Talk:Purusha Sukta

Cats?

Can anyone enlighten me as to the meaning of the word "cats" used by Griffith in verse 4? Please try this meaning I collcted from Monier William's online sanscrit dictionary for the word 'cat'-'to hide oneself' or 'to cause to hide'.The sanscrit pronounciation of the word 'cat' is CHAT.Please note I am also not sure about the exact word 'cats' you mentioned here.

"Thence he strode out to every side over what cats not and what cats."

I searched hi & lo on the Internet, but could not find any suitable explanation. Here are some other verses with the same enigma:

1:65:4 "to his sister floods, he cats the woods as a King eats"

1:143:5 "sharpened jaws chews up and cats the trees, and conquers"

2:35:7 "swells the Gods' nectar and cats noble viands"

6:4:5 "Even he who cats his firm hard food"

6:14:1 "That mortal cats before the rest, and finds"

6:15:1 "from ancient days the Child cats everlasting food"

8:91:11 "That which the white-ant cats away"

Could it be that these were typos or derived from an archaic English font that should be "eats"? I don't have an original 1896 paper edition available to confirm my theory; maybe someone here does. If correct, then verse 4 might be referring to plants & animals (i.e., things that don't eat, & things that do eat).--Funhistory 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I think I can answer my own question after reading verse 14. Parusha might've created the world, but Henry Ford created the car: "Forth from his navel came mid-air, the sky was fashioned from his head, Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions." I hope no one will mind my correcting Griffith's text in the article.--Funhistory 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• For a slightly alternate spelling of the entire text, free from "C" typos, visit www.aspiringindia.org--Funhistory 01:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This creation uses yagna metaphor to teach us that teh universe arose from one source. Uses analogy of yagna in which the pashu (animal) offered is the Cosmic person (Purusha). Here the end product is "Creation".

6 When Gods prepared the sacrifice with Purusa as their offering.
  Its oil was spring, the holy gift was autumn,summer was the wood.
7 They balmed as victim on the grass Purusa born in earliest time.
  With him the Deities and all Sadhyas and Rsis sacrificed.
8 From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up.
11 When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make?
15 Seven fencing-sticks had he,thrice seven layers of fuel were prepared,
  When the Gods, offering sacrifice, bound, as their victim, Purusa.
16 Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim these were the earliest holy ordinances.
  The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven,
  there where the Sidhyas, Gods of old, are dwelling.

---

Purusha here refers to formless and Infinite God as the first 3 verses clearly define. Everything in the poem is symbolic - that's how the seasons Spring was used as melted butter and autumn as an offering.The first part is about the greatness of God, the second part is about the creation and social order, the third parts goes on philosophically about how to attain oneness with Him and the last part is about a prayer to grant the wishes, desires and happiness of all. 

In Hinduism everything revolves around Sacrifice(Yajna) and as one of the oldest and holiest poems in Hinduism it talks about the "sacrifice" of the God himself. With his sacrifice of a form he created the elements of the universe and life on earth. And this prods us humans to our own duties and sacrifices following the example of the Lord.

Less Quotations

I think the article should have less quotations and more interpretations by scholars or hindu religious figures, as the Nasadiya Sukta article does.. I'm removing the Griffith's translations. leaflord (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving original research, unsourced materials, and biased claims here.

Dear editors, kindly abide by the policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY as required by Wikipedia. The quality of the article is currently poor owing to content that do not agree with either/all of the three policies. I am thus moving all of that material here, so people who may wish to restore such content can do so after going through the above three and following the guidelines there.

These material that do not confirm to the above three policies can be found in this version of the article:

Article Introduction: Why the purusha suktha was assigned to vishnu is yet to be understand. A rarely used version of the Suktam has an additional 6 verses appended to the end, which is termed the Vaishnava-anuvaka since it has been adopted from the Vishnusukta, a composition of the Rigveda Samhita. The verses of the Uttara-narayana and the Vaishnava-anuvaka do not possess any coherence with the original 16 verses of the Rigveda Samhita, the literary and Vedic tradition has tied them together for reasons not yet known.

Purusha sukta/sookta is the only Rigvedic hymn dedicated to the Purusha, and thus, even though appearing in a late book of the Rigveda, the oldest attestation of the Purusha.

As a creation hymn, the Suktam is monotheistic and pregnant with philosophical speculations. In its archaic mythological setting, the Suktam is in striking contrast to the famous creation account of the Rigveda v.10.129-130.

