Extracting Brahman's Satya from Brahma's Maya (Part 3): Reinterpreting the Rig Veda & Bhagavad Gita

On our multi-part quest to extract the "milk" of Higher Truth from the muddy waters of spiritual ignorance, we have thus far succeeded in establishing that the "agni" discussed in the Rig Veda is neither the god of fire nor the deific "priest" presiding over sacrificial fire rituals. We've also determined that both of these longstanding FALSE beliefs derive from prejudicial assumptions attached to the Sanskrit terms yajna and purah-hitam, among many others. Such prejudicial assumptions are, in fact, among the chief anti-Satya weapons Brahma (the personified Ego Mind) deploys to keep us blindly wandering in the barren and hostile wilderness of earthly existence. 

Or, as Karen Thomson, a Sanskrit specialist at the University of Texas, Austin, astutely points out, "failure to discard a mass of assumptions about ritual meaning inherited from Vedic traditions" is largely to blame for the cloud of incomprehension shadowing these sacred texts. And that shadow darkens the minds of scholars, sages, and laypersons alike.

Because these erroneous assumptions block the channel through which Divine Truth returns to conscious remembrance, we must question everything we currently believe, however cherished, entrenched, or widely shared those beliefs may be. As discussed last time, one of the biggest of these truth-blocking beliefs is that sacrifice is a means of purification and/or homage devised by the Powers That Be for their appeasement and our higher good.

Or, as Course-Jesus unequivocally states:

Your little part [in the at-one-ment process] is but to give the Holy Spirit the whole IDEA of sacrifice. And to ACCEPT the peace He gave instead. WITHOUT the limits that would hold its extension back, and so would limit YOUR awareness of it. For what He gives MUST be extended, if YOU would have its limitless power, and use it for the Son of God's release. It is not THIS you would be rid of, and having it, you CANNOT limit it. If peace is homeless, so are you. And so am I And He Who IS our home, is homeless WITH us.

One of the smaller, but no less Satya-obstructing beliefs, is that the Rig Veda's "hymns" were meant to be poems, and should, therefore, be preserved in metered form for spiritual as well as academic purposes.

I see at least two flaws in this reasoning. The first is that meter is form, as are words; and all form is the produce of Brahma's mirage. So, the metered structure in which the Vedas came down to us was probably imposed to aid memorization and recitation over the centuries of oral transference. Preserving the ego-imposed form must not, therefore, ever take precedence over preserving the substance of the sacred teachings. 

My second issue is that a metered structure that works in Vedic Sanskrit can't possibly be maintained with any credibility when the verbiage is converted into Latin, English, or even Hindi. Any attempt by translators to retain the meter also, therefore, erroneously (egoically) favors form over substance. And this is one of the big reasons Ralph T. H. Griffith's translation of the Rig Veda's first Sukta is much shorter than mine.

Sir Ralph Thomas Hotchkin Griffith (1826-1906)

 According to his biographers, Sir Ralph followed the text of Max Muller's six-volume Sanskrit edition of the Rig Veda. Additionally, he was influenced by the writings of Sayana, the 14th-century Sanskrit Mimamsa (investigative) scholar from the Vijayanagara Empire of South India (near modern-day Bellary, Karnataka). An influential commentator on the Vedas, Sayana flourished under King Bukka Raya I and his successor, Harihara II. More than a hundred works are attributed to him, including commentaries on nearly all parts of the Vedas. Sayana also wrote on a number of subjects like medicine, morality, music, and grammar.

Sayana, who died in 1387.

This all sounds very noble and respectful on the part of Sir Ralph -- but was it? I have my doubts, since conversion to Christianity rather than elucidation of Vedic truths appears to have been his chief motivating factor. Stated more bluntly, Sir Ralph didn't question prevailing assumptions about "heathen" Vedic traditions because he wanted them to be true. Why? So he could feel superior and, therefore, JUSTIFIED in stomping all over India's "primitive" cultural and religious traditions with his big imperialist boots.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think so. Sir Ralph was, after all, the son of an Anglican minister. While attending Queen's College, Oxford, he was groomed for the Boden Sanskrit professorship by H. H. Wilson (who also held the chair and translated the Rig Veda prior to Griffith). That endowed position was established in 1832 with money bequeathed to Oxford by Lt. Col. Joseph Boden, formerly of the British East India Company, to assist in the conversion of the people of India to Christianity (i.e., Church of England Anglican Christianity).

Accepting this mission, Sir Ralph began translating the Vedic scriptures into English. He later moved to India as a Professor of English Literature at the Sanskrit College of Benaras. Not to be confused with modern-day Banaras Hindu University (a theosophical institution), Benaras College was a "government" school founded in 1791 by the East India Company, with approval from Governor General Lord Cornwallis -- yes, the same Lord Cornwallis of American Revolution notoriety.

Charles Cornwallis, first Marquess Cornwallis (1738 - 1805)

According to one historian, Lord Cornwallis devoted his tenure in India to "laying the foundation for British rule throughout India and setting standards for the services, courts, and revenue collection that remained remarkably unaltered almost to the end of the British era [in 1947]."

So, Griffith, who belonged to Britain's "Indian Educational Service" and later served as principal of Benares College, was in bed with the leading subjugators of India's independence and culture -- not with its advocates and defenders.

But let us not single out Sir Ralph for chastisement, for he is hardly alone in his failure to set aside his preconceived notions about the Vedas. To illustrate my meaning, let's compare three different translations of the opening line of the Rig Veda's first teaching (not hymn or poem) about "Agni."

In Sanskrit, the line reads: Agnim ile purah-hitam yajnasya devam rtvijam hotaram ratna-dhatamam

To refresh your memory, as well as for comparison's sake, my translation of that line reads:

The Fire of God's presence in the Walled City (the Holy Meeting Place within the Temple) stands at the door joining the one who is ignorant to the divine right-guiding melody invoking the inner-radiance bestowing the treasures of Wholeness.

Horace Hayman Wilson (1786 - 1860)

Our first example comes from Sir Ralph's mentor, Horace Hayman Wilson, who (as stated earlier) also held the Boden professorship at Queen's College, Oxford. Prior to embarking on his academic career, Wilson served in India as a surgeon for the East India Company. The first to translate the complete Rig Veda Samhita into English, Wilson published his heavily annotated volumes between 1850 and 1888 -- so some appeared posthumously.

Also like Sir Ralph, Wilson was influenced by Sayana and Max Muller, another Oxford "orientalist" with Boden professorship ambitions. In 1860 or so, Muller lost his bid for the post to Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the creator of the Sanskrit-English dictionary bearing his name. Muller's bid was rejected because a) being German-born and Lutheran, he wasn't part of Oxford's elite English-Anglican "club" and b) he was seen as (and latter viscously attacked for) being sympathetic to Hinduism and, therefore, a traitor to the Christian faith (a charge he denied). 
 

Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900)

And that tells us all we need to know about the exclusive Oxford "orientalist club" credited with the English translations, definitions, and grammatical rules still revered and heavily relied upon today. It also explains why I chose an illustration from the well-known fable "The Emperor's New Clothes" to open this post. Like the boy who observes and speaks without airs or prejudice, I stand on the sidelines of both Hinduism and academe, befuddlingly asking, "Why can nobody else see what's perfectly plain to me?"

And on that note, let's get to it. Because this is very much a case calling for the extraction of Brahman's Milk of Truth from Brahma's murky pool of deception. 

Wilson's translation of the first Rik's opening line reads:

I glorify Agni, the high priest of the sacrifice, the divine, the ministrant, who presents the oblation (to the gods), and is the possessor of great wealth.

Our second example is Sir Ralph's 1896 translation, which reads:

I laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice, The hotar, lavishest of wealth.

Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950)

Our third contender, from a very different quarter, is Sri Aurobindo. An interesting character, Aurobindo was an influential leader in the Indian independence movement until around 1910, when he shifted his focus to spiritual liberation. Dated 1946, the translation below comes from the website of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, which includes a lexicon of Rig Veda terms. Where the website links the Sanskrit words to the lexicon, I've inserted the offered definitions in brackets.

Agni, (I) desire the Purohit [our vicar. The god as our representative set in front of man in him]in sacrificing, god, the Ritvij [sacrificing rightly, i.e., according to the Truth, in true order and time], the Hotar [Priest, calling the gods], who gives ecstasy to the highest extent.

Despite coming from the opposite end of the political and religious spectrum, Sri Aurobindo offers an interpretation of the first Rik remarkably similar in character to Wilson and Sir Ralph's. Why might this be? My guess is that, like so many others, the great swami failed (to requote Ms. Thomson) "to discard a mass of assumptions about ritual meaning inherited from Vedic traditions." Even though he understood yajna meant "oblation" or "sacred offering" rather than "sacrifice" (as per his posthumously published online lexicon), he nevertheless actively espoused his engrained and erroneous belief that sacrifice played an integral part in the Divine Plan for the evolution of human Souls. 

