्वविधं, तथा राज्ञा अपि न्यायेन मार्गेण करणीयम् इति ।

अन्यत् उदाहरणम् – आ ते अग्न रचा हविर्ह्र्दा तष्टं भरामसि |

ग्रिफित् महोदयस्य अनुवादः – Agni, we bring thee, with our hymn, oblation fashioned in the heart. Let these be oxen unto thee, let these be bulls and kine to thee[xxi].

वास्तविकः अर्थस्तु – “We offer to you, O Lord, the homage issuing forth from our hearts, and transmitted in the words of the Vedic verses. May the virile bulls, bullocks and cows be dear to you as your own.

अन्यस्य एकस्य मन्त्रस्य उदाहरणं पश्यामः –

अपाम सोमममृता अभूमागन्म ज्योतिरविदाम देवान्। किं नूनमस्मान्कृणवदरातिः किमु धूर्तिरमृत मर्त्यस्य॥[xxii]

ग्रिफ्फित्[xxiii] इत्याख्यः अस्य अनुवादम् एवं करोति – “We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered. Now what may foeman’s malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man’s deception? The Ninth Mandala of the Rigveda is known as the Soma Mandala. It consists entirely of hymns addressed to Soma Pavamana (“purified Soma”).”

वास्तविकः अर्थस्तु अन्यः एव । तम् अर्थम् अवलोकयामः –

अनेनैव ग्रफित् इत्याख्येन कृतस्य आङ्लानुवादस्य पठनं कुर्मश्चेत् पापम् एव जायेत –

अहं रुद्रेभिर्वसुभिश्चराम्यहमादित्यैरुत विश्वदेवैः। अहं मित्रावरुणोभा बिभर्म्यहमिन्द्राग्नी अहमश्विनोभा।।

अहं सोममाहनसं बिभर्म्यहं त्वष्टारमुत पूषणं भगम्। अहं दधामि द्रविणं हविष्मते सुप्राव्ये यजमानाय सुन्वते।।

अहं राष्ट्री संगमनी वसूनां चिकितुषी प्रथमा यज्ञियानाम्। तां मा देवा व्यदधुः पुरुत्रा भूरिस्थात्रां भूर्यावेशयन्तीम्।।

मया सो अन्नमत्ति यो विपश्यति यः प्राणिति य ईं शृणोत्युक्तम्।अमन्तवो मां त उप क्षियन्ति श्रुधिश्रुत श्रद्धिवं ते वदामि।।

अहमेव स्वयमिदं वदामि जुष्टं देवेभिरुत मानुषेभिः।यं कामये तं–तमुग्रं कृणोमि तम्ब्रह्माणं तं ऋषिं तं सुमेधाम्।।

अहं रुद्राय धनुरा तनोमि ब्रह्मद्विषे शरवे हन्तवा उ।अहं जनाय समदं कृणोम्यहं द्यावापृथिवी आविवेश।।

अहं सुवे पितरमस्य मूर्धन्मम योनिरप्स्वन्तः समुद्रे।ततो वि तिष्ठे भुवनानु विश्वोतामूं द्यां वर्ष्मणोप स्पृशामि।।

अहमेव वात इव प्र वाम्यारभमाणा भुवनानि विश्वा।परो दिवा पर एना पृथिव्यैतावती महिना सं बभूव।।[xxiv]

HYMN CXXV. Vak.

(1) [xxv]I TRAVEL with the Rudras and the Vasus, with the Adityas and All-Gods I wander. I hold aloft both Varuna and Mitra, Indra and Agni, and the Pair of Asvins.

(2) I cherish and sustain high-swelling Soma, and Tvastar I support, Pusan, and Bhaga. I load with wealth the zealous sacrificer who pours the juice and offers his oblation

(3) I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship. Thus Gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.

(4) Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them,-each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken. They know it not, but yet they dwell beside me. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.

(5) I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that Gods and men alike shall welcome.

I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him a sage, a Rsi, and a Brahman. (sumedhaa is missing)

(6) I bend the bow for Rudra that his arrow may strike and slay the hater of devotion. I rouse and order battle for the people, and I have penetrated Earth and Heaven.

(7) On the world’s summit I bring forth the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean. Thence I extend over all existing creatures, and touch even yonder heaven with my forehead.

