Sanskrit (whole text):
"indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ"
English translation (whole text):
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is [o]ne, sages give many a title—they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."
Bruce Duffy, "Use of RV 1.164.46 to resolve contradictory statements in the Rigveda":
"Max Müller identified and classified under the heading of Henotheism the phenomena in the Ṛgveda where different gods are either described as being the supreme god or are described as having the same divine attributes as other gods. This paper looks at the possibility that these contradictory statements about the gods could be resolved if the verses they occur in were interpreted according to what is said in RV 1.164.46. I have chosen verse 46 because it is one of the few verses in the Ṛgveda that appears to make a direct statement about what poets really had in mind when they were composing the hymns. [...] I translate verse 46 as essentially saying that when the poets of the Ṛgveda talk about gods like Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agní, Yama, Mātariśvan, and the like, they are really talking about what is 'one' [...]. Karl F. Geldner identifies the 'one' of verse 46 as being 'The undeveloped and the immediate precursor to the concept of Brahman in the all-one-teaching of the Upaniṣads.' If Geldner is correct about this then the possible implications of what verse 46 has to say would take on far greater significance in relation to how any hymn in the Ṛgveda, that talks bout gods like those mentioned in verse 46, should really be seen as referring to the 'one', it would also mean that the 'one' of verse 46 should really be seen as a god who is the precursor to the Brahman of the Upaniṣads. That is to Brahman of the Upaniṣads who the authors of those texts proclaim to be the one and only real god of the Vedic cosmos. In order to help determine whether the statement made in the Ṛgveda can be used to help resolve contradictory statements made in the Ṛgveda about the gods [...] this paper will present for comparision statements from three verses of the Ṛgveda and from three verses of the Upaniṣads." (p.1-2)
(He then gives three Rigvedic verses, one from mandala 1, two from mandala 7, all making out different gods to contain the world)
"It is difficult to see the above statements about these three apparently different gods as being anything else but contradictory. How can all the worlds and all the creatures of the Vedic cosmos be contained in three different gods? Particularly when those three gods themselves appear to be a part of and exist within that cosmos.
However, if we interpret these verses according to the statement made by verse 46, and see the three different gods being referred to as primarily being [...] used by the poets to talk about what they know to really be just the 'one reality' (ékam sad), then [...] the 'one' same god is really being spoken about [namely] Brahman of the Upaniṣads."
(He now gives three excerpts from three different Upaniṣads, the first (from BU) saying that ātman ["I am taking the term ātman used in this verse as a synonym of Brahman"] is "the ruler of all beings", and "all beings, all gods, all worlds and all ātmans fixed in this ātman", the second that all things are Brahman, are in Brahman, and are generated from and dissolved into it, the third that all the worlds rest in Brahman; p. 3)
"The one major difference [from the Ṛgvedic verses] being that in the verses from the Upaniṣads everything in the in the Vedic cosmos is contained in just the one supreme god, whereas [... t]he verses from the Ṛgveda appear to be contradicting themselves as it would be physically impossible to have everything in the Vedic cosmos contained in three different gods. [... I]n the Upaniṣads there are instances where Brahman is also referred to as the 'one god' or the 'one' reality/truth. That this is the case lends strong support for Geldner's linking of the 'one' of verse 46 to the Brahman of the Upaniṣads. [...] Conclusion: By interpreting the above three verses from the Ṛgveda in terms of the statements made by verse 46 the apparent contradictory nature of the statements [...] appears to be resolved." (p.3-5)
Duffy commits several blunders here: firstly, it has to be wondered whether a hymn found in the (relatively late) first mandala of the Ṛgveda can be treated as likely to contain the real solution to a contradiction in the earlier books (2-8), or whether it is more likely to contain an attempt at solving such a contradiction. Secondly, we should ask whether it is problematic for a collection of many hymns by many authors to sometimes be contradictory. Thirdly, is it a meaningful point that something is "physically impossible"? Were the Ṛṣis using our model of physics?
