Chapter 5 Topic 5 "Rigveda"

One of the oldest documents of mankind, India's ancient poetry collection "Rigveda" (Rgveda), reflects the life and thought of some people in the society of that era and region to which it belongs.Among the 1017 poems in this book, in addition to the general world view and some scattered verses and lines full of philosophical meaning, there are more than a dozen poems that focus on issues such as the origin of the universe, and are considered philosophical poems, that is, In other words, from our current perspective, these poems discuss or state views on philosophical issues.Three of these poems are mentioned in almost every book dealing with the history of Indian philosophical or social thought.For the meaning of these poems, there have always been various explanations and speculations.This article intends to make a preliminary introduction and analysis of these three poems, and does not involve other poems, and does not discuss the complicated philosophical thoughts of the whole book.

The Indian tradition regards the "Pear Veda" as a holy book, and believes that every word and sound cannot be changed. It has been preserved from about 3,000 years ago to today; but in very ancient times, it may be after compiling these poems into a collection Before long it existed mainly by its role in religious ritual, and its content (even language) and the people who preserved and applied it gradually became separated.After about the 10th century BC, various interpretations have appeared; in the 5th century BC, there were books explaining difficult words.Since then, the Rigveda has taken precedence over everything else, but it is actually a closed book.Not only are the holy scriptures forbidden to ordinary people, and the "untouchables" are forbidden to contact them, even the Brahmins who teach the scriptures, who are recognized as descendants of the priestly caste, can't tell the mystery of it, but just take it out of context and use it as a religious prayer, or as the supreme sacred authority to cite.It was not until the 14th century that there was a commentary on the whole book, which was published in the 19th century. The other commentary may be earlier, but it was not discovered and published until the 20th century. In the 19th century, after the awakening of modern national consciousness in India, intellectuals began to publicize and study Veda; but until today, what they call Veda mainly does not refer to the original poetry collection ("This Collection" Samhita) but generally refers to a large number of Veda. The literature, in fact, focuses on some of the Upanisads (upanisads) at the end of that era; what they preach is also mainly an idea (not all) in the Upanisads.Those books are nearly a millennium apart from the poetry of the pre-edited Rig Veda, and even some of them no longer cite Vedic verses as authoritative. After Europeans conducted research with modern methods under the influence of modern science in the 19th century, it was only in India in the 20th century that non-traditional methods and non-traditional attitudes appeared in Vedic research, but they basically inherited European methods, and Rarely doubts one's own traditions.

The ancient Indian tradition divided those who recognized the Veda as the authority and those who denied the Veda as the authority into orthodoxy and heresy.In fact, the orthodox (such as Yoga school) is superficially admitted, and the heretical (such as Buddhism) is generally denied. What is affirmed and denied is often another matter, which has nothing to do with Vedas itself.For the several "main collections" of the Vedas, especially the "Pear Veda Collection", they are almost regarded as a shrine, and they do not peek inside.Their dispute is actually a contradiction between some sects or schools of social thought.

Vedic research started by Europeans and has now spread to America, India and Japan. Originally, according to the attitude towards Indian traditional explanations, there could be respect, suspicion and compromise; later, with the development of cultural anthropology and comparative religion The development, originally based on the study of comparative linguistics, continued, and the study of sacrificial ritual documents was carried out. Since the 1960s, there have been two new interpretations of Vedic mythology: one is the "rule of thirds" that appeared in Brussels, and the other is "semiotics" that appeared in Moscow.These studies are mainly to apply their own new theory.

The above is a very brief description of the Vedic research, in order to facilitate the understanding of the origin and basis of the following translation introduction and exploration.It should be pointed out that modern Vedic research has relied on the method of comparing other ancient documents from the beginning, but there has been no comparative study of Vedas using ancient Chinese documents in the world.This is the obligatory work of the Chinese people.This kind of cross-cultural comparison research should also be beneficial for us to understand our own ancient culture. The following three poems are first translated (literally translated according to the original Sanskrit text)

A. Volume 10, No. 90 (1) Bulusha (people) have thousands of heads, Has a thousand eyes and a thousand feet; He surrounded her from all sides, Also beyond the ten fingers. (1) Only the brusha (man) is all these, past and future; And still dominate the undead, And beyond those who grow by food. (2) His greatness is this, Brusa (man) is stronger than this; A quarter of him is all that exists, Three quarters of him are "immortal" in heaven. (3) Three-quarters of the brusha (person) rises upwards, Here again his quarter appears; From this he spread in all directions,

Towards eaters and non-eaters. (4) From this was born Viroja (King), Above Viratra there is Brusa (person); He was born beyond rear and front of the ground. (5) When the gods hold sacrifices, Sacrifice the brusha (human); Spring is its ghee, Summer is firewood, and autumn is sacrifice. (6) They perform sacrifices on straw mats, Sprinkle the first-born brusha (man); The gods perform sacrifices in this way, Satiye (Gods) and Immortals. (7) From the complete sacrifice of this offering, gathered ghee cheese; made those animals, Aerial, forest and village. (8) From the consummated sacrifice of this offering,

Produced Li Ju (ode), Sama (song); From this came the melody, Thus Yerou (sacrifice word) came into being. (9) From this came the horse, And those with double rows of teeth; From this came the cow, From this came goats and sheep. (10) When they decompose the brusha (person), How many pieces did he divide into? what is his mouthhis arms, What are his legs, his feet called? (11) Brahman (priest) is his mouth, Two arms become Rajaniya (King); His legs are the Vaisyas (commoners), From the two feet a sudra (worker) is born. (12) The moon is produced by the mind; The sun is born of two eyes;

From the mouth Indra (God) and Agni (Fire) were born; Wind is produced by breathing. (13) Space is born from the navel; From the head appeared the sky; The ground consists of two feet; [4] the square consists of ears; Thus the world was created. (14) His fence has seven bars, Also made three-seven [twenty-one] firewood; When the gods perform that sacrifice, Tethered Brusa (human) animals. (15) The gods offer sacrifices to offenders; These are the original "laws". Those great powers went to heaven, There were the former satya devas there. The names of the three Vedas and the four major castes have appeared in this poem, and the last stanza appears "Dharma" or "Dharma" (ancient word form dharman); this is a word that has been used until now. The original meaning in Pear Veda is "support", and the escaped meaning is similar to the later "law".This poem is obviously a tribute to sacrifice.Everything is produced by sacrifice, which is the priest's thinking in the Vedic era.The chaos in the order of the gods and the Bulusha sacrifices shows that the Indians' concept of time at that time was different from ours.They don't seem to be in order on a straight line of time.

