> > 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.
> > At the center of this flame is installed the > > Supreme Being. He is Brahman. He is Siva... > >
