80 replies to this topic

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Clobhair-cean, on 10 October 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

The literal translation is

"What. We Spear-danes in days of yore,
tribe-kings, glory heard
how those nobles did great deeds"

Seamus Heaney, whose version is I think the best, transliterated it like this:

"So. The Spear-danes in days gone by
and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.
We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns."

These are the first three lines of the epic Beowulf, the most complete poetic work known in Old English.

Thanks. That's a very dramatic change in, what, 1000 years, with only "we" the same.

[Darkwind]

I never mix religion and science.  Religion doesn't use scientific method and science doesn't use faith.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

My understanding is that non-duality is all there is. In such a state where everything possible has unified into oneness there is no room for a seperate 'God being' to exist or even a seperate self. Such concepts are illusions based on a belief that only the being part of non-duality is real.

We dont have Chi or Kundalini in the West we have a concept we call life-force energy. Our medieval alchemy was about increasing a persons life-force energy and it involved some strange practices based on non-duality -
1. Breathing exercises increase it.
2. Urination, menstration, excrement and bleeding reduce it.
3. Drinking your morning golden coloured urine prevents this loss (this was the foundation of the Golden Dawn movement).
4. Our legends of vamparism come from blood drinking to increase ones life-force energy.
5. Other bizarre rituals revolving around menstration and excrement.

Drinking one's own Urine is still practiced by a few Hindus along with drinking cow urine,ofcourse in small quantities.And there are a lot of direct correlation between various pre christian cultures in Europe and Hinduism including the Celts and Druids.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Mr Right Wing, on 10 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Thanks heres one you might like -



Acquiring information creates reality. You need a mind to acquire information. Hence there is no objective material reality only a mind gaining information.

The process of gaining information results in the illusions of being instead of the truth of non-duality (superposition).

That is what the concept of 'Maya' says in hinduism,it is an illusory material world which is not real but just a construct of our senses and clouded consciousness.The aim of the Hindu yogi is to see beyond this artificial material construct and be one with the superlative consciousness.
The modern cults based on collective consciousness and mind controlling snake cults etc all ride on this ancient Hindu concept by twisting it to confer with their paranoid theories.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Darkwind, on 10 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

I never mix religion and science.  Religion doesn't use scientific method and science doesn't use faith.

Religion? I made sure not to bring issues of religious indoctrination,this was a comment on ancient Vedic concepts and not religion of any sort.I am a non-believer of any sort of religious indoctrination or intellectual obstructionism but luckily the religion i was born into i.e Hinduism doesn't have any strict indoctrinations,it doesn't ask me to believe anything as a attestation to my faith,i can pretty much reject all forms of religious practices or presupposition,persue and believe empirical science and continue to be a Hindu without there being any contradictions in my faith.Hinduism cannot be understood as a by the book religion,it is rather a set of values and philosophies.Any which ways this thread was about Vedic culture and subsets of the various cultural practices/concepts collaberating with modern scientific concepts and not any religion.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Clobhair-cean, on 10 October 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

The literal translation is

"What. We Spear-danes in days of yore,
tribe-kings, glory heard
how those nobles did great deeds"

Seamus Heaney, whose version is I think the best, transliterated it like this:

"So. The Spear-danes in days gone by
and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness.
We have heard of those princes' heroic campaigns."

These are the first three lines of the epic Beowulf, the most complete poetic work known in Old English.

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.Good that you atleast spared Beowulf and old english with your literal understanding and ridicule.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 October 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Oh so you do acknowledge that the literal translation can be misleading or utter rubish and further interpretation is required for it to make sense.Good that you atleast spared Beowulf and old english with your literal understanding and ridicule.

The literal translation is neither misleading nor utter rubish. Rather it's both concise and to the point. The transliteration is an embellishment of the literal translation. While I respect Clobhair-cean's opinion I think it was well enough understood on its own. Too bad you couldn't have spared us your opinion of Old English.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 11 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

The literal translation is neither misleading nor utter rubish. Rather it's both concise and to the point. The transliteration is an embellishment of the literal translation. While I respect Clobhair-cean's opinion I think it was well enough understood on its own. Too bad you couldn't have spared us your opinion of Old English.

cormac

Not rubbish to whom?Who can claim to understand and tranliterate it the best?Do you think that the transliteration that is very obvious to a western scholar is equally obvious to people from all differnt cultures around the world.The way Clobhair-cean dismisses the possibility of transliteration of verses from the Rig Veda because it doesn't fit into his cultural world view the same way people belonging to a different world view can be the best source to transliterate their native literature.The way i can respect or acknoledge tranliterations of Old English literature made by Europeans/western academicians i can also expect same amount respect for transliterations made by other cultures of their native literature.
In short we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss or to ridicule transliterations made for ancient texts by people belonging to different cultures of their native texts.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Whether a translation is accepted by academics has nothing to do with the nationality of the translator but with how well educated they are in the languages they translate from/to. I think you will find it is not only Western scholars that would disagree with your interpretations. In the same way, just because you are from a specific country does not mean you are better able to translate ancient texts from that location.