B. Volume 10, No. 121 (1) First the golden fetus appeared, He is born to be the sole master of existence. He protects the earth and this sky, To what god should we offer sacrifices? (2) He is the giver of breath (spirit), the giver of strength; All obey his commands, the gods [listen to] his [commands]; His shadow is immortality, and his [shadow] is death. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (3.) By mighty power he became breathable, and eyes closed, The only king of [everything] that can act. He rules over the two-legged and the four-legged. To what god should we offer sacrifices?

(4) These snow-capped mountains are made by his great power; They say the sea and the river are his; These [four] square [eight] sides are his, and are his two arms. (5) To what god should we offer sacrifices? Because of him the sky is strong and the earth is firm; Because of him the heavens hold firm; because of him the firmament [steadies]; He made the air pop. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (6) Crying two armies confront each other for support, I looked at him trembling in my heart. There shines the rising sun. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (7.) When the Flood came into the world, Holding the embryo, Agni (fire) was born; From this appeared the only spirit of the gods. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (8) He beheld the water with great power, [Water] hold Tuosha (capacity), produce sacrifices, He is the only god above all gods. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (9) May he not harm us, the Maker of the earth, Or the creator of the sky, who has the true "Dharma", Producer of the shining flood. To what god should we offer sacrifices? (10) O Lord of Life!none but you Surrounding all these creatures. May our desire to sacrifice to you be fulfilled! May we become masters of wealth! The last stanza of this poem, like some other poems, is an epilogue, so some people think it is an addition, while others say it is an answer to the above question.The "Dharma" in the ninth stanza, that is, the "Dharma" in the last stanza of the previous poem is "Dharma".In "Rig Veda", the word that is considered to represent the universe and social order is "right way" or "rta" (rta); while "Dharma" first expresses "support", and the word form is also slightly different. Neutral is not masculine.Therefore, if "Dharma" is used instead of "Li Duo" in these two poems, the internal operation of the universe and society has changed from "walking" (root √r) to "support" (root √dhr).The origin of the universe in this poem is "wort" and "water", not a sacrifice, but the point of "humanizing" the universe belongs to the same line of thought as the previous poem.The word "breath" in the second verse, which later became "I", is an important philosophical term, but here it is still the usual Vedic meaning, and the abstraction refers only to the spirit. C. Volume 10, No. 129 (1) At that time there was neither "being" nor "nothing"; There is neither the sky nor the outer sky. What turns (or: covers, contains)? Where?Under whose protection? Is there thick, deep water? (2) There was no death at that time, no immortality; There is no sign of night or day. The one that breathes without wind by its own strength, Nothing else. (3.) At first darkness was hidden by darkness, That's all unmarked water; "Whole life" covered by emptiness, That one was born with "fiery" mighty force. (4) At first eros arose upon it, That is the first "water species" of the mind. Wise men search with wisdom in their hearts, The connection of "being" is found in "nothing". (5) Their line stretched past, Is it down there?Still on top? There are some who hold the "water seed", and some who have great power, Self-reliance is below, motivation is above. (6) Who really knows?Has anyone here declared it? Where did this (world) come from?Where did this creation come from? The gods after its creation, So, who knows where it came from? (7) Where did this creation come from? Or was it made?or not? Its keeper is in the highest heaven, He can know?Or he doesn't know either? There is also "water" in this poem, but two different words are used, both of which are different from the "water" in the previous poem, so it is not a term, but refers to general water. "Water species" often appears in Veda, and Chinese Taoists call it "Yuanyang".This is still "humanizing" the universe, but the suspicion is heavy and the pursuit is more profound. These three poems (represented by A, B, and C in order below) were not prominent in ancient India, but they became particularly important when they were noticed by Europeans in modern times.One of the reasons is: Europeans have Christian culture as their ideological background, and of course they must be interested in religious thoughts about "one god" and "creation". These three poems were just chosen.On the other hand, Indian intellectuals were first impacted by the introduction of Islamic culture after the 8th century AD, and then received a stronger impact by Christian culture less than 1,000 years later. Naturally, I felt that it was an important issue, so I also paid attention to these