In regard to the third question, consider the account in KūrmaPurāṇa of Vishnu and Brahma encountering each other, both containing the world (the same world!) and one another (cited here). Whether or not Duffy interprets RV 1.164.46 correctly, both it and the passage in the Purāṇic passage seem to offer solutions for the (apparent) contradiction, and neither is based on modern physics. Moreover, Duffy introduces a host of new contradictions, seeing as most hymns treat the gods as distinct beings.
In regard to the first: we should really not read the early Ṛgveda through the lense of the late Ṛgveda as seen through the lense of the Upaniṣads, especially if we level the differences between different Upaniṣadic texts (in which brahman means very different things, and so does ātman) and burden them with imported vocabulary: the Upaniṣads certainly do not say that Brahman is the one and only true god. First of all, because Sanskrit has no article, "the one god" is not a phrase that can be expressed unambiguously (or found unambiguously!), and eka, "one" can have various shades of meaning ("pre-eminent, excellent, unique, singular, solitary") that differ from what a Westerner means when they say "the one god", and certainly the claim that all gods are, are in, or are made of Brahman is hardly the same as the claim that he is the only god. By that logic, Brahman is the only true human, because humans exist in/are made of Brahman. In fact, Brahman is not even called a god very often in the Upaniṣads. It(!) is just as likely to be the stuff the gods are made of as to be a god. In that sense "the" Upaniṣadic teaching (of course there are several) is neither that of RV 1.164.46 (if we take it as Duffy understands it) nor that of KūrmaPurāṇa, but rather that all the gods are equally secondary to (and equally contained in) Brahman.
The Vedas are texts of many voices and of great complexity, and one late hymn does not hold the key to it any more than the Upaniṣads can hold the key to that hymn, Advaita Vedānta the key to the Upaniṣads, or a Western monotheistic interpretation of Advaita Vedānta the key to Advaita Vedānta.
Edward Butler:
.@MaiLudwig (Re: RV 1.164.46, I read it as referring to Vac, subject of the previous verse, but this is not generally accepted.)— Edward Butler (@EPButler) 5. Dezember 2016
To expand on this a little, by Butler's interpretation, Vāc is Indra, Mitra, etc., just as Indra is Vāc, Mitra, etc, Mitra is Vāc, Indra, etc. and so on, but it is impossible to say of any one of them to say that this deity is really the underlying reality, or to say of any other entity that it underlies them all. In other words, this is polycentric polytheism: the gods underlie one another (as in the KūrmaPurāṇa story).
To put my own spin on this, I would say that the difference between a polycentric interpretation and a monocentric one (as in Duffy) is that the latter basically construes the verse as saying "They call the one reality Indra, Mitra, etc.", the former takes it to be more important that the verse says "s_he is also Garutmān", i.e., Garutmān is, is an entity, not merely a name. That in itself does not amount to a polycentric reading, but it allows for it: the entity in question (whether Vāc or nameless) is Garutmān; but Garutmān is still a subject; therefore Garutmān is also that entity, but even though it is true of both entities that they are all gods, we can still think of them as distinct subjects, persons.
The advantage of a polycentric reading is that it allows for the "contradictory" statements about different gods being the supreme one, which is otherwise "solved" by simplistically defining the problem away (there is only one god) or adopting only one of them/proposing a different model.
From an online discussion about "how do theist vaisnavas understand these verses from the Bhagavata that glorify Siva":
(ITRANS spellings, where they are used, changed to IAST to be easier on the eyes)
Lakshiminarayana K (04.06.13), not in reference to our text, but exhibiting polycentrism:
"[...] Whatever names of deities you find in viṣṇu-sahasranāma, it is perfectly valid to interpret them as referring to the deities themselves. For in the Aitareya brāhmaṇa it is said that viṣṇu himself is all the deities (though this is nothing special to viṣṇu). Even in Rig Veda, 7.40.5, all deities are considered to be branches of viṣṇu (by sāyaṇa).
So also, in rig veda 2.1, we find that agni is also extolled as all the deities (or at least most of them). Here too, when agni is called viṣṇu, Indra etc, these refer to the deities. (In the Aitareya brahmana, it is also said that Agni is himself all the deities.) [...]"