The medical practices you were discussing seem to remind me of the Greek humoural theory. Not in the sense that they are the same concept but in the sense that they are an outdated and scientifically innacurate model. It is human nature to find a nice neat pattern of how everything fits together and build from there. This doesnt make it comparable to modern science. It simply makes it an early attempt to make sense of the world and of ourselves.

[Harsh86_Patel]

tipsy_munchkin, on 11 October 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Whether a translation is accepted by academics has nothing to do with the nationality of the translator but with how well educated they are in the languages they translate from/to. I think you will find it is not only Western scholars that would disagree with your interpretations. In the same way, just because you are from a specific country does not mean you are better able to translate ancient texts from that location.

The medical practices you were discussing seem to remind me of the Greek humoural theory. Not in the sense that they are the same concept but in the sense that they are an outdated and scientifically innacurate model. It is human nature to find a nice neat pattern of how everything fits together and build from there. This doesnt make it comparable to modern science. It simply makes it an early attempt to make sense of the world and of ourselves.

I am not doubting the veracity of transliteration of native texts,i am talking about the cognitive ability and cultural understanding of the tranliterater in context to the cultural text he is trying to transliterate.If i as an Indian without having any knowledge of western culture and history would try to learn about it and then translieterate Old english epics,i would probably end up looking like a fool or making the epics look foolish and gibberish,i would rely rather on an Englishman well aware of the Old English culture to transliterate Old english epics to better put things into perspective.Like i said that if the ancient culture we are talking about is still in existence and considerably well preserved then a person belonging to that culture will have a better perspective of transliterating native texts.
The fact remains that when such ancient texts are tranliterated then a lot depends on the ability and understanding of the transliterator and the cultural background he/she is from.The tranliterator can pretty much add their own imaginations or doubts and literally change the meaning of the text.So a lot depends on who is transliterating it as it is not a "completely objective" process.
I cannot comment on the greek humoral theory and on how many people still practice it even as an alternative medical system or on how systematic it was but i can sure tell you that Ayurveda is different still not dead or discarded.
Like i said every modern concept(even scientific concepts) have been recently discovered/invented/created or in many cases have been rediscovered so there is no harm in comparing modern scientific concepts with ancient one's.(for eg- the earth not being flat and the centre of universe was suggested before Copernicus made it famous,and gradually the rediscovered scientific concept was accepted and established).

[tipsy_munchkin]

Translation does indeed often have some subjective input. This is something you need to also bear in mind with the interpretations you personally select. There is just as much danger you are placing what you want to see in the these texts based on your current ideas of the world. My personal feeling is that this is exactly what you are doing. The texts you are discussing come from a very different period of history and you are imposing modern concepts onto that.

Current practice of outdated ideas does not make the outdated ideas true or factual. Yes some knowledge has been lost and regained over time but that is not the same as saying all ancient concepts are true. We agree the greeks did a great job with maths and with calculating the size and shape of the planet. They also had many ideas that we know are completely wrong.

The persistent idea that being cold and wet is the cause of catching a cold is a myth based on humoural theory that persists in modern society. Persistence of an idea does not make it valid it just means it has become rooted within a culture. Just like people practice acupuncture and believe rhino horn is good for the libido in some regions.

It is good to have a healthy respect for past cultures but that does not mean everything they believed is applicable to the modern world. As i said before be careful not to allow a modern bias make you see things which are not there in these texts.

[Mr Right Wing]

Darkwind, on 10 October 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

I never mix religion and science.  Religion doesn't use scientific method and science doesn't use faith.

Non-dualism is a philosophy and its scientifically proven by quantum mechanics.

Those religions which are based on non-dualism such as Pantheism and Buddhism have no God Being. They are nothing like Christainity which is where your misconception arises.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Translation has some subjective inputs and transliteration is nothing but subjective input along with finding similes elsewhere.There can be no objective ways of transliteration as it is completely dependant on the respect and understanding of the transliterator.If a transliterator decides he doesn't want to take texts seriously or doesn't have a clear understanding of the cultural context then he can pretty much make the text look gibberish.