three poems.Now we don’t need to consider these three poems from such a religious point of view, but should focus on the combined analysis of contemporary philosophical issues; as Chinese, we should compare them with the oldest hexagrams in our country, which may be a little new. In the past, there were no more than two methods of introducing and analyzing these three poems: explaining them according to the model of modern Western philosophy, or explaining them according to traditional Indian thought.Borrowing the terminology of cultural anthropology (as well as that of linguistics), one can say that one is “etic” and the other is “emic”; "(frameofreference) is placed outside the observed object, or placed inside it; simply, it is described with the observer's point of view, or explained with the object's own point of view.Many theories are a mixture of the two.Now we can try to analyze according to the question, clarify the observer's "frame of reference", and use the "frame of reference" of other objects to compare with this object, in order to distinguish different answers to this question, and thus explore the object's "frame of reference". ideology. When making a comparison between different cultural thoughts, we first encounter the problem of word meaning.Even translated terms cannot be completely equivalent; even transliterated or newly coined words will have escaping meanings after a long time in different cultural systems, and the connotations and extensions have to change.Therefore, the translations of the three poems quoted above, even if translated literally, cannot be as accurate as mathematical formulas.What's more, there are many words whose meanings are unclear or difficult to determine.The following discussion is only an exploration of the ideological system and key concepts, and it is only partial, not comprehensive, and only preliminary. Now I intend to ask two questions to explore.One is causality, and the other is time, space, and the universe ("Universe is called the upper and lower directions, and the universe is called the past and the present." See "Huainanzi", it can be said that the original meaning refers to time and space, that is, the existence that embraces everything).These two issues are not only important issues in the development of ancient Indian philosophical thought, but also important philosophical thought issues in the world today.Does China's most ancient people also have views on this issue, so they can be compared.It may also be mentioned that there are so many verb tense changes in the Vedic language, which shows that people at that time were sensitive to time.If we compare it with the expression of tense in ancient Chinese, we may see the similarities and differences in the time concept of the two sides, but this article cannot deal with it. The question of cause and effect is one of the central questions running through the history of Indian philosophical thought, and it is most clearly expressed in the Buddhist literature (here only refers to its philosophical content, regardless of its religious content).Buddhism classifies this aspect of thinking of "heretics" into two categories, one is "common" and the other is "judgmental view"; ).The so-called "view" is roughly equivalent to what we now call "philosophical thought system" or the "view" (frame of reference) of viewpoints or world outlooks.According to the habit of some Buddhist thinkers, this issue of cause and effect can be divided into four views: cause has effect, cause has no effect, cause has effect and has no effect, and cause has neither effect nor no effect.They believe that sticking to only one point is a "marginal view", or one-sidedness. Only the "Pratityasamutpada" (Pratityasamutpada) established by Buddhism itself using "cause and condition" as a term is comprehensive and correct.But "Either Existence or Nothingness" and "Neither Existence nor Nothingness" can be classified into one school, which is similar to Buddhism, so there are still three schools.The so-called "constant" here refers to eternity, and "broken" refers to split analysis. The words "cause, effect, permanence, and cessation" are all terms with certain meanings, but they can also be roughly explained and understood in our current language. Only the "predestined birth" of Buddhism cannot be simply explained in the current language. And understand, that is to say, it is not easy to translate "inside" into "outside" language.There are various theories inside and outside of these three schools of thought, which are too broad to limit here.It is the "Shutheory" (Sengqi) school that says "there is an effect in the cause".It is the "Victory Theory" (Weishi Shijia) school that says "there is no result in the cause". The most is to say "six sentence meaning" or "seven sentence meaning".The so-called "sentence meaning" (Padartha) is now mostly referred to as "category" according to the Western translation, but it is not exactly equivalent. This is a term that incorporates Indian terms into the Western system. "Sentence meaning" itself refers to "word meaning", and India has a whole set of philosophical thoughts from linguistic research on "word" and "meaning", and it cannot be simply explained by changing "inside" to "outside". It doesn't matter here.There are many documents on Buddhism saying "destined birth", which are now based on "Mahayana Daoqian Sutra" (there are five translations, now according to the title of the book in Dunhuang) and "Mahayana Predestined Life" (there are two translations, and now it is based on the book translated in the Tang Dynasty) name).The original texts of these two books have not been seen, but the explanations are relatively concentrated and clear, and the other places are not mentioned here. If we use the Buddhist "frame of reference" as an example, the "preformation theory" and "rebirth theory" in the history of biological development are exactly similar to the two theories of "cause has effect" and "cause has no effect"; The latter are a little further away, because India's "Victory Theory" focuses on analysis rather than development, and Buddhism only talks about development and change.If Morgan's genetic theory can be counted as "cause has effect", Michurin's theory is similar to "cause has no effect", perhaps the new development of biological genetic theory will be close to intermittent and non-interrupted Non-continuity, interaction of internal and external factors, the theory of "predestined origin" that continues like a flame, right?Can it be said that there will be dialectics in it? Now examine whether the three poems cited above answer this causal question. There are some difficult words and sentences in the three poems, which took a lot of people's minds to explore; and they all seem to have some mystical ravings without logical continuity.We should admit with an objective scientific attitude that this is not intentionally deceptive or unconscious nonsense, but is produced by its objective historical conditions.These poems are not circulated, have no external objects of deceit.It is not that the ancients did not have a logical order in their own thoughts, and the authors and the narrators are not all lunatics.It should be considered that people living in the ancient society and natural environment (including ecology, energy, etc., and productivity) had their material and spiritual problems different from those encountered by people today, and their habitual ways of expressing their thoughts are also different. different from modern ones.At the same time, these poems were created by the priests, poets, and "wise men" (in fact, the Trinity refers to intellectuals). In order to preserve and spread them, and to apply them in the sacrificial ceremonies required by social life at that time, they had to be adopted at that time. Language symbols that are familiar but unknown to later generations convey their precious internal information in an obscure form.This is one aspect.On the other hand, although there are such great differences between ancient and modern times, on the whole, human beings, society and nature have something in common that has continued, especially from the present complex situation to the simpler situation of the past, coupled with the With the increasing knowledge and understanding of the lives, behaviors, thoughts, and feelings of people in many different societies in many different living situations in the modern world, the original meaning of these poems is not impossible to detect and explain in the current language .As for value judgments, that's another matter. Let’s explain the poem in general first: the central word of poem A is “Blusha” (person). The central word of poem B is "golden fetus"; the end of the stanza is semi-independent, and it may be the same as some other poems, so the word "shengzhu" can be ignored. The central word of the C poem is the unnamed "that".Some important terms later used in Indian religion and philosophy appeared in the three poems, which are not ignored here, but only a few words about the philosophical meaning of the poems. Poem A is cited the most in modern times, mainly because it is the only document basis for the earliest four surnames, and this issue is ignored now.The whole article takes sacrifice as the ideological background, which is obviously in the background of the era when the Brahmin priesthood industry has developed.As for whether this is the memory of the original sacrificial ceremony with human sacrifice, it is still difficult to determine. "Purusa" means "man," until now a common word in the Indian languages, but also as a religious and philosophical term.In addition to appearing here, it is also found in the theory of the "Shenzhen" school. "Golden Seventy Treatise" is translated as "people and self", which is opposite to "self-nature" or "this" (Prakrti).According to its theory, in today's terms, "human being" is spirit, and "essence" is matter. The combination of the two produces the world and human beings. The "liberation" of practitioners is to make the spirit independent of matter.Therefore, brusha (person) in this poem cannot yet be said to be equivalent to the term in the philosophy of "Shanhe" because the system is different; but there is obviously a relationship because of the two views on the causal relationship between brusha