--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" <willy...@...> wrote: > > > > John, this was actually a very sweet quote. I can > > > only assume that the translator's choice of language > > > is extremely poetic, and that he did not feel the > > > need for an exact translation, merely one that > > > captured what he saw in the verse. > > > > John wrote: > > Why do you assume that the author's words aren't > > an exact translation? > > > Because 'Siva' wasn't invented until the age of the > devotional sects in India? There is no mention of > 'Shiva' in the Rig Veda. These terms came much later > after Shankara in the 9th century. The Rig Veda is > concerned with the supernal dieties, the personified > forces of nature - there are no devatas mentioned in > the Rig Veda and no Supreme Being called 'Brahman'. > The term Brahman isn't used until the composition of > the Upanishads.
I think TaittiriiyaaraNyaka belongs to kRSNa-yajur-veda. That line seems to go like this: sa brahma sa shivassa harissendras... (sa brahma sa shivaH sa hariH sa + indraH...) He [is] Brahma(n), he [is] Shiva, etc. > > > > At the center of this flame is installed the > > > Supreme Being. He is Brahman. He is Siva... > > > >