Never said there is a thumb rule for everything written in the Vedas and that all that is written in them is presently considered true or the "entire" Vedic content colaberates with modern scientific concepts,none my assertions were blanket statements.Just as we are ready to grant that Ancient Greeks did have some great ideas that are presently considered valid the same way Ancient Indians also had some great ideas that are presently considered valid.There is no harm in drawing comparisons between modern concepts and ancient ones.

The issue in giving ancients credit for some of our current ideas has more to do with our arrogance.For eg-if we didn't have the great pyramids present today would any of us have ever believed that the Ancient Egyptians knew how to make such structures which are considered engineering marels even today.

If current ideas colaberate with ancient ideas then there is a good chance that we can consider both of them as factual or true or at the least "currently fashionable".

Cold and water can increase the chances of acquiring a 'cold'.So the greeks probably had something going there for them.Persistence of an idea cannot make it valid even if the conclusion is reached by modern scientific inquiry?.I think you refer to Ayurveda not having acknowledgment from western medicine,but it is only in respect to ayurvedic medicine and not the other practices of Ayurveda.Either ways the concept of having a systematic medical system was my point of comparison.

We should understand that the way Ancients were wrong about many things,5000 years down the line our descendants will think that we were wrong about many things and would probably refrain for giving us credit for many of our concepts that might endure for 5000 years.I don't think that would be fair to us though.

So the reverse of your statement is also true that all ancient concepts are not false and can be factual and can colaberate with modern concepts.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 October 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Translation has some subjective inputs and transliteration is nothing but subjective input along with finding similes elsewhere.There can be no objective ways of transliteration as it is completely dependant on the respect and understanding of the transliterator.If a transliterator decides he doesn't want to take texts seriously or doesn't have a clear understanding of the cultural context then he can pretty much make the text look gibberish.

certainly. My problem with this is your implication that those who translate it any differently to what you see do not have respect ad understanding.

Never said there is a thumb rule for everything written in the Vedas and that all that is written in them is presently considered true or the "entire" Vedic content colaberates with modern scientific concepts,none my assertions were blanket statements.Just as we are ready to grant that Ancient Greeks did have some great ideas that are presently considered valid the same way Ancient Indians also had some great ideas that are presently considered valid.There is no harm in drawing comparisons between modern concepts and ancient ones.

The issue in giving ancients credit for some of our current ideas has more to do with our arrogance.For eg-if we didn't have the great pyramids present today would any of us have ever believed that the Ancient Egyptians knew how to make such structures which are considered engineering marels even today.

If current ideas colaberate with ancient ideas then there is a good chance that we can consider both of them as factual or true or at the least "currently fashionable".

Cold and water can increase the chances of acquiring a 'cold'.So the greeks probably had something going there for them.Persistence of an idea cannot make it valid even if the conclusion is reached by modern scientific inquiry?.I think you refer to Ayurveda not having acknowledgment from western medicine,but it is only in respect to ayurvedic medicine and not the other practices of Ayurveda.Either ways the concept of having a systematic medical system was my point of comparison.

You appear to have added 'reached by modern scientific inquiry' to my comment about persistence therefore altering the meaning and intent. A systematic medical system by itself is meaningless. It does not make it accurate or sound.

We should understand that the way Ancients were wrong about many things,5000 years down the line our descendants will think that we were wrong about many things and would probably refrain for giving us credit for many of our concepts that might endure for 5000 years.I don't think that would be fair to us though.

So the reverse of your statement is also true that all ancient concepts are not false and can be factual and can colaberate with modern concepts.

You agree not all ancient thoughts and ideas are accurate. How then does this support your original theory?. What criteria do you use to determine what concepts from the past match with modern ones? Are you completely certain you are not putting words in the mouths of those writing ancient texts based on what you know about modern thinking?

Edited by tipsy_munchkin, 11 October 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 October 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

Not rubbish to whom?Who can claim to understand and tranliterate it the best?Do you think that the transliteration that is very obvious to a western scholar is equally obvious to people from all differnt cultures around the world.The way Clobhair-cean dismisses the possibility of transliteration of verses from the Rig Veda because it doesn't fit into his cultural world view the same way people belonging to a different world view can be the best source to transliterate their native literature.The way i can respect or acknoledge tranliterations of Old English literature made by Europeans/western academicians i can also expect same amount respect for transliterations made by other cultures of their native literature.
In short we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss or to ridicule transliterations made for ancient texts by people belonging to different cultures of their native texts.

So you're changing the goalposts from translation to transliteration, huh? If you don't understand the language then perhaps you shouldn't critique the translation, particularly since it was the translation (not the transliteration) you claimed was misleading and rubbish.

cormac