3 ms·

Yes, it was disappointing to me to learn at some point that you can't actually read much of the great classical and vedic compositions without assistance of a c

Yes, it was disappointing to me to learn at some point that you can't actually read much of the great classical and vedic compositions without assistance of a commentary. Although the commentaries themselves are fairly exact. It reminds me a lot of Greek drama, except there even if the grammar is funky, you can usually deduce how the language is being stretched and why, even if its very difficult and technical. In Sanskrit that isn't always an option, you just have to know from context why and how certain words are being used after having already studied the language for decades.

fooker 4y ago
>Although the commentaries themselves are fairly exact. Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross pollination of ideas. For example, the ISKCON descriptions of the verses of Gita are often completely orthogonal to the main philosophy of Gita, but the interpretation is technically as valid as the literal interpretation.
- DiscourseFan 4y ago
  >Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross pollination of ideas. Yes but you can always read multiple commentaries, and its usually good to be critical of whichever one you are looking at. >For example, the ISKCON descriptions of the verses of Gita are often completely orthogonal to the main philosophy of Gita, but the interpretation is technically as valid as the literal interpretation. Yea, my first Sanskrit teacher was not ISKCON but ISKCON-adjacent, a very well-meaning guy, but I think recently we're beginning to break because I'm rejecting his interpretations of the Gita and the Sankhya philosophy. I've never read the ISKCON materials directly but I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading.
  - danans 4y ago
    > I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading. Their interpretation is heavily filtered through the 15th century devotional movement of Chaitanya, himself a member of the devotional/dualist lineage started by Madhvacharya. Their beliefs stem from the medieval sectarian Puranic literature, and have the goals of moralization and idealization of Indian rural, pastoral, doctrinally vegetarian lifestyles, which is a perspective very far removed from the martial culture that produced the Mahabharata. Hence the strained interpretation they use. I'd also argue that there is nothing particularly monastic or ascetic about the Gita, which propounds that conquest and the fruits thereof are not only acceptable, but are expected as a matter of the prince's duty.
jaldhar 4y ago
Sure you can. The parts of Veda I’ve learned were in the traditional with rigour in recitation but no attempt at understanding the meaning. But because I went on to study vyakarana and Kayvas etc. where meaning is emphasized I can understand most of the mantras without the commentaries. But a good commentary does help and more importantly it is the accepted academic style just as footnotes, APA formatting etc. are Western academic conventions. You always have to know context because language can always be stretched. People write poetry in Perl for goodness sake!
- fooker 4y ago
  Interestingly Rigveda is comparatively easy to understand compared to the newer texts. Perhaps because it’s written in more flowery, loose Sanskrit with words and idioms made up when the situation called for it. Compared to that everything newer is a bit weird to interpret because some random phrase would be taken from some other contemporary text, the reader is assumed to understand and appreciate the cryptic reference. Funnily enough this reminds me of Rick and Morty/South Park kind of media nowadays, where the inner joke is usually a pop culture reference.
  - rand0mx1 4y ago
    do you find mandala 10 easier than other mandalas?
    - fooker 4y ago
      The opposite, actually. The last one feels like it was tacked on later and contains contemporary creation myths and practical philosophy. That is things which someone presumably got tired of answering again and again and just added as an appendix. Also the language is provable to have been a later iteration of Sanskrit.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Interestingly Rigveda is comparatively easy to understand compared to the newer texts. I've found this to be the case also, despite the free-wheeling and less regular grammatical style - because the Rigvedic hymns usually have pretty concrete subject matter - like getting motivated to steal (or perhaps "free") some cows held by an adversary. Of course any number of other more abstract or esoteric interpretations can be read into the hymns, but I prefer the simpler and more earthly interpretation.

fooker 4y ago

>Although the commentaries themselves are fairly exact. Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross pollination of ideas. For example, the ISKCON descriptions of the verses of Gita are often completely orthogonal to the main philosophy of Gita, but the interpretation is technically as valid as the literal interpretation.

DiscourseFan 4y ago
>Now the problem is that these descriptions are colored by the philosophy and opinion of the person writing it, often heavily because of the lack of cross pollination of ideas. Yes but you can always read multiple commentaries, and its usually good to be critical of whichever one you are looking at. >For example, the ISKCON descriptions of the verses of Gita are often completely orthogonal to the main philosophy of Gita, but the interpretation is technically as valid as the literal interpretation. Yea, my first Sanskrit teacher was not ISKCON but ISKCON-adjacent, a very well-meaning guy, but I think recently we're beginning to break because I'm rejecting his interpretations of the Gita and the Sankhya philosophy. I've never read the ISKCON materials directly but I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading.
- danans 4y ago
  > I get the feeling that they emphasize a kind of personal monasticism and asceticism, which seems not exactly antithetical to what the Gita propounds, but is certainly a very restricted reading. Their interpretation is heavily filtered through the 15th century devotional movement of Chaitanya, himself a member of the devotional/dualist lineage started by Madhvacharya. Their beliefs stem from the medieval sectarian Puranic literature, and have the goals of moralization and idealization of Indian rural, pastoral, doctrinally vegetarian lifestyles, which is a perspective very far removed from the martial culture that produced the Mahabharata. Hence the strained interpretation they use. I'd also argue that there is nothing particularly monastic or ascetic about the Gita, which propounds that conquest and the fruits thereof are not only acceptable, but are expected as a matter of the prince's duty.

jaldhar 4y ago

Sure you can. The parts of Veda I’ve learned were in the traditional with rigour in recitation but no attempt at understanding the meaning. But because I went on to study vyakarana and Kayvas etc. where meaning is emphasized I can understand most of the mantras without the commentaries. But a good commentary does help and more importantly it is the accepted academic style just as footnotes, APA formatting etc. are Western academic conventions. You always have to know context because language can always be stretched. People write poetry in Perl for goodness sake!

fooker 4y ago
Interestingly Rigveda is comparatively easy to understand compared to the newer texts. Perhaps because it’s written in more flowery, loose Sanskrit with words and idioms made up when the situation called for it. Compared to that everything newer is a bit weird to interpret because some random phrase would be taken from some other contemporary text, the reader is assumed to understand and appreciate the cryptic reference. Funnily enough this reminds me of Rick and Morty/South Park kind of media nowadays, where the inner joke is usually a pop culture reference.
- rand0mx1 4y ago
  do you find mandala 10 easier than other mandalas?
  - fooker 4y ago
    The opposite, actually. The last one feels like it was tacked on later and contains contemporary creation myths and practical philosophy. That is things which someone presumably got tired of answering again and again and just added as an appendix. Also the language is provable to have been a later iteration of Sanskrit.
- danans 4y ago
  > Interestingly Rigveda is comparatively easy to understand compared to the newer texts. I've found this to be the case also, despite the free-wheeling and less regular grammatical style - because the Rigvedic hymns usually have pretty concrete subject matter - like getting motivated to steal (or perhaps "free") some cows held by an adversary. Of course any number of other more abstract or esoteric interpretations can be read into the hymns, but I prefer the simpler and more earthly interpretation.