In Synthesis of Yoga (1948), for example, he wrote:

  

The law of sacrifice is the common divine action that was thrown out into the world in its beginning as a symbol of the solidarity of the universe. It is by the attraction of this law that a divinising, a saving power descends to limit and correct and gradually to eliminate the errors of an egoistic and self-divided creation. This descent, this sacrifice of the Purusha, the Divine Soul submitting itself to Force and Matter so that it may inform and illuminate them, is the seed of redemption of this world of Inconscience and Ignorance. For "with sacrifice as their companion," says the Gita, "the All-Father created these peoples." The acceptance of the law of sacrifice is a practical recognition by the ego that it is neither alone in the world nor chief in the world. It is its admission that, even in this much fragmented existence, there is beyond itself and behind that which is not its own egoistic person, something greater and completer, a diviner All which demands from it subordination and service.

With all due respect to his Holiness, let me now blow a sizeable hole in his largely accurate statement. For starters (as we know), the universe didn't begin with "sacrifice" -- nor is there any such thing as a Law of Sacrifice. As we've further established, this erroneous presumption arises from a misread of the Rig Veda's Purusha Suktam and its use of the word yajna. As Course-Jesus explains many times, the primary Divine Law governing the dream-universe is the Law of Love also known as the Golden Rule and/or the Holy Law of Giving and Receiving. And, as I've explained repeatedly, yajna means not "sacrifice," but "thought-gift" or, more specifically, "right-minded thought-offering."

As explained by Course-Jesus (and in previous posts), the Golden Rule was intended to guide our creative experiments in "Heaven" -- the "kingdom" God created for the Sonship. That "guideline" advised us to give only (at the level of thought) what we wished to receive in return, because "creation" was a reciprocal enterprise. The Golden Rule governed our thoughts, rather than our actions, because 1) we had no bodies when first we entered Heaven and 2) thought is the one and only REAL creative force, here and in Heaven. This is why Bible-Jesus warns (in Matthew 5:27-28) that lusting after someone is the same as committing adultery. He means that, under the Golden Rule, it is our wishes and desires that go down in the Karmic Ledger for reciprocation. Whether we act on those wishes is irrelevant because our desires, not our actions, generate our inventory of Karmic "receivables."

Or, as Course-Jesus explains in Workbook Lesson 16: I have no neutral thoughts:

The idea for today is a beginning step in dispelling the belief that your thoughts have no effect. Everything you see is the result of your thoughts. There is no exception to this fact. Thoughts are not big or little; powerful or weak. They are merely true or false. Those that are true create their own likeness. Those that are false make theirs. (ACIM, W-16.1:1-7)

Let's return to Sri Aurobindo, whose second mistake is defending his position with a gross mistranslation of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita. Being a divinely revealed text, the Gita no more encourages sacrifice than does the Rig Veda. Neither does it say, as alleged, that the universe began with the "sacrifice" of the Purusha Self.

The verse the esteemed guru misquotes is Bg 3:10. The mistranslation he repeats is, unfortunately, widely and frequently flogged by self-styled Teachers of God to support the Brahma-authored idea that ritual sacrifice and self-sacrifice are practices encouraged in the scriptures. As Course-Jesus explains repeatedly, sacrifice is an ego-conceived idea founded upon the fear of scarcity. Not only does God NOT ask for sacrifice in any form, Course-Jesus tells us, our Heavenly Father is utterly unfamiliar with the concepts of "giving up," "going without," "lack," and/or "deprivation."

To strengthen my argument, let's explore what Bg 3:10 actually says. In transliterated Sanskrit, the verse reads: saha-yajñāḥ prajāḥ sṛiṣhṭvā purovācha prajāpatiḥ anena prasaviṣhyadhvam eṣha vo ’stviṣhṭa-kāma-dhuk

Generally, these words are mistranslated into English thusly:

In the beginning of creation, Brahma created humankind along with duties, and said, "Prosper in the performance of the yajnas (sacrifices), for they shall bestow upon you all you wish to achieve."

Based on a my careful research and intuitive guidance, the line SHOULD translate more along these lines:

Together with the strength of Wholeness, the Living Beings created the Temple-Voice of the Son of God's sinlessness to bring forward the desire to choose the Higher Self dwelling within the Amen (the Name of God) inspiring Kamadhuk (the miracle-cow also called Kamadhenu).

saha (together with) yaj-nah (the strength of Wholeness) prajah (the Living Beings) srishtva (created) puro-vacha (the Temple-Voice of) praja-patih (the Son of God's) anena (sinlessness, guiltlessness, or innocence) pras (to bring forward) avishya (the desire) dhvam (to choose) esha (the Higher Self or Holy Spirit) vo (dwelling within) 'stv = astv = astu (the Amen) isthta (inspiring) kamadhuk (presumed to be another name for Kamadhenu, the miracle-cow).