In fact, the concept of Purusha pre-dates the cult-based ascriptions like Vaishnavite Sri Vishnu or the Shaivite Bhava. The Purusha was conceptualised as the primordial existence, transcending all Gods and even the creator. However, subsequently, in the cult-based Vaishnavite interpretation, the Purusha sukta was taken to identify Vishnu as the Supreme Being and to draw parallel to the Vishwa Rupa of the Lord Vishnu.

Content section: The parallel to Norse Ymir and Greco-Roman Zeus is often considered to reflect the myth's origin in Proto-Indo-European religion.

Context section: Further, the Suktam is composed in the archaic, old early Vedic Sanskrit language as opposed to Classical Sanskrit, currently used and understood. This language barrier renders the Purusha Suktam extremely difficult to literal interpretation and symbolic clarification.

--Gandharva95 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

NOT An Actual Sacrifice

The following translation of the Purusha Suktam is from http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-2.html:

Verse 6

yatpurushena havishA | devA yajnam atanvata |
vasanto asyAsI-dAjyam | grIshma idhma Saraddhavi: || 6 ||

(yat) That (yajna) rite that (devA:) the gods (atanvata) performed, (purushena) with the Purusha himself as (havishA) havis, the fire offering, (vasanta) the Spring (AsIt) became (Ajyam) its ghee. (grIshma) The summer became its (idhma) samit-wood firebrand, (Sarad) Autumn became (havi:) its burn offering.

What sort of yajna is this sRshTi yajna? Nothing exists but Brahma-purusha, who envelops all. Logically, none of the ritual paraphernalia, the materiel, exist. It does not make consistent sense, to me, to look at this as an actual rite of "sacrifice, where the gods sacrificed a giant to create the world", as this has sometimes been decribed. This was in a comparative work that compared the Purusha Suktam to the Norse tale of how the Aesir made the world from the body of Ymir, the frost-giant.

Consider however the traditional view of this as a mAnasa yajna, a meditative sacrifice, of and in the heart, the first gedankeneksperiment, if you will!

The sRshTi yajna was Purusha's alone. He was havirbhokta, he who enjoys/eats the havis -- burnt offerings to the fire. His senses were the devas, the gods, who were the ritvik-priests of this sacrifice. Nothing but himself existed to sacrifice. And so he sacrificed himself (purusheNa havisha) as the offering into the creative fires of his heart. A sacrifice of his self to himself, for what or who existed but he? So the devas bound Brahma as the beast of sacrifice, and made ready for the rite.

In other words, this hymn is NOT describing an actual sacrifice. It's describing a meditative sacrifice in the mind of Purusha. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy about authenticity of Purusha suktam

WIth all due respecit to Babasaheb Ambedkar, he was no expert on Sanskrit or the Rig Veda. So why is he being quoted on the authenticity of the Rig Veda. ALl the others were 19th century European imperialists who only wanted to prove that Indians were not original thinkers and that Indian civilization was less ancient and inferior to European. All these have no place here. Please put a separate article for all these criticisms. Get a real Sanskrit scholar to completely rewrite this article, not questionable Europeans claiming to be experts or other opponents of the Vedas and Hinduism in general.

Would you get an atheist/ hater of Abrahamic Religions to give a commentary on the Torah, the new testament or the Koran from his perspective and criticisms and treat that as canon? Then kindly treat Hinduism similarly and get a genuine Hindu expert of the Vedas and Vedantism to write this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.197.221 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment. This article is completely Euro-centric in its bias. India and followers of the Vedic culture now have to learn about it from Europeans and Buddhists!? The Europeans were trying to destroy Vedic culture as part of their colonization program. And the Buddhists have been against the Vedas since day one. Quoting these scholars is like quoting Nazis about Judaism.Chandraputra (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandraputra (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the Ambedkar quote because he is not a Sanskritist or in any way an expert in the Vedas. He was a lawyer and a politician. How does that make him an expert in the Purusha Sukta? Chandraputra (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Two points:

• I am fine with the removal of the Ambedkar "quote" because it was not actually a direct quote, but a paraphrase of his opinion. Also agree that Ambedkar is not a great source on the Rigveda and ancient Indian history per se, but it would nevertheless be useful to cite his (and, say, Gandhi's) thoughts on Purusha Suktam as notable 20th century responses to the charge that the Sukta proved that casteism was intrinsic to Hinduism (BA's take was the the verses were a later addition; MKG's take was that the verses were to be read as allegories). The article currently does a very poor job of covering any of this.
• As for the "colonial/imperialist/Christian scholars" vs "native scholars" debate: such soapboxing is not really helpful to improving the article, and living up to Godwin's law is a great way to ensure that you are not taken seriously on wikipedia. Focus on finding what modern academic sources say on the topic and summarize them fairly in the article instead.

