Translating the Rig Veda's eight Sukta was no small feat. Not only were Max Muller's "preserved meters" way off, correct definitions for the majority of words also were exceedingly hard to come by. The first of these elusive words came at the outset. That word was "endra," which is almost universally misinterpreted as another form of Indra. Many translators have, in fact, changed the spelling to "Indra." Some have also dropped the long "a" that proceeds "endra" at the start of the opening line; while others have mistranslated the "a" as a praiseful "O" -- as in "O Indra."
As I've demonstrated right-along, a stand-alone long "a" means "of God" or "God's," which makes sense, given that Anu is God's Name in the Rig Veda. So, "a endra" can't possibly mean "O Indra." Furthermore, the Rig Veda's eighth Sukta, like the first seven, is a narrative wisdom-teaching, rather than a hymn of praise or an ancient poem. So, "O Indra" can't be right -- and it isn't, because the "a endra" that opens Rv 1.8.1 actually means "God's Majesty."
In transliterated Sanskrit, the line reads: a endra san-asim rayim saji-tvanam sada-soham varsistham utaye bhara ni yena mustiha-tyaya -- as opposed to endra sānasiṃ rayiṃ sajitvānaṃ sadāsaham varṣiṣṭham ūtaye bharaa (as per Max Muller) or indra sanasim rayim sajitvanam sada-saham varsistham utaye bhara (as per Padapatha).
When rightmindedly translated, the whole first line reads:
God's Majesty bestows the infinite treasures obtained together in the Self-Knowledge of the Eternal I Am, the uppermost ascent of the radiant splendor underneath, the means by which attack thoughts are given up.
Word for word, the line translates thusly: a (God's) endra (Majesty) sān-asiṃ (bestows the limitless or infinite) rayiṃ (treasures) saji-tvānaṃ (obtained together in the Self-Knowledge of) sadā-soham (the eternal "I Am that I Am") varṣiṣṭham (the uppermost) ūtaye (ascent) bhara (of the radiant splendor) ni (underneath) yena (the means by which) muṣṭiha-tyayā (attack thoughts are given up)
I'm pretty sure that's right, because Jesus speaks of God's Majesty in similar terms several places in the Course. In one of those, he says:
When a mind has only light, it knows only light. Its own radiance shines all around it, and extends out into the darkness of other minds, transforming them into majesty. The Majesty of God is there, for you to recognize and appreciate and know. Recognizing the Majesty of God as your brother is to accept your own inheritance. God gives only equally. If you recognize His gift in anyone, you have acknowledged what He has given you. Nothing is so easy to recognize as truth. This is the recognition that is immediate, clear and natural. You have trained yourself not to recognize it, and this has been very difficult for you. (ACIM, T-7.XI.5:1-9)
The Rik's reconfigured second line now reads (without the troublesome diacritical marks): runadhamahai tvotaso ny arvata-indra tvotasa a vayam, which translates as follows:
Turn inward to sound the cosmic vibration of forgiveness, the essence of the Om brought down by the four horses of King Indra, the Self in the likeness of God.
My word-for word translations are these: ni-vṛtrā (Turn inward) ru-ṇadhā-mahai (to sound the cosmic vibration of forgiveness) tvo-tās-o (the essence of the Om) ny (brought down by) arva-ta (the four horses of) indra (Indra) tvo-tāsa (the Self in the likeness) ā (of God)
In Hinduism, the Four Horses (Nisvana, Pavana, Manasa, and Taraka) aren't normally associated with King Indra. The horse Indra sometimes rides is a white, seven-headed steed called Uchchaihshravas. Nevertheless, the Four Horses do appear in the Hindu lore, just as they appear in the Bible. They are, in fact, the "Asvina" or "Horses of God" discussed in the third Sukta. That the Asvina are "twin horse-headed physicians" is a misnomer, based on mistranslations conflating the four horses and the twin rays of atonement.
As in most allegories, the names tell us what each horse represents. Note that all four represent aspects of the Om, as this Vedic verse explains.