First and foremost, this verse has nothing to do with Brahma, the one supposedly addressed as Prajapati, a term generally translated as "Lord of All Creatures." A compound of "praja" (offspring or born from) and "patih" (the lord, husband, or Bridegroom), Prajapati actually describes the dreaming Sons of God or individual Souls separated from their "corporate body" or "unified being," which is the Great Purusha or Christ Self.

Secondly, this verse references the same Living Beings, Living Creatures, Cherubim, Seraphim, Hayyot, or Hamlat al-ʽarsh

seen and described by the prophet-scribes of many faiths, including Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Mohammad. And now we know these four "bearers of the Throne of God," "Temple Guardians," "Great Kings," and/or "Burning Ones" also are mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. Not only are these mysterious "beings" mentioned, they also are credited with producing the Temple-Voice of the Son of God's sinlessness to inspire us to seek the Greater Truth. And that "voice," as we know, belongs to the Holy Spirit. In Ezekiel's vision of these same Living Beings, the Hebrew prophet saw and described these four angelic creatures making a thunderous noise by beating together in unison their four sets of wings.

And, once again, the SAME teaching only SEEMS different because of errors in translation and interpretation introduced by the Truth-veiling Ego Mind.

This brings us to Kamadhuk, a word or name associated with Kamdhenu or Sarabhi -- the deific miracle-cow of Hindu lore supplying the "milk" that fortifies our dreaming Souls against separation-mindedness. In the Gita, Lord Krishna (the personified Holy Spirit and narrator) allegedly calls this mystical "sacred cow" Kamadhuk. Presumed to be a marriage of "kama" and "dhuk," the name is generally translated as "bestower of desires."

I question this interpretation for the following three reasons: 1) Bg 3:10 makes no sense if Kamadhuk means "miracle cow" or even "bestower of desires"; 2) "dhuk" isn't really a word in Sanskrit; and 3) being granted our worldly desires hinders rather than supports our escape from the illusion of earthly existence. 

Based on these three strikes, I'm more inclined to believe Kamadhuk is a compound of "ka" (Vedic shorthand for the Great Purusha) and "madhuk," which can mean "sweet as honey," "bumblebee," or "melodious buzzing." Thus, Kamadhuk probably best translates as "the Great Purusha's melodious buzzing." And that makes much more sense, given that Kamdhenu is, in actuality, a personification of Narayana, another form of Lord Vishnu. All three personas (Kamadhenu, Lord Vishnu, and Narayana), in fact, represent the Living Water -- the vibratory sound, sacred-syllable, or melodious buzzing emanating from the Great Purusha to preserve the Wholeness of Creation.

Now, it occurs to me that Bg 3:10  is a mere three verses ahead of those I reinterpreted in Part 1 of this series. So, despite the time and tedium involved, I shall bite the bullet and rework the missing three for Satya's sake.

Fast-forward three days and we've got our results. And, according to those results, Bg 3:11 should work out as follows:

Devotees calling to mind the sinlessness of that Divine Being for the good of all convey the supreme tool (or touchstone) for one another's benefit in attaining liberation from rebirth.

Devan (Devotees) bhavayat (calling to mind) anena (the sinlessness) te (of that) deva (divine being) bhavayantu (for the good of all) vah (convey) parasparam (the supreme tool or touchstone) bhavayantah (for one another's) sreyah (benefit or betterment) param-ava-psyatha (in liberation from rebirth)

Depending on how its syllables are split, paramavapsyatha might mean "attainment of liberation from rebirth" (param-ava-psyatha), "attainment of highest abode" (parama-va-psyatha), or "attainment of supreme congealed milk" (para-mava-psyatha). In the latter instance, "supreme congealed milk"  symbolically describes the True Perception or Holy Vision we attain through Kamadhenu's miracle-milk (the Living Water or Om/Aum vibration emanating from the Great Purusha). Whichever way we divide the syllables, the word means roughly the same thing.

Let's move to Bg 3:12, which now reads:

The inspiration to seek divine bliss dwells within the divine being granting the holy thought-offering manifesting the pure inner-radiance bestowing the Holy Inheritance (or Holy Name) accumulating possessions steals from the Souls of the Supreme Lord or Christ Self.