and all things belong to a type.The two agree that "man" is in the universe, but they are different. "Sunya theory" believes that "man" is a spirit and is independent, while Poet A believes that "man" itself turns into the universe, and "man" is everything.Therefore, the two systems of thought are different. As far as the causal relationship is concerned, Poem A, like "Number Theory", belongs to the category of "cause has effect" mentioned above, and belongs to the "constant" school that believes that the world exists forever.All things are decomposed by "human beings", and "human beings" are everything. How to decompose "people"?The sixth verse explains that it is for sacrifice.Who performs the sacrifice?It is the gods.The whole world is a decomposition of a whole.Cause and effect cannot be separated, the cause is decomposed to produce the effect, and the part belongs to the whole.This is a reflection of the division and sacrifice in the sacrifice, and it is the worldview of the priests. The so-called gods are priests. Poem B is still a product of sacrifice, but it is different from Poem A.The last sentence of each stanza is repeated, and there are many speculations about its meaning, which is ignored now.In this poem, the "man" of poem A becomes the "golden womb", "above the gods" (verse 8).Here it is obvious that the status of the gods and priests is lower than in poem A. The "golden fetus" does not become the world itself, but the "master", "king", and ruler.The world seems to have existed in the first place, with the flood holding the embryo and giving birth to the fire.The problem reflected in this poem is not the origin of the universe but the domination of the universe.For the causal relationship, only "fetus" is proposed, which is also a commonly used word.At this point, just changing decomposition to change, using viviparous birth as an illustration, there is progress but no new theory. The C poem is different, and the sacrifice is gone.The gods also belonged to the universe after the creation of the world.The origin of the universe is a piece of chaos, it is water, there is no opposition and distinction, and the emergence of the world is "whole life" (abhu is literally translated for the time being, it means "full appearance", regardless of various interpretations).The driving force for the emergence of the world is "hotness" (tapas), the initial core is "love" (kama), and it is "mind" (manas) that produces it.These three words have been commonly used in the future, but "fiery" is generally translated as "ascetic" because it later refers to a kind of behavior.There is also no theory of cause and effect in this poem, and only a few words are used instead of "wort" (garbha), but "water species" (retas yuanyang) is used to further analyze the womb. Judging from these three poems, the ideas in the poems are concrete and abstract: Poem A is about the sacrifice of sacrifice, Poem B is about the womb dominating everything, and Poem C is about the "love" and "desire" of "mind". blazing" and everything appears.The three poems explore and explain the origin (cause) and evolution (effect) of the universe differently, but they only reflect the simple understanding of the relationship between cause and effect at that time, and only see decomposition and viviparous birth.This is also because the system of "cause has effect" does not separate cause and effect.This "common" has been shared by many schools of philosophical thought, especially in the modern and modern dominant Vedanta school.It is worth noting that poem A draws conclusions and establishes affirmative dogma; poem B raises fundamental questions; It is out of "mind", "desire", and "hotness", and the way it appears is "fetal pregnancy".This is a very important key to understanding the history of the development of Indian philosophical thought.For example: the great epic "Mahabharata", some Puranas and "Manu's Code" all follow this ideological system, which is close to the school of "number theory".It is still very popular until now, and even the "Bhagavad Gita" ("Song of God"), which has spread all over the world, also contains this theory. Some people (R.Garbe of Germany) even thought that this sacred scripture was originally based on The philosophy of "Shakhtar" is a basic system. The key ideas contained in the key words used in these three poems are important terms in ancient Indian philosophical thought. At the same time, understanding these thoughts is a necessary condition for understanding the opposite or divergent thoughts of other schools (such as "Victory", Jainism and Buddhism, and even the theory of shunshi). Where the contradiction lies. For another example, the orthodox who defended the authoritative position of Veda developed the theory of "sound is constant" from linguistic research, and established "Sphora" (Sphora), which believes that the meaning (referent, including object) of a word (sound) and concepts) already exist, and speaking out is just using sound as a symbol to show the original objectively existing objects (including material and spiritual).This way there is no question of cause and effect.Another school that denies such a