Vishnu (04.06.13), in reply to this:
"Sometim back we had the discussion about a subject related to this.
Sri Krishna Kadiri had given the following explanation which I am copying here
quote<
-------Commenting on Aitareya Aranyanka's 2.2.1, Srimad Anandatirtharu says that the following shrutis ALSO are indicative of sarva-shabda-vāchyatva of the Lord, in addition to the 'yo devānāṃ nāmadhā eka eva' (quoted above).
'indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamagnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo garutmān'
(Rgveda 1.164.6)
'yamindramāhurvaruṇaṃ yamāhuryaṃ mitramāhuryamu satyamāhuḥ',
(taittariya brāhmaṇa 3.7.98)
'nāmāni sarvāṇi yamāvishanti taṃ vai viṣṇuṃ paramamudāharanti' (from bhāllaveya shruti).
The point of interest is the 'indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇam' (Rgveda 1.646.6). The full verse runs thus -
indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇam *agnim* āhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo garutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanty*agniṃ* yamaṃ mātarishvānamāhuḥ ||
The 3rd quarter is more famous, because people interpret this phrase as that Reality is One, though it is sung with different names i.e. names of different Gods. That is ok, but people extend this verse to say that all gods are the manifestations of the one reality. Note that the verse does not say it by itself. It just says that the Primary Being is sung with different names - which is how Srimad Acharya has interpreted it. The verse does NOT say all gods are parts of that Primary being or manifestations of it. If the verse meant to say that all gods are parts of that Primary Being, why would 'agni' be mentioned twice therein? That would mean the Veda uses unnecessary / superfluous words - which is a flaw.
So the correct way to read it, is as told by Srimad Acharya that the Primary Being is referred by different names. Then, it is easy to explain the repetition of 'agni'. The word 'agni' can mean 'one who leads from front' (agre nayati) and also 'one who is the foremost' (agraṇītvāt agnināmānaṃ).
The second one from taittarīya brāhmaṇa is more explicit. It reads 'Whom, they call Indra, Whom they call Varuṇa, whom they call Mitra'. If the text just wanted to say these gods are all same, why have many 'Whom they call' there? It is superfluous. Instead, the repeated usage is to emphasize that it is the same person who is called by those names, and not different people - is my thought on this.> end of quote
regards
vishnu"
Lakshminarayana K (04.06.13), in reply to this:
"I really appreciate you giving the dvaita view point on this.
But please note that from a personal point of view, I subscribe to Prof Max Muller's view that the Rig Veda teaches kathenotheism/henotheism.
This is just to clarify things in case Sri Subrahmanian assumes that my view point is same as yours."
Lakshminarayana K (07.06.13), elaborating on this:
"Henotheism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
Kathenotheism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathenotheism
If you see Rig Veda, there are statements praising each deity as supreme. Hence it is closer to Kathenotheism. Therefore, the Rig veda can be used to practically justify the supremacy of any god (or most gods at least). The dvaitins, for example, take those statements that praise Vishnu as supreme seriously and then they try to reinterpret the other statements that praise other gods as supreme.
Of course, this Kathenotheism of the RV does not mean that all gods are given the same importance. From the sheer number of hymns itself, one can conclude (IMO) that Indra and Agni (not Vishnu and rudra) are the most important gods."
Lakshminarayana K (07.06.13), continuing:
"Some very straightforward ways to quantify the importance of each deity in the RV -
1. count the number of verses dedicated to the deity
2. count the number of times the deity is referred to"
If I am reading this correctly, Lakshminarayana is arguing (from an advaita position?) that there is no hierarchy of the gods, or at least no absolute hierarchy, and that gods can be one another (but not that all gods are just one god).
The argument cited by Vishnu, on the other hand, wants to minimize the ontological impact of the verse and provides perhaps the most literal reading: the primary entity is called Mitra (etc.), but is not Mitra, who is a different entity.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen