and it is unreasonable to infer from it, as Muir has done, that the writer of the Mahâbhârata “was not a particularly good Vedic scholar.”
That is the real meaning of the verses quoted above, and in spite of the attempt of Yâska and other scholars to convert the bad name of Vishnu into a good one by the help of etymological speculations, it is plain that shipivishta was a bad name, and that it signified the dark outer appearance of Vishnu in his fight with the demons in the nether world. If the sun is called brihach-chhepas when moving in regions above the horizon, he can be very well described as shipivishta or enveloped like shepa, “when moving in the nether world” and there is hardly anything therein of which the deity or his worshippers should be ashamed."
Tilak invents problems where there are none, and then tries to answer them in order to somehow manipulate it towards the Arctic theory. Śri Yāska's answer to the literalists itself suffices, for Tilak's alternative involves too many assumptions, and there is no reason why etymological derivation - characteristic of saṃskṛtam - should be discarded just because laymen didn't understand. Vedas were anyways not meant for laymen. Moreover, there is nothing that makes his speculation any better. Etymology on the other hand has a priori that is accepted by even Pāṇini - hence it is untenable to taint it as mere 'speculation'. Tilak's contention and solution are therefore baseless and unnecessary. It is common practice to apply several epithets to deities including apparently "bad names", see śatarudra and you'll find plenty of them like thief, dacoit, etc.
Don't be so harsh on Max Mueller. Even Dhundhakari and Ajamil were pardoned by Lord Vishnu. The important thing is that he repented. Let the modern scholars right his wrongs.
Ajamila repented and took corrective action, else it is kunjaraśaucavaṫ!
Don't blame me for what is written in RigVeda.
त्रि यच छता महिषाणाम अघो मास त्रि सरांसि मघवा सोम्यापाः l
कारं न विश्वे अह्वन्त देवा भरम इन्द्राय यद अहिं जघान ll
trī yac chatā mahiṣāṇām agho māsa trī sarāṃsi maghavā somyāpāḥ l
kāraṃ na viśve ahvanta devā bharama indrāya yad ahiṃ jaghāna ll
When thou had eaten three hundred buffaloes' flesh, and drunk, as Maghavan, three lakes of Soma,
All the Gods raised as it were a shout of triumph to Indra praise because he slew the Dragon.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv05029.htm
Blamable to the extent of accepting bad translations
Actually I do not see any problem in this. The Aryans, when they were outside India were beef-eaters. When they settled in India where cows were respected, they changed their tradition and went along with the indigenous tradition of the majority. They also took up worship of Rama, Krishna, Shiva and Durga, who are non-Vedic deities, in preference to the worship of Indra, Agni and Soma. Like we say 'if in Rome, do as Romans do'.
There is an implicit assumption that the so called "aryans" replaced their deities with Rāma, Kṛṣṇa etc. Well, it is wrong, who said current practices have done away with Indra, agni, etc? There isn't a single sampradāya, be it advaita/v-advaita/tāttvika where yajñas have no invocation or pre-eminence of these deities. Even daily practices like sandhya incorporate the deities. Makes me doubt, given that you are a Vāsiṣṭḥa you don't perform sandhya? you'd know that your statement is wrong if you did. You are atheistic; but then no point in contending we have given up/demoted the vaidika deities, we haven't. Advaitins too haven't, for all of us use the same mantras depending on the śākhā & sūtra. The age-old practices are consistent and very cogent - the mantras and their application, their deities and their function have all been preserved in the practical tradition even before the times of Śri Śaṅkara. But can't blame western indologists with hidden agendas for not studying existing traditions as is.
Can you provide a single unambiguous reference for the theory "outside bhāratavarṣa, the so-called 'aryans' ate beef, and gave it up once they came here"? Valid references would be for instance "in śatapatha there is a verse which says in place X there were
aryans who used to eat beef, and then they travelled to bhāratavarṣa and gave up in reverence to local culture (draviḍa?) of
non-aryans" and not conjectures based on bad translations of two/more unrelated events.
It should be noted here that Sayana (14th Century) was Vidyarana's* brother and therefore his commentaries are from an Advaita background. Owning to the fact that Advaita has always been the dominant Vedanta tradition, if Indologists had to pick a source commentary, Sayana's would be the most likely.
Well, Sāyaṇa's commentary arguable belies even advaita approach at places. The second point is not fully right, because the great south Indian hindu Vijayanagara empire that reached its pinnacle under Kṛṣṇadevarāya had Vyāsatīrtha - a Mādhva saint - as its Guru, tho' the foundation for the empire was laid down by advaita Gurus. Only saints of Mādhva lineage haven't been exclusivist unlike others despite significant influence on most kingdoms of the south as well as in marāṭḥa and oḍḍissi (kaliṅga) empires. There are documented evidences of even advaita gurus instigating kings under their influence into being antagonistic to other schools. The advaita school rose to dominance just like the buddhists schools did earlier - thru influence on kings. It is not difficult to see that the only malleable translation available to the indologists was that of Sāyaṇa's. But you are right in that, the indologists haven't been fully faithful even to Sāyaṇa's commentary using it only in places that suits their purpose, but the overall schematics and priori have been borrowed from Sāyaṇa. Also taking only a popular approach is far from being scientific.
श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु।