unified and eternal existence believes that everything is just a set transformation of "minimum" (or "neighborhood"), and these atomic basic existences (including objects and concepts) can only live separately and realize each other. No relation (relationships are also independent beings).There is no question of cause and effect.In order to establish karma and "impermanence", Buddhism put forward the theory of "predestination" and "karma", opposed "sound is permanence", and believed that words and language are man-made, so as to deny the eternity of Veda.But it must be explained that "sound" is "the birth and death of thought", so why can we understand each other through language?The former "sound" has disappeared, and the latter "sound" has just emerged. How can one continuously express a meaning and be accepted and understood by the other party?It is necessary not only to explain consciousness and memory from a psychological point of view, but also to make a systematic explanation from a philosophical point of view.Buddhism is based on the theory of "action" (Samskara), that is, although the previous "sound" disappears, it leaves an influence on the next "sound". Therefore, there is continuity, but it is not the same thing (impact, impact, Information transfer?).Just like flames continue, the subsequent fire is not the previous one, but without the previous fire there cannot be the latter fire, so it is called "non-one, non-different", "abnormal, continuous".Although the debates of various factions on the question of cause and effect are what they believed to be meaningful at the time but we now think that they are meaningless, although the background of the ideological debate is the struggle of life in society, the philosophical thought of understanding the world In terms of content development, it is worth noting.The origins of these thoughts are all related to the oldest Vedic philosophical thoughts, so these three poems are important documents. Now use the "foreign" language to briefly list the major differences: (1) "Cause has effect": from one to many, from unity to divergence, from one to opposites, cause and effect are their own development and changes.This is the idea that started with the Vedas. "Number theory", epics, and codes continued to be passed down. (2) "There is no effect in the cause": everything is originally the basic element of classification and arrangement; all aggregates can be decomposed into the most fundamental points, and knowing these types and basic points can understand the world; cause and effect are only mechanically combined with each other And separation, this is the idea of ​​"Victory", Jainism, etc. (3) "Cause, condition and fruit" can be decomposed, but they are interrelated and affect each other; when analyzed to the last point occupying time and space, it is still a process, which is "momentary birth and death"; The ever-changing and complex world; in general, it is a whole connected with each other, but when it is broken down, it is a basic point (process) that arises and disappears at any time; Therefore, it is necessary to lead to their understanding of time and space (that is, the "universe").Now come back to the three poems quoted above.But in order to avoid tediousness, we can only treat this question more roughly. All three poems contain the concepts of time and space.Time is known by changes (different in succession), and all three poems talk about changes.Space is known by complexity (different from each other), and the three poems all talk about different things, talking about the orientation of up and down.The question is what kind of time and space is assumed in the poem.Time and space are not abstract, but are recognized by concrete things and their changing processes.Indian philosophy has never regarded space-time as an abstract conceptual category derived from mathematical reasoning, but as something that can be proved.Saying that space is always represented by directions.Emptiness (akasa), which specifically refers to space, is real, not nothingness (sunya), and later became one of the five basic elements, alongside earth, water, fire, and wind.The Vedic words (and more than one) for space are also real.Verb changes in Vedic language have several different past tense forms, which shows that people at that time knew time and analyzed the changes of things. A poem speaks of the past and future of the world, but only of changes in a world that has been disintegrated.Before and after this period of time, there are obviously still beings, but they are only generally referred to as "human beings" and the previous "gods".Space is limited and divisible. There are up and down and four sides. It can be divided into three quarters and one quarter. It can measure the "ten fingers" beyond the ground.But it is clear that this "everything" is just a sacrifice in the sacrifice, and of course there is room beyond this limitation. Poem B also only talks about the changes after the emergence of the "golden fetus", so the time is also counted from then on, so what about the past and future of this world?The same is true for space, which includes heaven, earth, water, fire, people, and