Iṣṭān (The inspiration) bhogānhi (to seek divine bliss) vo (dwells within) devā (the divine being) dā-syante (granting the holy or sacred ) yajña-bhāvitāḥ thought-offering manifesting) tair = taya-ra (the divine or pure inner-radiance) dattān (bestowing) apradāya (the holy inheritance) ibh (accumulating) bhuṅkte (possessions) stena (steals) eva (from the Souls of) saḥ (Sah = the Supreme Lord or Christ Self)

 And, finally, Bg 3:13 should read thusly:

Thought-offerings directed toward remembering the Wholeness of the True Self release from all errors of earthly existence they whom renounce sin by the means of developing the resolve for infinite peace of mind.

Yajna (thought-offerings) sis-tasi-nah (directed toward remembering the Wholeness) santo (of the True Self) mucyante (release from) sarvakilbasaih (all faults/errors) bhunjate (of earthly existence) te (they whom) tvagham (renounce) papa (sin, guilt, evil) ye (by the means of) pacant (ripening, maturing, or developing) yatmaka-rahat (the resolve for infinite peace of mind)

Let's now string together our six remastered Gita verses and see what we've got.

(10) Together with the strength of Wholeness, the Living Beings created the Temple-Voice of the Son of God's sinlessness to bring forward the desire to choose the Higher Self dwelling within the Amen (the Name of God) inspiring Kamadhuk (the miracle-cow also called Kamdhenu).

(11) Devotees calling to mind the sinlessness of that Divine Being for the good of all convey the supreme tool (or touchstone) for one another's benefit in attaining liberation from rebirth.

(12) The inspiration to seek divine bliss dwells within the divine being granting the holy thought-offering manifesting the pure inner-radiance bestowing the Holy Inheritance (or Holy Name) accumulating possessions steals from the Souls of the Supreme Lord or Christ Self.

(13) Thought-offerings directed toward remembering the Wholeness of the True Self release from all errors of earthly existence they whom renounce sin by the means of developing the resolve for infinite peace of mind.

(14) From purest mind in the present moment, all God-created beings offer a rainlike vibration generated through right-minded oblations. From these sacred offerings comes into being and makes possible the activity of Yanjnat (Lord Vishnu, the preserver of Creation's Wholeness).

(15) Through the action of praising God in this way, do we come to know the Sacred Syllable Om; and from that all-pervading and eternal thought-offering, everything is established in truth.

(16) In this way, Arjuna, the fettered Soul causes the wheel (of Karma) to turn (in reverse) by exchanging, through airborne extension, the choice for fear, misery, sensual pleasures, and uncertainty for the choice to return to the all-pervading eternal and divine source of its being.

Wow, so ... very different from how this section of the Bhavagad Gita has been traditionally translated, and yet now much nearer in ideology to the Rig Veda, the Holy Bible, and the Course -- when the whole ungodly idea of sacrifice as a desirable religious practice or rite is ripped out of all these sacred texts by the roots (as it must be on the journey to awakening).

You might have noticed that I parenthetically added "in reverse" to my translation of Bg 3:16. That's because, like an analog clock, the Wheel of Karma moves forward in time as long as we accumulate karmic "gifts" (by thinking egoically about others). To escape the dream, we need to clear the Karmic Record. We must, in other words, strive to live within "a zero-Karma footprint." 

How do we achieve and maintain a zero-Karma footprint? Through a two-step process. First, we must expunge the inventory of "gifts" we've accumulated over many lifetimes. And then we must strive to avoid generating any new "gifts."

Stated another way, we must endeavor to turn back the Wheel of Time until we reach "the beginning" -- the faultless State of Wholeness/Holiness we experienced before the "fall from grace." Two practices that help toward this end are "akarma" or "conscious non-doing" and True Forgiveness (both of which Course-Jesus assiduously advocates). In the simplest sense, True Forgiveness clears the record of "gifts" already accumulated, while "akarma" forestalls the accumulation of new ones. When yogis and sages speak about "reversing the Wheel of Karma" this is more or less what they mean. And, just so we're uber-clear, the "yajnas" or Golden Circle miracle-exchanges described in the Course, Rig Veda, and Bhagavad Gita ARE how we practice True Forgiveness and remember the Wholeness/Holiness of the True Self enveloping the All in All.

On that auspicious note, let me close today's discussion. And no, we didn't talk about the symbolism associated with "agni," as promised at the end of Part 2. But we will the next time we meet outside the Golden Circle. So, do come back for the next truth-illuminating installment.

Until then, Namaste and God Bless.