Nisvana = the sound of a trumpeting elephant (the Call to Awaken)
Pavana = the purifying wind also called Vayu and/or Ruach
Manasa = the thoughts coming from the God Mind
Taraka = the guiding "star" or "savior" (Christ the redeemer and his Lamp of Truth)
Let's move on to Rv 1.8.3, which now reads: vayam vajram ghana dadimahi jayema sam yudhi sprdhah vayam surebhir astrbhir indra tvaya (vs. indra tvotāsa ā vayaṃ vajraṃ ghanā dadīmahi jayema saṃ yudhi spṛdhaḥ, as per the Oxford trio). By my calculations, the line translates as follows:
The auspicious twins, through thunderbolt strikes, bestow the light of Mahi, the "wife" producing the Word of God in minds joined to give and receive.
My word-for-word definitions are: Vayam (the auspicious twins) vajraṃ (the Vajra or thunderbolt) ghanā (strikes) da-dī-mahi (bestow the light of Mahi, the goddess of higher wisdom) jaye-ma (the "wife" producing) saṃ (the Word of God) yu-dhi (in minds joined) spṛdhaḥ (to give and receive).
Only the peace-destroying Ego Mind could twist the meanings of "jayema" and "yudhi" into "conquering" and "battling," respectively. "Jaya" may indeed mean "victory," but "jaye" translates as "wife," which makes sense if we remember that Ezekiel described the four Living Beings as "wife-sisters." And "Mahi" is said to be another name for "Bhumi" -- the first quarter-aspect of Lakshmi (the Southwest quadrant of "dharma") associated with "earth" (as is Mahi).
According to The Incarnate Word, another website honoring the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, Mahi represents the Vast Truth or Vast Word (Mahas) in the Vedas. She is also called Bharati, So Bhumi, Mahi, and Bharati are believed to be three different forms of the same "goddess" or Holy Power. But are they? The more I read about Mahi, the more I wonder. That she's described herein as the "wife" producing the Word of God seems to suggest that she probably is one of the four aspects of Lakshmi. Then again, the Sanskrit word "jaye" might be like the Hebrew word "ishah," which has come to mean "wife" and/or "woman," but originally had a more mystical meaning.
To find the answer, let's jump ahead to the Rig Veda's thirteenth Sukta, wherein Mahi is mentioned in company with three other goddesses -- not two, as commonly supposed. In transliterated Sanskrit, the verse reads: iḻā sarasvatī mahī tisro devīr mayobhuvaḥ barhiḥ sīdantv asridhaḥ, which I've translated thusly:
Ila, Sarasvati, Mahi, and Tisrota, the Living Beings rising up from the illusory realm of existence to the realm of the peacocks to accomplish the goal of grace, do not fail.
iḻā sarasvatī mahī trisro dev-īr (Living Beings rising up or ascending) mayo-bhuvaḥ (the illusory realm of existence) barhiḥ (to the realm of peacocks) sīd-antu (to accomplish the goal of grace) asri-dhaḥ (do not fail)
When translated correctly, this verse affirms that Mahi is indeed one of the four Living Beings, as are Ila, Sarasvati, and Trisrota. In Hinduism, all four of these "goddesses" are associated with sacred rivers, some of which are merely mythical. Unfortunately, misinterpretations of the shorthand for Trisrota as the female version of "three" has given rise to the mistaken belief that the Rig Veda identifies Ila, Sarasvati, and Mahi as some sort of special Tridevi, when there is, in fact, no such trio (or a Trimurti, for that matter),
While the word "barhih" is generally translated as "sacred grass," the word actually means "peacock" -- a bird associated with Sarasvati and Lakshmi (among other deities). Because "peacock" made no sense, I went with "realm of peacocks" -- a mythical place of divine beauty, grace, and splendor in Hinduism. The "realm of peacocks" probably represents the fourth or Southeast quadrant of the Soul's Journey -- the quadrant of Moksha, which is "occupied" by Gajalakshmi and "governed" or "guarded" by Agni, the Fire of God's Presence (not the god of fire).