gods, but is the "golden fetus" infinite? "Fetal" is limited, what is beyond the limit? Poem C talks about the indivisible evolution of chaos, and the time is also counted from here. The first sentence is marked with "then", but the last two stanzas raise questions about the time before that.A vague statement is made about space, and the second stanza says "there is nothing else". What does "outside" refer to? The questions about space and time posed in the Vedic poems became clearer in later developed philosophical thought.It is almost universally recognized that the universe they talk about is finite but "beginless", and therefore endless, finite but infinite.Almost all factions agree with this premise when arguing with each other, and they all acquiesce that what is discussed is only this section of time and this piece of space, but the whole is without beginning, without end, without boundaries. It is not possible to list all kinds of sayings in India from ancient times to the present, but can only put forward a more general saying in the simplest way. The time and space we are accustomed to are linear and straight-line graphics, but the time and space in the minds of Indian thinkers are circular, curved and spherical.They used to say "wheel" - "Dharma Wheel", "Turning Wheel King", "Samsara" and so on are familiar to us from Buddhism.It goes back and forth, and it is impossible to determine where is the starting point or the ending point, because every point can be the beginning or the end, so it is "beginningless".They see events as cyclical, so time and space are also curved.Perhaps it can be compared to say that we generally live in Newton's universe, but the universe thought by Indian thinkers is similar to Einstein's.If you look at the curve with a straight line, and use the square to describe the circle, you will feel that the other party is upside down and confused, and there seems to be no clear concept of time and position.In fact, they are relative to each other, so it is difficult to "cut in and out".Just look at the "Great Wisdom" (translated by Kumarajiva) at the beginning of explaining "one moment" and discussing "time". The two kinds of time are exactly the two words that are commonly used in Indian ancient and vernacular until today: kala and samaya.The original philosophical meaning is that the former refers to the entire time, and the latter refers to a period of time.Chinese is inseparable, there is only one word "time"; if you look at it with their eyes, you will feel that the Chinese people's concept of time is blurred.Another example is that the forms of verbs expressing tense in Vedic languages ​​vary a lot, while ancient Chinese only expresses them with adjuncts in sentences. From this point of view, do we think that our concept of time is general? Our habitual analysis of the universe finally reaches elementary particles and we want to divide it infinitely.Indian thinkers, however, believe that "extreme" is already "neighboring and empty", is divisible and inseparable "momentary birth and death", or is a unified whole of opposites like the entire universe. These are obviously derived from the "Neither Existence nor Nothing" of Poem C.The concept of the universal cycle of life in the minds of Indians has a long history. "Like a ring without a reason" and "repeated and repeated", the inside is the "law" of arrangement and combination, and the outside is a seamless one.This Indian thinking is well known.在中国，不是说“无往不复”（《泰卦·象辞》吗？“地天泰”之后接着“天地否”；“山地剥”之后接着“地雷复”，“剥极必复”；“山泽损”之后接着“风雷益”。一看卦象就明白，都是互相颠倒的。上古时期，循环思想和数的思想是相连系的，这是观察天象“定四时成岁”（《书经·尧典》，以利农牧生产的反映，转过来又由社会思想影响社会生活。不过各家讲因果，因先果后，都是见其同，只有见先后因果相异，甚至相反，这又近似“因中无果”了。 由此，我们可以把的卦、爻和卦辞、爻辞中的思想和《梨俱吠陀》中的思想对照考察。印度的出发于祭祀，我们的出发于卜筮。现在的人对这两者都很生疏而且都鄙夷不屑一顾了。所谓祭祀，除家中祭火以外，指的是我国古代也有类似的一种宗教仪式。不仅《仪礼》、《礼记》里面有描述，而且《史记》有《封禅书》、《汉书》有《郊祀志》都是记载这类仪式的。北京的天坛的建筑是为祭天的祭祀仪式用的（这不是指对偶像烧香磕头，虽然那也是一种仪式）。当然，吠陀时代的祭祀的规模远不能和我国记载的比它较晚的秦汉祭祀相比，但性质是一样的。至于卜筮，这是中国的，印度只发展了星占。的卦、爻是数学的排列，所以扬雄将三爻改为四爻，发展出了《太玄》。用50根蓍草（“大衍之数五十，其用四十有九”见《系辞》）的分列，区别阴阳，由下而上列出爻和变爻（注意“用爻”，见乾坤二卦爻辞）。以占卜吉凶，是的卜筮。印度的祭祀并不只是求告而是去影响宇宙的变化，是使那机械组合又不断变化的一体中产生局部的影响。中国的卜筮是求预知以“趋吉避凶”，也是认为宇宙中有秩序安排，有机械变化，因此可以预知。甲骨卜的方法虽不同，但思想属一类。这些都带有交感巫术的性质。这是中国和印度在古代思想中的彼此类似点。这是近代科学出现以前，人类不能操纵自然和掌握自己命运时期的思想，但对宇宙的基本看法却并没有随祭祀和卜筮很快灭亡。印度的祭祀方式和祭坛与中国的不同，这里不说了。中国的从二开始并以二为基本的数学变化思想模式，和印度的以一和三为基本变化而后发展到四的思想模式也不同。的卦的排列，乾、坤之后接着“水雷屯”和“山水蒙”直到“水火既济”、“火水未济”，是有规律排列，有思想模式的（《序卦》的说法是后起的）。中国在以后才提出“太极”、“无极”，而印度则前引的三首诗（尤其是C诗）中已着重这一方面了。我们的“易”和道家（广义的、包括医道）的行为指示虽早已成为过去，但其内含的思想是不是还值得探索呢？在印度哲学思想（尤其是对中国有过影响的佛教思想）的对照之下，中国的道家思想可以比较明白地显现出来了吧？当代科学难题如宇宙演化、基本粒子、生命起源、人工智能等正在吸引许多人的思考，这里面是不是也有哲学思想问题值得研讨并需要外部的借鉴呢？古代迷信当然应该破除，但是在辩证唯物主义的基本原理指导下，曾经对中国科学（尤其是医学）起过很大作用至今还需要钻研和解释的，中国古代的道家思想（《易》、《老》、《内经》等等），是不是值得同本国的（例如藏医）和外国的（例如印度的宗教、哲学、医学）做比较呢？国际上已经有人注意到甚至已经开始研究了（例如李约瑟及其他人），我不过是“姑妄言之”而已。 《梨倶吠陀》是人类上古文献之一。因为古代印度婆罗门祭司把它作为圣典，口传密授，细心保存，一个音也不容改动，所以现在尚存的原来各派传授中的一派的本子，可信为与大约三千年以前编定成书时没有多大差别。这个《本集》编成后，有过各种解说，但是直到14世纪，才有南印度的沙衍那（大概是在他的主持之下）对全书做出注释。19世纪马克斯穆勒校订了这个注释本在英国出版。从此以后，这部重要文献成为国际上的研究资料，脱离了印度一小部分人的带有宗教气息的垄断。这项研究促进了语言学、历史学、宗教学、神话学等等的发展。这些有关学科的发展又转过来使人们对《梨俱吠陀》产生了新的认识。因此，到20世纪70年代，仍然有对《梨俱吠陀》的新的解说出现。同时，人类对自身的研究，人类学、民族学、社会学、历史学、语言学、心理学等等的发展，考古文物的新发现，各民族古代文化的比较，都使我们对人类上古文献的了解继续前进。《梨倶吠陀》的研究中新的理解和新的问题的出现是必然的。