(8) I breathe a strong breath like the wind and tempest, the while I hold together all existence. Beyond this wide earth and beyond the heavens I have become so mighty in my grandeur.[xxvi]

एवम् अत्र अस्मिन् पत्रे अधोरेखाङ्कितेषु वाक्येषु बहवः दोषाः सन्ति । तथाहि समग्रः अनुवादः अनर्थकरः एव। बृहद्देवतायाम् उक्तदिशा – अम्भृणी ऋषिका । अम्भृणी का ? न जानीमः । वाक् चेत् कथं वा रुद्र-वसु-आदित्य-विश्वेदेवैः सह गच्छेत् ? कथं वा अस्य जगतः पितुः भरणं कुर्यात् ? कथं वा वायुः इव वहेत् ? कथं रुद्रम् अभिवादयेत् ? प्रश्नाः न प्रष्टव्याः । म्याक्स् मुल्लर् लिखति खलु ? – “Large number of Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme; tedious, low, commonplace.”[xxvii] । सामान्यः संस्कृतज्ञः एतेषां वाक्यानाम् अर्थं जानाति । सापि ऋषिः । सा कथयति – अहं रुद्रैः सह यामि इति । इदं सूक्तं प्रतिदिनं बहुभिः पूजाकाले उपयुज्यते। किन्तु, पूर्वाग्रहपीडितानां न तथा।

यथा प्रो. वीरनारायण पाण्डुरङ्गिमहोदयैः Review of Vedic interpretations[xxviii] इत्यस्मिन् पत्रे उच्यते – अत्र मूलं कारणम् अस्ति चिन्तनभेदस्य । तेषां पाश्चात्त्यानाम् अस्माकं च चिन्तने महान् भेदः वर्तते । वयम् अस्मदीयान् सर्वानपि ग्रन्थान् सत्यम् इति विभावयामः । तेषां दृष्टिः तादृशी न भवति । सर्वमपि परीक्षादृष्ट्या, सन्देहेन च पश्यन्ति । अस्माकं भारतीयानां जीवनस्य परमं लक्ष्यं मोक्षः एव । इयम् उपनिषद्-विद्या/परा विद्या । इयं पुस्तकविद्या न । केवलं वेदपुस्तकानाम् अध्ययनेन न तत् प्राप्यते ।

१.५ अन्येषु ग्रन्थेषु अपव्याख्यानानि

“Ancient Indian Historical Tradition.” इत्यस्मिन् ग्रन्थे F. E. Pargiter (1852-1927) लिखति – The whole of the Sanskrit literature has no historical works[xxix]. Aryans established themselves in India through long warfare[xxx]. एवं तत्र बहुविधानि असत्यानि तैः प्रतिपादितानि दृश्यन्ते । आर्याक्रमणवादस्तु मिथ्या इति विदेशीयैरेव अङ्गीकृतमिति वयं जानीमः । किन्तु, अस्माकं देशे एव तस्य जपः इतोऽपि प्रचलति इति तु खेदावहः विषयः ।

आ ब्रह्यन्‌ ब्राह्मणो बह्मवर्चसी जायताम्‌
आ राष्ट्रे राजन्यः शूर इषव्यः अतिव्याधी महारथो जायताम्‌
दोग्ध्री धेनुर्वोढानड्वानाशुः सप्तिः पुरंध्रिर्योषा जिष्णू रथेष्ठाः सभेयो
युवा अस्य यजमानस्य वीरो जायतां निकामे निकामे नः पर्जन्यो वर्षतु
फलवत्यो न ओषधयः पच्यन्ताम्‌ योगक्षेमो नः कल्पताम्[xxxi]

मन्त्रेणानेन राष्ट्रस्य मङ्गलं प्रार्थयति ऋषिः । मम राष्ट्रे शस्त्रास्त्रविशारदाः शूराः सन्तु, ये स्वपराक्रमेण शत्रून् जयेयुः । दोग्ध्र्यः गावः अस्माकं सन्तु, समर्थाः वृषभाः, शीघ्रगामिनश्च अश्वाः च भवन्तु । स्त्रियः पूज्याः भवेयुः, पर्जन्यः काले वर्षतु, समये पृथिवी सस्यशालिनी फलवती च स्यात् । अस्माकं योगक्षेमं कल्पयतु ।

