[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: Dishonesty (was Re: The Bhagavad-Geeta - Chapter 12)
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 20 Jul 1995 19:26:50 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Thu Jul 20 15: 14:35 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
I find it interesting that someone would suddenly post from
Chapter 4 of the Bhagavad Gita when the topic being discussed
was Chapter 12. In any case...
>brahmArpaNaM
>brahma havir
>brahmAgnau brahmaNA hutam
>brahmaivatena gantavyam
>bhramakarmasamAdhinA
>
>That is so rich in insight. Brahma is the offering...
>If one considers BRAHMAN as the Supreme Absolute, one might say the
>verse translates as
> God is the offering-
> God, the oblation.
> By GOD is the oblation
> poured into the Fire that is GOD-
> God truly shall be reached
> by the one who ever sees GOD IN ACTION.
Applying a strict desire for a word-to-word translation, then,
could someone please tell me what word was the result of translating
"havir"?
>But that translation is only one of many. Note then please this
>TRANSLATION (sic),
I note the use of the term "(sic)", which seems out of place.
Traditionally, it is used to indicate that something is quoted
as it was written, with grammatical or typographical errors
left intact. I assume that the "(sic)" is applied to the word
"translation", here. However, the word is obviously spelled correctly,
and I don't see it in a quote.
I can only conclude that the author was trying to be snide or
catty without saying it directly, or is not well-versed in
the use of "(sic)".
>which one sect suggests in place of the one I
>offered, and in place of Dr. Prasad's- well, in place of every
>translation I suppose:
I like that last part "I suppose". On one hand, the author wishes
to invoke Ganesha, to
"notice assumptions as they manifest, and stop them", but he makes
a rather big assumption himself. I find this interesting, and I
guess that the author doesn't mind double-standards, then? It's
an assumption on my part, to be sure, but he already praises one
translation, and the follows to criticize another one, yet he
doesn't apply the objective criteria in doing so.
[...]
>"A person who is fully absorbed in Krsna consciousness is sure to
>attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to
>spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that
>which is offered is of the same spiritual nature."
considering that the above lines are copyrighted, shouldn't the
author [and perhaps the moderator] have made sure that the proper
attribution was given?
>Nary a mention of Brahman, or God, or fire, in the whole thing.
After this line, it is apparent to me that a level set of criteria
are not being used, because the first translation was spared any
dissection. Furthermore, the fact that verses from Chapter 4 are
suddenly brought up in a discussion of Chapter 12 give me a clue
as to the true intent of the post.
>Looking
>very closely at that, I could say, "Whoever this translator is... he
>is clearly inserting his own opinions, and not remaining faithful to
>the original Sanskrit."
>
>But then what is gained by saying that?
This line strikes me as clever - it's like saying "I could call you
an oaf, and an ignoramus, but what do I gain by doing so." The intent
is clear, and the statement is made, yet one can coyly claim to never
have made the statement. If one really thought that nothing would
be gained by making the statement, one would never have asked what
would be gained by saying <insert statement here>.
>I could show that there is
>almost nary a phrase in that `translation' which reflects the actual
>Sanskrit meaning of the text, as it is, and I could even imply the
>translator `seems to have deliberately misrepresented the scripture in
>order to sell us his own opinions'
>
>but why do that? All that would do is ignite passions, not steadiness.
Once again, the coyness and the duplicity are apparent. If one were
really interested in not igniting passions and in maintaining
steadiness, then what's the point of making the statements before that?
>The simple fact is folks choose their translation as best they can. I
>choose to say no more than that, for now.
But the biggest hoax in this whole post is the unstated one. The
translation which is backhandedly attacked here is from Srila
Prabhupada's The Bhagavad Gita As It Is. The implication of the
entire post is that somehow the translation is warped and information
is being withheld, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
In fact, if we pick up a copy of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, we
find the Sanksrit text [which I can't reproduce here], then an
English transliteration of the Sanksrit,
brahmarpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma-karma-samadhina
Now, someone who's a Sanksrit scholar (or even someone who had
a Sanksrit dictionary handy) could easily figure out what each
word meant. In and of itself, this information is a lot more than
what many translations of the Bhagavad Gita provide. However, the
verse is next broken down into words, and each word is translated,
brahma--spiritual in nature; arpanam--contribution;
brahma--the Supreme; havih--butter;
brahma--spiritual; agnau--in the fire of consummation;
brahmana--by the spirit soul;
hutam--offered; brahma--spiritual kingdom;
eva--certainly; tena--by him; gantavyam--to
be reached; brahma--spiritual; karma--in activities;
samadhina--by complete absorption.
Now, if an author were intent on somehow imparting his own meaning
into the Gita, would he include this much information? Probably not.
In fact, the translations from the Gita which I feel steer the
farthest from the truth are usually English-only. No Sanskrit is
given, and no word-for-word translations are given. The Bhagavad
Gita As It Is, on the other hand, gives you both in an edition which
is fairly easily affordable (around $10 for the one I have).
Once the word-for-word translation is done, then the verse is translated
as a whole. There is nothing preventing the avid reader from comparing
the verse as a whole to the word-by-word translations. In fact, at every
morning program at a Hare Krishna temple which I have ever attended,
this has been the way verse is presented. If there was something to be
hidden, would it make sense to present both forms? Unlikely.
The translation in the BG: As It Is was already presented above in the
section I quoted from the previous post.
However, Prabhupada then also gives a purport, which gives the full
meaning of the text. The one for this particular verse is useful to
this discussion, and I would characterize it as a large omission to
criticize the translation without including the purport. In fact, the
purport explains the translation quite nicely. I am including it below.
" How activities in Krsna consciousness can lead one ultimately
to the spiritual goal is described here. There are various activities
in Krsna consciousness, and all of them will be described in the
following verses. But, for the present, just the principle of Krsna
consciousness is described. A conditioned soul, entangled in material
contamination, is sure to act in the material atmosphere, and yet he
has to get out of such an environment. The process by which the
conditioned soul can get out of the material atmosphere is Krsna
consciousness. For example, a patient who is suffering from a disorder
of the bowels due to overindulgence in milk products is cured by
another milk product, namely curds. The materially absorbed
conditioned soul can be cured by Krsna consciousness as set forth here
in the Gita. This process is generally known as yajna, or activities
(sacrifices) simply meant for the satisfaction of Visnu, or Krsna. The
more the activities of the material world are performed in Krsna
consciousness, or for Visnu only, the more the atmosphere becomes
spiritualized by complete absorption. The word brahma (Brahman) means
``spiritual.'' The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His
transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual
effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti,
but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense
gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be
removed at once by Krsna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake
of Krsna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or
contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the
result are-- all combined together--Brahman, or the Absolute
Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter
dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual
quality. Krsna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory
consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully
absorbed in Krsna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or
trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called
yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual
consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the
performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate
gain--everything-- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme
Brahman. That is the method of Krsna consciousness."
I think I've said enough on this topic. I would hope that this same
sort of sillyness doesn't arise again, because apart from being
intellectually dishonest, it's also a waste of time.
Srila Prabhupada was, in my opinion, a great Vaisnava, and attacking
him and his work is pointless for someone who's truly trying to make
spiritual progress. Even if one attacks only backhandedly and claims
never to have done so, the higher judges always know the truth, and
my opinion doesn't matter at all.
-Vivek
all Bhagavad Gita As It Is quotes (c) Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
used with gracious permission