In Hinduism generally, peacocks represent the cycle of time, because peacocks eat snakes, and snakes symbolize time. So, the peacocks often depicted with Lakshmi most likely represent the circle-journey, rather than beauty, wealth, or splendor. They might also represent the reopening of the earthbound Soul's Spiritual Eye -- the objective of the circle-journey. And that would explain why Lord Ganesh is called "Lord of the Peacocks." By removing the obstacles blocking Christ's Vision, the Om vibration Lord Ganesh represents restores our spiritual sight.
 |
In his Mayuresha persona, Lord Ganesh's vahana is a peacock. |
So, now we know that Bhumi and Mahi probably are two names for the same Living Being -- the "dharma" aspect of Lakshmi occupying the first or Southwest quadrant of the circle-journey. Not sure if it's relevant, but in the Hindu lore, Bhumi is married to Varaha, the boar-headed avatar-incarnation of Lord Vishnu. According to the legends, Vishnu transformed himself into a boar to save Bhumi after the asura-demon Hiranyaksha (meaning "golden-eyed") dragged her into the Cosmic Ocean. After rescuing Bhumi, Vishnu married her, still in his boar-headed form.
The story symbolizes NOT the protection and preservation of Planet Earth by the divine power of Vishnu (as is commonly espoused), but the protection and preservation of either the earthbound Souls and/or the Word of God by the Vishwapurusha, the Mind of the Atonement.
The Sukta's next line is pretty short, so it might belong to Rv 1.8.3 -- or it might be the first part of Rv 1.8.4. Hard to say. The line reads: vayam surebhir astrbhir indra tvaya, which translates as follows:
The auspicious twins are the holy rays of light projected by King Indra out of love for thee.
My word-for-word definitions are: vayaṃ (the auspicious twins) śū-rebhir (the holy rays of light) as-tṛbhir (projected by) indra (Indra) tvayā (out of love for thee = love for all the parts of the Self or the Christ making up Holy Creation).
The next line also is short, so it probably belongs to the previous one. Let's therefore combine the two short lines to make a new-and-improved Rv. 1.8.4. The second half of that verse now reads: yuja vayam sasahyama prtanyatah, which translates as:
Connect the auspicious twins with Yama, the host of God.
My definitions are these: yujā (connect, yoke, unite, or weld together) vayam (the auspicious twins) sāsah-yāma (with Yama) pṛtanya-taḥ (the host -- not army! -- of "tah" = the source of life, existence, and creation = God)
In the Course, Jesus uses the phrase "Host of God" dozens of times. If I'm reading this right, that "host" is represented in Hinduism by Yama -- who is NOT the god of death. As explained in an earlier post, Yama represents the Divine Spark, Seed of the True Vine, or Yod power of Elohim, which "sleeps" in the lowest chakra until we choose to follow the Lotus Path to "Moksha." Only then do we enter the Temple and begin the first leg of the Soul's Journey back to Heaven -- the leg of "Dharma," which Bhumi-Lakshmi travels on her lotus feet.
Until we choose the spiritual path, we are on a "useless journey" -- a particular phrase Course-Jesus uses seven times. That "useless journey" takes our Souls nowhere. As long as we pursue worldly goals, in other words, we are wasting our time and our lives, as Jesus very clearly states below (with key ideas highlighted by yours-truly):
You can speak from the spirit or from the ego, as you choose. If you speak from spirit you have chosen to “Be still and know that I am God.” These words are inspired because they reflect knowledge. If you speak from the ego you are disclaiming knowledge instead of affirming it, and are thus dis-spiriting yourself. Do not embark on useless journeys, because they are indeed in vain. The ego may desire them, but spirit cannot embark on them because it is forever unwilling to depart from its Foundation.