राष्ट्रमङ्गलप्रार्थनायाः सरलानुवादे कश्चन प्रयत्नः अत्र मया विहितः । आर्याणाम् आक्रमणवादस्य तिरस्करणाय मन्त्रोऽयमत्र उपस्थापितः । अन्यदेशात् आगत्य आक्रमण-हननादिद्वारा कामपि भूमिं स्वायत्तीकृतवन्तः तां भूमिं स्वस्य मातरं न मन्यन्ते, तस्याः हितार्थं न प्रार्थयन्ते इत्येतत्तु सर्वविदितम् ।

१.६ अनुवर्तमाना अपव्याख्यानपरम्परा

इयम् अपव्याख्यानपरम्परा ब्रिटिश्-शासनकालस्य अनन्तरं किं समाप्ता इति चेत्, न । अद्यापि सा परम्परा अनुवर्तते । एषु दिनेषु/वर्षेषु अत्यन्तं प्रसिद्धः अस्य देशस्य अत्युन्नतेन पद्मश्रीप्रशस्त्या पुरस्कृतः अस्माकं कर्नाटकम् एव आगत्य अत्रैव अधीत्य अपव्याख्यानकर्तृषु अन्यतमः षेल्डन् पोलाक् । तस्य अनुवादं किञ्चित् पश्यामः । एतादृशानाम् अनुवादगतदोषाणाम् उद्घाटनं, तद्विषये च संशोधनं कृतं डा. शङ्करराजारामवर्येण । हृदयसंवाद[xxxii]-इत्याख्ये जालपुटे च सङ्ग्रहः विहितः । तदेवात्र प्रस्तूयते –

औदास्यं न विधेहि, गच्छ न गृहात् संवीक्ष्य मृद्भाजनं
याचे किन्तु भवन्तमेतदखिलं कौत्स क्षणं क्षम्यताम् ।
दासश्चेदहमस्मि चेद्वसुमती सर्वैव सङ्गृह्यतां
स्वर्णं चेद्गुरुदक्षिणा धनपतेरानीय सम्पाद्यते ॥

सर्वेऽपि वयं कालिदासस्य रघुवंशाध्ययनेन जानीमः यत् कौत्सः, वरतन्तुशिष्यः इति, तस्य गुरुदक्षिणासम्पादनार्थं राजा रघुः कुबेरस्य साम्राज्यम् उद्दिश्य आक्रमणं कर्तुम् उद्युक्तः इति । किन्तु पोलाक्-वर्यस्य व्याख्याने तावत् अयं कौत्सः रघोः पुरोहितः[xxxiii] इति उल्लिखितः –

“Please do not, seeing this earthen bowl of mine,

leave my house in despair.

All that I would ask of you, Kautsa*,

is to pause a moment.

If I am your slave ………….

…………………………………

If gold is your teacher’s** gift —

………………………………”

Footnote: [xxxiv]King Raghu speaks to his priest at the conclusion of a sacrifice where he gave away all his wealth

डा. शङ्करराजारामवर्यः लिखति – *It is evident Raghu is speaking to Kautsa. Who this Kautsa is is clear from KAlidAsa’s RaghuvaMSa. Kautsa is a student who has just completed his studies, not the priest of Raghu

** If Kautsa is the priest as Pollock thinks, why should Raghu ask him “If gold is your teacher’s gift”? Did the priest of Raghu forget to pay his gurudakShiNA? And is he, after serving as a priest for Raghu, remembering now that he has to pay gurudakShiNA?

वेण्डि डानिगर् इत्याख्या तु सम्यगेव अपव्याख्यानं करोति । डा. शङ्करवर्यः एवं तद् दर्शयति[xxxv] –

Mixed up and erroneous notes on poetic conventions: The notes on verses 1.14 and 1.18 are about the ritual called दोहद according to which specific trees put forth flowers when their specific wishes are fulfilled. The following verse summarizes the longings of several trees:

[xxxvi]पादाघातादशोकस्तिलककुरबकावीक्षणालिङ्गनाभ्यां

स्त्रीणां स्पर्शात्प्रियङ्गुर्विकसति बकुलः सीधुगण्डूषसेकात् ।

मन्दारो नर्मवाक्यात्पटुमृदुहसनाच्चम्पको वक्त्रवाता-

च्चूतो गीतान्नमेरुर्विकसति च पुरो नर्तनात्कर्णिकारः[xxxvii] ॥

डा. शङ्करराजारामवर्यः लिखति – According to this verse, the बकुल blooms when women spit mouthfuls of wine on it (सीधु-गण्डूष-सेकात्, wine-mouthful-watering-by) and the चम्पक when women smile (पटु-मृदु-हसनात्, clever-soft-smiling-by). Now examine the notes on the verses referred to above, translated by Donniger