Abecedare (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The Vedas do not support caste by birth, that is a corruption of Vedic teaching. You can refer to Bhagavad-gita 4.13 where it states that varna (caste) is NOT determined by birth but by guna -- quality of the man and karma -- the actions they perform. There are many references like this through out the Vedas, Puranasa and Itihasas. And acaryas such as Ramanuja, and Caitanya were totally against the so-called caste by birth. Gandhi's attempt at getting rid of caste was a fiasco because he didn't understand what it was a corruption of.

Regarding Godwin's law, does that mean absolutely nothing can be compared to the Nazis? The Nazis were expert in propaganda they had an agenda regarding the Jews, they spread false propaganda about the Jews. So should we believe what the Nazis had to say about the Jews? The European colonial powers had an agenda in India and did whatever they could to maintain control and exploit that country. They bled it dry. Just consider that the modern image of India is that of an impoverished country of starving people. But at the time of Columbus India (and China) was the wealthiest country in the world. Three hundred years of British rule and it is what you see now, struggling to get back on its feet.

You mentioned going to reliable sources but Indians do not think that the Western scholars quoted both 19th or 21st century are reliable for reasons already mentioned because that agenda is still going on today see http://www.invadingthesacred.com

Therefore you should not be surprised if Indians (BTW I am not an Indian though I do live in India) are not exactly thrilled to see completely Euro-Centric articles about India, as if Indians know nothing about their own culture, but need to learn it from the West.Chandraputra (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not controversial, we can recognize that there is a dispute about the authenticity of purusha sukta. While many of these authors have been outdated within the mainstream scholarship, we have recent authors who would regard it as 'later',[1] and make no further discussion. Maybe we don't need any further explanations, there is no controversy, and according to every of these citations. I would rather change the title of the section, and limit it with 1 quote, who it would be? Probably Max Muller, others can be just attributed by their names, that they considered the hymn to have been formed later. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I too looked into this and there doesn't seem to much controversy about dating or "authenticity": The Purusha Sukta (and the 10th Manadala overall) are widely accepted to be of later origin and "modern" relative to the earlier Mandalas of the Rigveda. The date I see most often is ca. 800 BCE. I will update the section with more up-to-date sources attesting to this, in the next day or so.

There is the whole other issue of the varying 20th century interpretations of the Sukta text related to varna, which would need to be dealt with in a section of its own as I mentioned above. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is "David Keane (2007), Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law" who is referenced three times considered to be an authority on Purusha Sukta? According to http://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/keane-david his specialty is French and Law, and he also speaks Irish. But he doesn't know Sanskrit, yet he is now a expert on Rig Vedic suktas and whether they are corrupt or not. Hmmm. My postman literally knows more Sanskrit than he does.Chandraputra (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The very dating of the Vedas is highly controversial so to stick the date you propose to use will simply be to give the dates that Christians wanted to give to Vedic civilization in order to make it fit into the Mosiac chronology. This is why I find Wikipedia good for some things like Mathematics and Physics but useless for the current subject.Chandraputra (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum and discussions are not helping anyone or anything anymore at the moment. If you can find a citation that would confirm, that these datings are flawed, let us know about it. If you are going to make discussions and promote revisionism, it will likely be ignored. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why then has David Keane, who doesn't know Sanskrit and is not a specialist in Vedic studies quoted as an authority?Chandraputra (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It says that some scholars have disputed, and they have, but that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You couldn't better sources than that?Chandraputra (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I had pointed one[2]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

@Wareon In your edit [3], you changed the first sentence of the long-standing lead, to mention that Purusha sukta is an interpolation, even though information that Some scholars state that certain verses of Purusha Sukta are later interpolations was already mentioned in the lead and therefore this sentence is redundant, and now lead does not follow MOS:FIRST, that first sentence of the lead should be definition of the subject. Therefore old lead should be reverted. Abhinav Yd (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

i agree, and also the citation used to claim its an interpolation is a work by 'david keane' who himself in his paper cited the work of nagarjan v ,who himself is discussing and citing the work of max muller. it is not their independent research. neither david keane or nagarjan v are vedic scholars. only max muller was.and both are only basing their work on his research. so its not fair to calim scholars are saying it.only max muller is.no other vedic scholar is saying that.so its better to mention that then simply deceiving the readers by an extremely weak source which itself depends on another vedic scholar to make a claim. everything can be found in page 26 of the cited source. Cosmotech92 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)