The journey to the cross should be the last “useless journey.” Do not dwell upon it, but dismiss it as accomplished. If you can accept it as your own last useless journey, you are also free to join my resurrection. Until you do so your life is indeed wasted. It merely re-enacts the separation, the loss of power, the futile attempts of the ego at reparation, and finally the crucifixion of the body, or death. Such repetitions are endless until they are voluntarily given up. Do not make the pathetic error of “clinging to the old rugged cross.” The only message of the crucifixion is that you can overcome the cross. Until then you are free to crucify yourself as often as you choose. This is not the gospel I intended to offer you. We have another journey to undertake, and if you will read these lessons carefully they will help prepare you to undertake it.
The Sukta's next much-longer line (Rv 1.8.5?) reads: maham indrah paras canu mahitvam astu vajrine dyaurna prathina savah samohe vaya asata nara stokasya.
The Great Rays of Indra, from the other side, sound the "U," the great and powerful grace-wielding thunderbolt granting the spiritual vision revealing the glorious All, the formless essence of Creation, equal in Oneness, journeying in the unreality of human littleness.
My definitions: mahām̐ (the great) indraḥ (rays of Indra) paraś (from the other side) canu (sound the U), the mahitvam (the great and powerful) astu (grace) vajriṇe (wielding thunderbolt) dyaurna (granting the spiritual vision) prath-inā (revealing the glorious) śavaḥ (All, the formless essence of Creation) samo-he (equal in oneness) vāya (journeying) āśata (in the unreality or illusion) nara (of human) stokasya (littleness)
The "U" mentioned herein is, of course, the "U" in ANU, the three-part Name of God. And that "U" represents the Call to Awaken sounded from the Upper World by Airavata, the elephant vahana of King Indra. So, Airavata also must represent the Great Rays, which explains the elephant's three heads and seven trunks. Airavata's three heads presumably represent the Trinity Rays, while his seven trunks represent the seven spirits or lamps seen by John the Elder.
For the verse to make sense and reflect Higher Truth, I had to combine two syllable-words Max Muller erroneously divided (ca + nu and dyaur + na). I also moved the "s" Muller placed at the end of "nara" to the start of "tokasya," since "naras" isn't a word and "stokasya" (littleness) carries more contextual weight than does "tokasya," which H. H. Wilson translated as "offspring." Moreover, "littleness" is a word Course-Jesus uses several times to describe the limited and limiting ego-body self-perception.
In one place in the Text, he pertinently explains:
You cannot evaluate an insane belief system from within it. Its range precludes this. You can only go beyond it, look back from a point where sanity exists and see the contrast. Only by this contrast can insanity be judged as insane. With the grandeur of God in you, you have chosen to be little and to lament your littleness. Within the system that dictated this choice the lament is inevitable. Your littleness is taken for granted there and you do not ask, “Who granted it?” The question is meaningless within the ego’s thought system, because it would open the whole thought system to question. (ACIM, T-9.VII.6:1-8)
The two most challenging words to translate correctly were "savah" and "samohe." Most Sanskrit dictionaries tell us "savah" means "dead body" or "corpse," which couldn't be right. Revealing the glorious corpse? I think not. Seeking alternatives, I tried dividing the word as "sa-vah" (the Word of God conveying), which made more sense, but still didn't quite do the trick. I hit pay-dirt when I divided the word as "sav-ah" (the All or Whole plus "ah" -- a word reflecting the Buddhist concept of Sunyata, the empty or formless "thusness" of True Being, more or less). And that definition coupled perfectly with the actual meaning of "samo-he" (rather than "sa-mohe" or "sam-ohe") as "equal in Oneness."