[xxxviii]Verse 1.14 (notes, p. 482) : “The bakula —–, said to blossom when a beautiful woman sprays it with water* from her mouth”

Verse 1.18 (notes, p. 483) : “The champakas are said to shine at last** because they enjoy the mouthfuls of wine*** the women have sprayed on them and they blossom when the women smile on them****

*Bakula blossoms not with mouthfuls of water but of wine

**How is enjoyment of mouthfuls of wine related to shining at last? What is this cause-effect relationship?

***Champakas blossom not with mouthfuls of wine but with smiles. I don’t understand what the translator means by saying “shine” and “blossom”. There is no one ritual to make a tree shine and another to make it blossom

****Why two dohada rituals for the same tree?

एवं यदि वयम् अन्विष्यन्तः गच्छामः तर्हि अपव्याख्यानस्य परम्परा एव द्रष्टुं शक्या । न केवलं वैदेशिकाः, खेदावहो विषयः नाम अनेके भारतीयाः अपि एतादृशे अपव्याख्यानकर्मणि रताः वर्तन्ते । न केवलम् अपव्याख्यानं, भारतीयानाम् अस्माकं श्रद्धास्थानभूतानां रामकृष्णपरमहंस इत्यादीनां विषये अश्लीलार्थोऽपि कल्पितः जेफ्रि जे कृपाल[xxxix] इत्याख्येन वेण्डि डानिगर्-शिष्योत्तमेन – Kali’s child[xl] इत्याख्ये ग्रन्थे । तथापि वयम् अत्यन्तं सात्त्विकाः । अस्माकं कदापि कोपः न भवति । आश्चर्यं नाम अस्माकं तावती निद्रा अस्ति, अद्य पर्यन्तमपि तादृशानाम् अपव्याख्यानां खण्डनाय न वयम् उद्यताः ।

उपसंहारः

म्याक्स् मुल्लर् पत्नीम् उद्दिश्य एवं लिखति – The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years[xli].

अन्यत् पत्रं तेन लिख्यते Acting Secretary of State for India Duke of Argyll[xlii] इत्यस्मै – The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?” इति ।

तेन इत्थं व्याख्यातं यत् ऋग्वेदस्य कालः १२०० BC इति , यतः ततोऽपि अग्रिमस्य कालस्य उल्लेखे क्रैस्तमतस्य तत्सिद्धान्तस्य च हानिः सञ्जायेत इति । म्याक्स्मुल्लर्, ग्रिफित्, ब्लूम्फील्ड्, विल्सन् इत्याद्याः बहवो हि मतप्रचारकाः यद्यपि संस्कृतस्य अध्ययनाय प्रवृत्ताः, तथापि अपव्याख्यानं तु कृतवन्तः । तेन, हिन्दुदृष्टेः अब्राह्मिकावरणं सर्वत्र व्याप्तम् । अनेनैव कारणेन अनेके हिन्दवोऽपि अस्मद्धर्मम् अन्धविश्वासयुक्तं, मांसभक्षणसहितं, अश्वहननादिबलियुक्तं, जातिदूषितम् इत्यादिरूपेण अन्यथा मन्यन्ते ।

अस्तु तर्हि एतावत् व्याख्यानम् अस्माभिः श्रुतम् । कः परिहारः ? अस्याः सङ्गोष्ठ्याः मुख्यः अपरः विषयः – Pandit Tradition of India इति । भारतीया विद्वत्परम्परा किं करोति एतद्विषये ? एतत् किमस्माकं दायित्वे नान्तर्भवति ?

इदमत्र उल्लेखनीयं यत् एषु दिनेषु प्रेक्षा प्रतिष्ठानम् इति संस्थाद्वारा प्रेक्षा जर्नल्[xliii] प्रकाश्यते। तत्र विशेषेण संस्कृतस्य सत्त्वभूतानां ग्रन्थानां विषयाणां च आङ्ग्लानुवादः विशेषेण प्रस्तूयते । एतादृशानि कार्याणि अस्माभिः आधिक्येन क्रियन्ते चेत्, यत् बहुभिः आक्षिप्तं – महतां ग्रन्थानाम् अनुवादयोजना वैदेशिकेभ्यः दीयते इत्याद्याः अपि स्वयमेव निरस्यन्ति । एतादृशेषु कर्मसु वयम् अधिकाधिकम् अहमहमिकया प्रवृत्ताः भवेम इति शम्।

* * * * * * *

[i] ऋग्वेदः १०.९०

[ii] भगवद्गीता ४.१३

[iii] Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, 1776, A Code of Gentoo Laws or the Ordinations of the Pundits, from a Persian translation, made from the original, written in the shanscrit language.

