Rig Veda 10.99.1:
kaM nashchitramishhaNyasi chikitvAnpR^ithugmAnaM vAshraM vAvR^idhadhyai |
kattasya dAtu shavaso vyushhTau taxadvajraM vR^itraturamapinvat.h ||
O Guru! Who is the praiseworthy, charming person with virtues such as valor and strength, whom you inspire us to glorify? And by extolling Him what result (fruit) can His power can give me? (In reply, it is
stated,) by sharpening the viveka (discrimination between the eternal and noneternal), He (rAma) will destroy the vR^itra demon of ignorance!
Rig Veda 10.99.2:
sa hi dyutA vidyutA veti sAmapR^ithuM yonimasuratvA sasAda |
sa sanILebhiH prasahAno asya bhrAturna R^ite saptathasya mAyAH |
By His brilliance and prowess, rAma with His (vAnara) forces, withstanding the prolonged onslaught of rAvaNa's illusion tactics (mAyA) in battle, destroyed the same rAvaNa along with all his mAyA. rAvaNa, the
asura, had (earlier) stolen the daughter of the Earth, sItA, the wife of rAma who hates none.
Notes:
These Riks correspond to the question by vAlmIki to nArada and nArada's reply in the very first chapter of the vAlmIki rAmAyaNa.
Some notes from further discussion on this on the list.
Below, I am giving the translation from the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization website.
>Rig Veda 10.99.1:
>
> kaM nashchitramishhaNyasi chikitvAnpR^ithugmAnaM vAshraM vAvR^idhadhyai |
> kattasya dAtu shavaso vyushhTau taxadvajraM vR^itraturamapinvat.h ||
>
>
>
> O Guru! Who is the praiseworthy, charming person with virtues such as
> valor and strength, whom you inspire us to glorify? And by extolling
> Him what result (fruit) can His power can give me? (In reply, it is
> stated,) by sharpening the viveka (discrimination between the eternal
> and noneternal), He (rAma) will destroy the vR^itra demon of ignorance!
10.099.01
What marvellous (wealth), comprehensive and laudable, do you, Indra, knowing (what is needed), bestow upon us for our advantage? What gift (has been made to us) upon the development of his strength? He fabricated
the Vr.tra-slaying thunderbolt, and let the waters flow.
>Rig Veda 10.99.2:
>
> sa hi dyutA vidyutA veti sAmapR^ithuM yonimasuratvA sasAda |
> sa sanILebhiH prasahAno asya bhrAturna R^ite saptathasya mAyAH |
>
> By His brilliance and prowess, rAma with His (vAnara) forces, withstanding
> the prolonged onslaught of rAvaNa's illusion tactics (mAyA) in battle,
> destroyed the same rAvaNa along with all his mAyA. rAvaNa, the asura, had
> (earlier) stolen the daughter of the Earth, sItA, the wife of rAma who
> hates none.
10.099.02 Armed with the bright lightning he goes to the (scene of) adoration; endowed with might he has seated himself on the spacious place (of sacrifice); he (is) triumphant with his companions (the
Maruts); the wiles of his seventh brother do not (prevail) at the rite. [His seventh brother: bhra_tuh = one who has to share in distribution; seventh: the
seventh of the A_dityas, Dha_ta_ etc.; perhaps the ra_ks.asa_ heti is meant].
These and other Rks may be found at http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/rigveda/rvbook10.htm
Rsi is Vaikhaanasa, Devata is Indra and Chanda is Trishtup
>Notes:
>
> These Riks correspond to the question by vAlmIki to nArada and nArada's
> reply in the very first chapter of the vAlmIki rAmAyaNa.
>
> Anand
Is there a difference of interpretation/translation because of different traditions interpreting/translating thise Rks differently?
>In the English translation of Sayana's commentary of the RgVeda, 10th
>madala, 99th sukta, the 1st and the 2nd Rk are translated differently.
You bring up an excellent point. I was waiting for someone to bring it up. sAyaNAchArya's is the standard interpretation based on the assumption that the saMhitA portions (mantras) belong to the karma
kANDa. But nIlakaNTha gives a different interpretation based on the view that the mantras really are something more than having to do with the karma
kANDa. This view is justified because the sUktas, especially of the Rig Veda, are really prayers addressed to Gods. As such, these prayers can be studied either in isolation or in the context of karma. There is,
for example, a view that the ViShNu-sahasra-nAma, nay the mahAbhArata itself, is based on the Vedas. If epics such as the rAmAyaNa and the 'bhArata are based on the
Vedas, there *has* to be some correspondence between the epics and the Vedas. This is what nIlakaNTha has done in the case of the rAmAyaNa. He identifies the exact mantras in the Rig Veda
that correspond to the contents of the rAmAyaNa. I have heard that he has also written another text called the mantra-bhAgavata wherein he has identified the mantras in the Rig Veda that correspond to the contents
of the bhAgavata. This is based on the view that the bhAgavata in its entirety is, like the rAmAyaNa, based on the gAyatrI mantra. And the gAyatrI mantra is the essence of the
Vedas.
Both sAyaNAchArya's and nIlakaNTha's interpretations are valid but they are valid in different contexts, sAyaNa's in the context of karmas, and nIlakaNTha's in the context of bhakti or upAsana.
Anand