这正同我们对中国古籍的研究情况一样。 《梨倶吠陀》的现存传本的编订形式可以给我们一点理解它的来源和性质的线索。它有两种分卷本，内容和次序一样，是按照作者（仙人）的家族和所歌颂的神编订的。分为10卷的本子，第1卷是15个家族的作者的诗，第2卷到第8卷每卷各属一家族，诗依神分别编排，第8卷后半是一些不属前面大家族的诗人的作品。这些卷可算是各家家传的著作集，仿佛是专集。第9卷是将苏摩酒祭中用的《梨俱》（诗节名称）依照格律编在一起。这是专题结集。第10卷前半大致分类编排，后半是零散诗篇，可算是综合性的编集，仿佛是总集。第10卷中包括了一些和前些卷在性质上不相同的诗篇。这一卷的语言和内容更近于较后的《阿达婆吠陀》因此被认为是全书中较晚出的作品，但这决不是说本卷中所有的诗都比前些卷中的诗的一般年代晚，只是说其中较多晚出的成分并且编订入集较晚。 同我国的同类古籍的编集对照可以有所启发。的流传注本现在只有汉代古文学派的“毛诗”一家独盛；今文学派的齐、鲁、韩三家诗现在只有《韩诗外传》尚存。从汉代起就有注释，虽是经典，却并不神秘。编定形式是二“南”等十五国“风”，二“雅”、三“颂”基本上是依照王国、王朝编定的。“风”是民歌性质，占了较大部分。作者和他的家族不被重视。二“雅”之中“小雅”和“大雅”又不同。看来，除流传分派情况中国、印度略有相似以外，和《梨倶吠陀》大不相同。从印度人的角度看和用他们的习惯语言说，不是婆罗门祭司的家传著作，却有更多的刹帝利王族和吠舍平民的气息。这就显现出中国和印度的古代掌握文化的人（知识分子）之间的区别。这一区别可以作为指示器，由此推溯两种社会文化的不同面貌和精神以及相同或相似的社会结构性质。 西方的希腊－罗马－中世纪－文艺复兴的古籍和文化传统的历史情况又有不同。《旧约全书》作为犹太教和基督教的《圣经》，也只有部分篇章类似《梨倶吠陀》。古代波斯的《阿维斯塔》经典虽然有些接近《梨倶吠陀》，但拜火教的文化和传统又和印度的不相同。西方人利用这些对比研究《梨倶吠陀》做了不少工作；也许我们将中国和印度文化对比而研究和《梨倶吠陀》的异同会另有所获。可惜中国和印度双方至今都还习惯于主要通过汉译佛教经典了解对方，因而不能全面，而且易生误会。但是，尽管有吠陀梵语和古汉语这两重难关，这一类研究将来一定会发展起来的。至于将印度讲“礼”的《夜柔吠陀》及各派《经书》和我国的三《礼》等书对照研究，对了解中印古代社会也会有益，将来也必会有人来做这工作的。 历来研究《梨倶吠陀》不外着重下列几个方面：一是语言学的研究。这方面有很大成绩，不过也不能说是已经结束了。二是历史学的研究。把它作为史料，研究当时的社会及经济政治等情况。三是哲学的研究，或更确切些说是社会思想的研究。四是文学的研究。以上这些研究都不能孤立地就这一部书进行，往往要牵涉其他吠陀文献，并且要同西方的古文献相比较。但是同中国的汉语古文献做比较研究的还未见到。 以上的话不过是个引子。这里只是想介绍一下《梨俱吠陀》中有关对待死人的几首祭祖诗并略做分析。这些是编在第10卷中的一组诗里的。这一组诗有五首，包括送葬和祭祖两方面，显然已经和较晚的《阿达婆吠陀》及其他文献相联系，由此可见这最后一卷诗的编集已经到了承先启后的一个结束和转变时期。这更显出它有本身的重要历史意义。这些诗中仍然有一些词义不明。沙衍那的注中已经有或此或彼的罗列解释。甚至约公元前5世纪的《尼录多》（吠陀难词解说）中已经有不少说不清楚词义而发生疑问之处。现代西方各家译本也有不同推测和考证。至今有些处还有点像在猜谜语。不过这些疑问不致妨碍对全篇诗的大意的整个了解，因此还可以翻译过来。我的译文主要依据印度浦那刊行的沙衍那（Sayana）的注释本和另两种白文本，参考了格尔特内（KFGeldner）的德文全译本。（德译虽出版于1951年，译者却已于1929年去世。）有的诗也参照了马克斯穆勒（F.MaxMuller）的和麦唐奈尔（AAMacdonell）的英译及其他译文。至于勒奴（L.Renou）的法译（1938年、1956年）和提默（P.Thieme）的德译（1964年）较新，都是选本，尚未见到。汉译不是作为文学作品，因此尽量依从原文直译；原来是双行分四句读的，译作四行；分三句读的，分作三行；诗节的序数标在每节前面。同中国古文一样，原诗不断句，更没有标点，译文照汉语习惯加了标点。原文本无脚韵。各节格律并不都一样，有长有短。至于有些词义的各家解释的比较以及采用一种说法的原因，为避免繁琐，而且这些说明只对专门研究者有意义，与本文作为初步介绍的目的关系不大，所以只略作说明，概不加注。 就社会思想内容说，我们考察这些诗有双重意义：一是对丧礼的比较研究是人类学、社会学的一个课题，尤其是和古代中国重视丧葬更可对照。二是在印度思想传统中，生死问题是一个要点。最早的对死的看法在文献中的反映对于研究这个问题的历史演变当然有重要性。我们一向只知传到中国来的佛教文献以及经过中国化后的佛教思想。佛教前的印度最早期文献中的渊源资料当然有助于我们对所谓解脱和涅槃等等的了解，从而对印度文化中至今还被视为当然的“潜思想”（不觉得需要说出来的大家默认的看法）也可能有所觉察。不过本文只说明祭祖诗，对上述两点只在这里提到，不能多说。 为了解祭祖的礼，应当先了解祭者的情况。这里只提一点，就是印度古代的婆罗门（祭司）进行的所谓祭祀分作两种：一是自己在家宅中进行的，主要是祭火和自己家族的祭祖；一是为他人进行的祭祀，这里面包括的花样很多，是婆罗门的生活手段。所谓“祭祀者”并不是“行祭者”而是受益者。婆罗门仿佛是中国旧时“赞礼”的“礼傧”和做“法事”的和尚或道士。唱礼时念“扶孝子出帏……献香……伏、兴……举哀、哀止……礼毕”的并不是家主而是“礼傧”。做“法事”时说“兹有信士弟子某某……”和念经的也不是家主而是和尚或道士。this point is very important.如不记住婆罗门（祭司）的被雇佣性质，如不注意作品中隐约出现或不出现的“檀越”（施主），则不仅是对从《吠陀》的祭司到佛教的和尚都那么歌颂“达衬”（行祭祀或做“法事”的报酬）和“布施”的现象无从解释，还有许多情况也难以索解。因此，下面引的祭祖诗并不都是“为自己的”，反而常常是“为他人的”。这对于了解印度古代的礼仪和所含的思想是有重要意义的。不仅祭祀，梵语语法中的动词变化分作“为自”和“为他”，逻辑中的认识论和论证法也是分作“为自”和“为他”（见玄奖译《因明入正理论》），这几乎成为一种思想模式（模型）了。 为了同读者一起进行考察，我想较好的方式是先引原文再作分析，而不是先作论断再加引证。 《梨倶吠陀》第10卷中，编在前面的祭祖和送葬诗的第一首是作为歌颂阎摩的诗。阎魔王即我们所熟悉的阎王。他先出现于本卷第10首诗，那是他和妹妹的对话，是另一回事。第一卷和其他处也提到这位阎摩，但不是专题歌颂他。只有在这首诗里阎摩是作为死者之王，是第一个死者。The full poem is as follows: 第10卷第14首 （1）遵循峻急的广途逝去的， 为许多人察出了道路的， 聚集了众人的、毗婆薮之子， 是阎魔王，请向他呈献祭礼。 （2）阎摩第一个为我们发现了道路。 这一片牧场决不会被人取去。 我们的先人们逝去的地方， 后生下的人们要依各自的道路前往。 （3）摩多利（天神因陀罗）偕同迦毗阿（智者祖先）， 阎摩偕同安吉罗（火祭者祖先）， 毗阿跋提（祭主）偕同梨俱婆（歌颂者祖先），都不断增强； 天神们增强他们，他们也增强天神； 这些喜欢祭神祷词，那些喜欢祭祖礼品。 （4）阎摩啊，请来坐这草垫！ 同安吉罗祖先们和睦在一起。 愿智者诵的经咒引你到来， 愿你对这祭祀礼品满意。 （5）请偕同应受祭的安吉罗们来临， 阎摩啊，请和毗卢波的子孙在此同欢喜！ 我召请你的父亲毗婆藪， 在这祭祀草垫上就座位。 （6）我们的祖先安吉罗、那婆果， 阿达婆、婆利古，应享苏摩酒者， 愿我们处在应受祭的他们的 善意和美好恩惠之中。 （7）去吧，去吧，遵循古时道路！ 到我们的祖先所去过的地方。 你将看见两位王爷欢享祭祖礼品， 阎摩王和天神伐楼拿王。 （8）去和祖先们到一起，和阎摩一起， 带着祭祀和善行到最高的天上， 除去罪愆缺陷，再到家园， 和那身体到一起，闪闪发光。 （9）你们从这里走开，离开，往别处去！ 祖先们给这人准备了这块地。 有白昼、有清水、有夜晚，优越无比， 阎摩给了他这地方休息。 （10）快跑过娑罗摩的两个儿子、两只狗， 长了四只眼的一对花狗，走平安道路； 然后到慈祥的祖先一起， 他们正同阎摩共享筵席。 （11）阎摩啊！你的那两只狗，一对护卫者， 长了四只眼，看守道路，视察人间； 王爷啊，请把这人交给他们！ 并请赐福给他，使他无灾无病。 （12）长着大鼻子，贪求生命，孔武有力， 阎摩的两只狗追随着人们。 愿这两位使我们得见旭日上升， 今天在此处降福，再给我们生命。 （13）请为阎摩榨出苏摩酒， 请向阎摩奉献祭品； 祭祀向着阎摩前往， 以阿耆尼（火）为信使，精美丰盛。 （14）请向阎摩献酥油祭品， 请你们更向前进； 愿他引我们向天神， 得以延长寿命。 （15）请向阎摩王奉献 最甜蜜的祭品。 现在向以前造出道路的 前辈仙人致敬。 （16）它飞过三罐苏摩酒， 六重大地，一重广阔天空； 德利湿都、伽耶德利等等诗律， 这一切都处在阎摩之内。 这首诗显然是送葬时祭祀死者并向阎摩王祷告用的。需要指出的是，这诗应是和祭祀礼仪相配合的，同我国旧时“唱礼”相仿，因此各节似乎不相连贯。格尔特内怀疑各节不是同出一手，虽有道理，但其实各大段目的不同，也可能是一人所作，分题赋诗，联在一起。第1节是对执行祭仪的“行祭者”说话。第2节直到第6节都是歌颂阎摩王和祖先及天神。从第7节起才对死者说话，仿佛是悼词。第9节是对火葬场（又像是坟场）上的妖鬼们说话。第10节又面向死者，祝他早到祖先和阎摩那里。第11节祷告阎摩保佑死者。第12节转求阎摩的使者赐福给生者，不要把活着的人也带了去。第13节到末尾又转回来向“行祭者”说话，要他们祭阎摩。第14节中的“你们”是指“行祭者”。最后歌颂阎摩包罗一切。这是个尾声。诗中有些词义不明确。例如第一句诗格尔特内以为经过水流，麦唐奈尔以为经过陡坡，沙衍那说是福人、福地。现在照原文译为含糊语。第12节的“孔武有力”是依照沙衍那，那两位英、德译者都不能断定词义。诸如此类不关大体都不细究详注。诗的最后一节意义不清楚，现也不必说明。 这首诗中值得我们注意的一点是，阎摩是第一个死者，是祖先之首；祖先和天神不同，但在一起。阎摩是太阳神毗婆薮之子。他是第一个与不死的天神不同而必须死去的人。不过人死去后仍会同他们到一起。那个世界里只有这样两类神人在共同享乐，享受着祭祀者献的祭品。这个两种人的世界当然是反映了婆罗门眼中的现实世界，即王族与祭司的世界。这两种人是他们当时认为的社会的主要人物。第三节中列举的祖先只是祭司的祖先。第7节中的两位王爷是天神伐楼拿和始祖阎摩。但是这里的王爷并不像人间的王那样有权力，只有两只狗做部下。伐楼拿也类似。这两位显然是作为前述两种人的头目，也是反映了当时的现实社会情况。 第10卷第15首也是祭祖先的诗，与第14首诗属同一组。 第10卷第15首 （1）请祖先们起来，近的，远的， 中间的，应享苏摩酒的，起来！ 愿那些已走向生命的，和善的，知正道的， 祖先们在召唤中保佑我们。 （2）愿今天为祖先们行这敬礼， 他们有先去的，有后去的， 有在大地以上区域中就座的， 也有此时坐在华美住处的。 （3）我召请来了慈祥的祖先， 还有孙子，还有毗湿奴的一大步， 他们坐在草垫上享祭祖礼品， 饮榨出的苏摩酒，都已来临。 （4）请坐在草垫上的祖先们賜福。 我们备了这些祭品，请享用。 请降临，赐下洪福及庇护， 以后请赐我们平安、福泽、无灾无难。 （5）受召唤来了，应享苏摩酒的祖先， 来到可爱的，草垫上放着的祭品间。 请他们降临，请他们来这里谛听， 请他们为我们说好话，请他们保佑我们。 （6）请屈下一（左）膝，请坐在右（南）边， 请各位对这祭祀作美言。 祖先啊，请不要伤害我们！ 不论我们在人间对你们犯下什么罪愆。 （7）坐在红色光辉的怀中， 请向崇拜的人赐财富。 祖先啊，请賜那财货给子孙！ 请你们赐下幸福，兴盛。 （8）我们的那些古代祖先，应享苏摩酒的， 婆私吒随着得饮苏摩酒浆。 愿阎摩和他们一起乐于赏賜， 愿嗜者偕嗜者们对祭品尽量饮尝。 （9）他们在天神中渴嗜饮食，张口呵气， 懂得祭祀，有配着歌的颂词； 阿耆尼（火）啊！请降临吧！和慈祥的， 真实的，智慧的，坐于热处的祖