[iv] महाभाष्यम् २.४.५६

[v] Charles Wilkins, 1785, The Bhagavat Geeta or the dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon

[vi] बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४.५.११

[vii] मुण्डकोपनिषत् १.१.५

[viii] https://rajivmalhotra.com

[ix] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mesaas/faculty/directory/pollock.html

[x] https://divinity.uchicago.edu/wendy-doniger

[xi] http://encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/

[xii] https://www.thetruehistoryandthereligionofindia.org/

[xiii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asiatic_Society

[xiv] विष्णुपुराणम् १.१.२

[xv] विष्णुपुराणम् ६.८.१

[xvi] ऋग्वेदः ४.१८.१३

[xvii] मनुस्मृतिः १०.१०६

[xviii] ऋग्वेदः ५.२९.७

[xix] CLOUDS OVER UNDERSTANDING OF THE VEDAS-II : B.D.Ukhul (A rejoinder to the book ‘The Myth of the holy cow’ by D.N.Jha)

[xx] The Hymns of the Rigveda, Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith, 2nd edition, Kotagiri (Nilgiri) 1896 [05-029] HYMN XXIX. Agni.

[xxi] The Hymns of the Rigveda, Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith, 2nd edition, Kotagiri (Nilgiri) 1896 [05-029] [06-016] HYMN XVI. Agni.

[xxii] ऋग्वेदः ८.०४८.०३

[xxiii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_T._H._Griffith

[xxiv] ऋग्वेदः १०.१२५

[xxv] Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, 1896

[xxvi] http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10125.htm

[xxvii] ‘Chips from a German Workshop’, second edition, 1866, p. 27.

[xxviii] Prof. Veeranarayana N K Pandurangi, Review of Vedic interpretations

[xxix] F. E. Pargiter, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition Chapter 1, page 2

[xxx] Ibid 1.3

[xxxi] शुक्लयजुर्वेदः २२. २२

[xxxii] https://hrdayasamvada.wordpress.com/

[xxxiii] https://hrdayasamvada.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/sheldon-pollock-gets-a-storys-details-wrong/

[xxxiv] Pollock, S. I. (2009). Bouquet of Rasa & River of Rasa. [New York, NY]: New York University Press, JJC Foundation.

[xxxv] https://hrdayasamvada.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/windy-donigers-translation-of- हर्षs-रत्नावली-and-प्रिय/

[xxxvi] SriharShadeva (1925) (3rd Ed.). महाकविश्रीहर्षदेवविरचिता रत्नावली नाटिका. Mumbai:Nirnay Sagar Press

[xxxvii] Harshadeva (1928). The Priyadarsika of Sri Harsha-deva. Edited by M.R. Kale. Bombay: Gopal Narayan & Co.

[xxxviii] Doniger., W. (2006). The Lady of the Jewel Necklace and The Lady who Shows her Love by Harsha. [New York, NY]: New York University Press, JJC Foundation.

[xxxix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_J._Kripal

[xl] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali%27s_Child

[xli] Letter to his wife Georgina, published in The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Müller (1902) edited by Georgina Müller

[xlii] Letter to the Duke of Argyll, published in The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Müller (1902) edited by Georgina Müller

[xliii] http://prekshaa.in/[/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”वैदेशिकशासनकाले) संस्कृतग्रन्थानाम् आङ्ग्लानुवादेषु विद्यमानानां दुर्विचाराणाम् अशुद्धानुवादानाञ्च कश्चन अध्ययनप्रयासः (विशिष्य वैदेशिकशासनप्रभावप्रदर्शनं च)

A Study on the Misconceptions and Mistranslations of the Samskrit Texts : A Colonial Hangover ” font_container=”tag:h4|text_align:left|color:%230a0a0a” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][/vc_tta_section][vc_tta_section title=”A Study on the Misconceptions and Mistranslations of the Samskrit Texts” tab_id=”1530556275130-b9e76a68-20ac”][vc_column_text]