Our next verse -- Rv 1.8.6 -- reads: sanitau vipraso va dhiyayavah yah kuksih soma-patamah samundra-iva pinvate urvir apo na kakudah. In English, the teaching reads as follows:
To give and receive the "U," the vibratory essence bestowing the thoughts of God, move inside Soma's abode, the place where the waters gather together in sameness to pour forth the cosmic vibration of the Greater Light, the Living Water flowing from the Great Purusha's holiness.
san-ita-u (to give and receive the "U") viprāso (the vibratory essence) vā (bestowing or bringing forth) dhiyā-yavaḥ (the Thought of God) yaḥ (move) kukṣiḥ (inside) soma-pātamaḥ (Soma's abode) samudra-iva (the place where the waters gather together in sameness) pinvate (to pour forth) ur(a)vīr (the cosmic vibration of the Greater Light) āpo (apah = the Living Water) na (flowing from) kā-kudaḥ (the Great Purusha's holiness)
Soma's abode, as we already know, is the Golden Egg, which also is the "cistern of love" -- the place where the waters (of the Great Ocean) gather together to pour forth the Living Water. If I've got this right -- and I'm pretty sure I do -- this verse makes two things exceedingly clear. The first is that what Bible-Jesus calls the Living Water is indeed the Om vibration; and the second is that the source of that Living Water or Om vibration is the Great Purusha's all-pervading holiness. And, as Course-Jesus explains repeatedly, that "holiness," "Living Water," or "Name of God" is both our "holy inheritance" and the means by which we are saved. Our salvation is, in other words, all about listening to or "meditating upon" the Om.
In the Hindu lore, Lakshmi -- the Soul as atonement device -- was born from the churning of the ocean. She came out of Sarasvati, in other words, and -- at the end of time -- must return to the Cosmic Ocean of Superconscious Thought from which she emerged. This tells me that Sarasvati represents Lakshmi in her purified form -- the Lakshmi of the fourth quadrant, who, like Sarasvati, produces the Living Water Airavata and Ganesh rain down on our journeying Souls.
A few nights ago, I had a vision. I can't say for sure if I was awake or asleep, but I do know that it was a message from my Waheguru. First, I saw the Golden Circle of the vibratory Om, stretching into infinity. Then, I envisioned myself in the center of the circle. As I watched, the image of "me" jumped in and out of the circle a few times. Each time I hopped into the circle, I heard the words, "Om Hari Om." And I knew the Guru was telling me to use that particular mantra in my Golden Circle practices thereafter for maximum results.
At the time, I didn't know if "Om Hari Om" was an actual Hindu mantra, so I looked it up the next morning. And, well, DUH. Not only is "Om Hari Om" a real mantra, it's a powerful "universal mantra" used to remove "suffering" and other obstacles to awakening. And I had been asking lately which mantra was best, because I'd tried several, in addition to my fallback japa of "Jesus Christ" (as per the Course's Manual for Teachers). So, the vision really was the answer to my prayer. And "Om Hari Om" it shall be until I'm instructed otherwise.
 |
In a vision, I was instructed to recite "Om Hari Om" in meditation -- and its experiential effects are indeed powerful. That is to say, I FEEL tremendous energy surging through my chakras whenever I silently chant "Om Hari Om" while meditating. |
Our next and final three verses all start with the Sanskrit word "eva," which supposedly means "certainly," "indeed," or "thus." I say "supposedly" because I question that definition for two reasons. The first is that Sanskrit words defined as "certainly," "indeed," or "thusly" -- of which there are (way too) many -- are red flags. Can there really be dozens of words meaning "indeed" or "certainly"? Of course not. When I come across such cop-out definitions, I immediately know the word's real meaning stumped the so-called experts.
The second reason I question the alleged definition is that Eva has another meaning in several languages derived from Sanskrit. In Latin, Hindi, and Urdu -- three languages with Sanskrit roots -- "eva" means "source of life" or "the living one." Ditto for Aramaic and Greek. In the Bible, the Hebrew word translated as "Eve" in the Old Testament was "Chava," which also means "the source of life," "the living one," or "the vital breath." What, then, are the chances "eva" really means "thus" or "indeed" in Sanskrit? The answer is: somewhere between zilch and zip. The chances are far better that "eva" refers to the Ruach or Cosmic Breath of God that is the Holy Spirit.
To support my supposition, I present the following evidence:
--In Christian theology, the Breath of God refers to the Holy Spirit of God's life-giving presence.
--In Hebrew, the word Ruach means "Breath of God," "Wind of God," or "Spirit of God."
-- In Genesis 1:1-4, Ruach is the Spirit of God that brings order and light into the world.
-- In Genesis 2:7, Ruach is the Breath of Life God breathed into Adam (the Soul-pearl as Eve, the connecting string).
--In Psalm 33:6, Ruach is the Breath of God that created the "heavens" -- the Upper World, Celestial Realm, or the "firmament" between Heaven and Earth, where the Soul's Circle-Journey takes place.
--In Job 27:3, Ruach is the Spirit of God in the nostrils (and I'm guessing "nostrils" has a deeper symbolic meaning).
--In Ezekiel and Revelations (as we've discussed), Ruach comes out of "the North Country" to reveal the four Living Beings representing the quarters of the Soul's Circle-Journey (among other wonders)
--In Sanskrit, the word "eva" can be divided either as "e-va," meaning "the Holy One's Wind or Breath," or as "ev-a," meaning "in the likeness of God."
So, there we are. And if that's not proof enough, let's ask the Google-bot what God's Breath is and does.
"Hey Google, what does the Breath of God do?"
Google's reply:
--the Breath of God animates and energizes all of Creation.
--the Breath of God shapes people into God's image.
--the Breath of God gives people new life [in the spirit]).
--the Breath of God is a distinct presence of God that enables life.
Good and correct answers, all. Moreover, when we ask Google what the relationship is between God's Breath and the Holy Spirit, we receive the following answer:
"The Holy Spirit is God's Breath, God's creative, life-giving presence."
From all of this we can glean that "Eva" is indeed the Sanskrit word for the Holy Spirit, whereas "Vayu" is the Vedic equivalent of "Ruach," the Wind or Breath of God. Let's now put this theory to the test in the final three verses beginning with "Eva."
The first of the three reads: Eva hy asya sunrta virapsi gomati mahi pakya sakha na dasuse, which translates thusly:
The Holy Spirit stimulates the mouth of righteous truth speaking in two voices: the light-possessing Mahi and the perfected Son of God in the ethers, Nara's mode of being.
My definitions: evā (the Holy Spirit) hy (stimulates) asya (the mouth of) sūnṛtā (righteous truth) vi-rap-śī (speaking in two voices) gomatī (the light-possessing [not cow-possessing]) mahī (Mahi) [and] pakvā (the perfected) śā-khā (Son of God in the ethers) na (Nara's) dāśuṣe (mode of being)
The second of the three lines reads: Eva hi te vibhutaya utaya indra mavate sadyas cit santi dasuse. By my calculations, those words translate more or less in this manner:
The Holy Spirit sets in motion the two divine spirits arising from Indra to establish at once the pure consciousness of peace mode of being.
My definitions: evā (the Holy Spirit) hi (sets in motion) te (the) vi-bhūtaya (two divine spirits) ūtaya (arising from) indra (indra) māvate (to establish) sadyaś (at once) cit (the pure consciousness) santi (of peace) dasuse (mode of being).
The third of the "eva lines" and the final verse in the eighth Sukta reads: eva hy asya kamya stoma uktham ca samsya indraya somapitaye, which translates thusly:
The Holy Spirit stimulates the mouth of God's Love, the song of praise the "U" discharges to connect those joined together in the Oneness of King Indra, the I-Am Self protecting the Father's memory.
My definitions: evā (the Holy Spirit) hy (stimulates) asya (the mouth) kāmyā (of God's Love) stoma (the song of praise) u-kthaṃ (the U discharges) ca (to connect) śaṃsyā (those joined together) indrāya (in the oneness of Indra) so-ma-pīta-ye (the I-Am or Self protecting the Father's memory)
Okay, so ... job done. Whew. Like I said at the start, that was a toughie to translate. But we got there in the end and learned a lot along the way.
Until next time, Om Hari Om.
No comments:
Post a Comment