[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dueling Translations (Was Re: Siva as yogi?)
On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:13:38 +0000, H. Krishna Susarla wrote:
>Before I begin, I would like to request that anyone who wants me to see
>their reply CC the message to me at
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu. Time constraints prevent me from
>regularly reading SRH, so I may no longer do so.
>
>>As with many theological issues, some of the ones in this thread have
>>come down to whose translation is correct.
>>
>>Since the scriptures come down to us *as* Sanskrit, there is no
>>further universal/celestial authority as to precisely what the
>>Sanskrit words mean in our vernacular (although, of course, within
>>each group, there are authorities acknowledged within the group).
>>
>>As is usual in these discussions, each side insists that certain words
>>and phrases *must* be taken literally, whereas other ones can't
>>possibly be taken literally, because that is "clearly absurd" since we
>>*know* that God is such-and-such.
>>
>>So one side says "sentence A must be taken literally, and we must
>>interpret sentence B in light of blah blah" and the *other* side says
>>"sentence A must be interpreted, and sentence A must be taken
>>literally".
>
>One side insists on deciding for themselves what is to be taken literally,
>and the other side insists on consulting a bona fide spiritual master in
>paramparaa from the Lord. I am on this latter side, and I do not believe it
>is for myself or Ken or any other netter to decide what something means or
>should mean. The meaning should be taken from a genuine acharya, and if he
>happens to know English, then his translations can also be considered
>authoritative. I have insisted on this time and time again, but it is
>conveniently ignored by the other side.
>
>This is the chief difference between our respective positions. Ken and
>Ramakrishna have found a philosophy that they happen to like, and then they
>proceed to reinterpret everything in terms of that philosophy.
You keep lumping the two of us together, as if you are afraid of
dealing with my interpretations on their own merit, instead you feel
better if you can tar them with the obvious flaws of Mr. R's more
advaitic and impersonalist presentation. :-)
As I've stated before in this thread, I've posted innumerable times in
alt.meditation *against* people who "find a philosophy that they
happen to like" - although I wouldn't put it quite that way, as I
don't think that it is likely that anyone would adopt a philosophy
that they hate. :-)
But I know what you are saying, and that ain't me.
>While this
>may be very nice for them, it is hardly honest or even respectful wrt to
>such scriptures as the Bhagavad-Gita. The Gita says, "evam'
>paramparaa-praaptam imam' raajarSay viduH." Lord Krishna explains how He
>taught the spiritual science, and how it was received in disciplic
>succession. This is exactly how one should receive the knowledge: in
>disciplic succession from the Supreme Lord. When I quote from scripture, I
>only use translations and interpretations that have come in disciplic
>succession. I am not interested in the interpretations of some mere mortal,
>but in the understanding taught by God Himself. If you want that
>understanding, you have to find a genuine guru who comes in a disciplic line
>originating with the Lord. Such persons are recognized as authentic by other
>gurus in different disciplic successions, and furthermore they only teach an
>understanding that is consistent with scripture.
Okay, now you've simply shifted from "dueling translations" to
"dueling paramparas".
>On the other hand, both Ken and Ramakrishna conveniently quote verses (often
>out of context)
All single verses, quoted by both sides of this discussion, are
automatically out of context since they are single verses. This is a
limitation of newsgroup discussion.
> which seemingly support their position, and ignore all
>others which do not.
And, of course, so do you, from my point of view. :-)
> Since neither of these persons can justify their
>selective quoting through the discriminative lens of an authentic spiritual
>master, one has to wonder what authority deems it appropriate that they
>should ignore certain portions of scripture. Actually, Ken and R. are very
>generous; they say that all interpretations of scripture are okay.
You keep making this sort of incredible leap of logic
OVER
and
OVER
and
OVER
again.
What I (and, in this case, Mr. R) have said is that there is MORE than
one authentic parampara, and thus (even by your standards) there is
more than one authentic interpretation of scripture.
And, you know, *that* is the main difference between:
- Scripture
and
- Interpretation of Scripture
I don't know ANYONE ANYWHERE IN HISTORY who has said:
"All interpretations of scripture are okay."
You are *really* enamored of this "making a straw man and then
knocking it down" method of discussion.
>How
>convenient for them, since that is the only way they can insist that we take
>their opinions as seriously as the opinions given by the acaryas. I find it
>ever so amusing that the people who insist that all interpretations be
>considered valid are the same ones who do not come in any of the authentic
>disciplic successions mentioned in the Padma Purana.
Here we go with more circular authentication.
There are many different paramparas, each has a somewhat different
interpretation of scripture.
AND, each has a somewhat different group of scriptures that it
considers authentic.
What makes the Padma Purana authentic? The parampara of acharyas.
What makes the parampara of acharyas authentic? The Padma Purana.
What makes the Padma Purana authentic? The parampara of acharyas.
What makes the parampara of acharyas authentic? The Padma Purana.
What makes the Padma Purana authentic? The parampara of acharyas.
What makes the parampara of acharyas authentic? The Padma Purana.
What makes the Padma Purana authentic? The parampara of acharyas.
What makes the parampara of acharyas authentic? The Padma Purana.
Okay?
By the way, before you say "The Padma Purana is authentic because it
was written by so-and-so" please note: Who authenticates that it was
indeed written by so-and-so? The parampara of acharyas.
Now, 30 years ago, a very devoted and pious Vaishnava arrived in New
York.
Why did anyone become his disciple?
It wasn't because he was from a bonafide parampara of acharyas,
because none of those people knew what either a parampara or an
acharya was! And even if they did, they would have no way of
verfying it! What would they do, call India for a few thousand hours
until they got a Sri Sridhara Maharaj on the phone to say "Yes, he is
my guru-brother" ? How would they know that he was really Sridhara,
and even if they could verify that, how could they be sure that both
of them weren't part of some ruse? [ Note I am NOT suggesting that,
just saying 'how would they know' . ]
None of that was why they became his disciples !
Ultimately, all of these pieces of paper that say "Scripture" or
"Parampara of Acharyas" cannot verify each other.
The final verification is a human being and the positive effect that
he has upon you.
Such a human being, a self-realized human being is called a Guru.
The positive effect that a Guru has upon one's life, is the
verification of what he says.
>Now, you would say that this is simply a question of dueling translations.
>You would try to justify your Gita translation by saying that neither can be
>considered more authoritative than the other. But even if I were totally
>ignorant of sampradaaya and paramparaa, I would still note the following
>differences in our Gitas:
>
>1) Srila Prabhupada provides the exact Sanskrit in his Gita, followed by a
>word-for-word translation so you can see where his teachings are coming from.
>
>2) In your Gita, no Sanskrit and no word-for-word is provided.
>
>Now, if I am a layman, guess which Gita is going to look more scholarly and
>authentic to me?
The only problem is that
MY GITA TRANSLATION HAS SANSKRIT AND WORD-FOR-WORD.
It's just that these posts are already so long that only a small
percentage of srh readers are likely to read them, so I didn't bother
to type them in.
And, anyone with a word-for-word version can tell which sanskrit word
is being interpreted differently without my including them - in fact,
you yourself have already done so previously.
And, in your post that I am replying to, only ONCE do you yourself
type out the word-for-word version.
By the way, the translator of the Gita that I quote, utilizes
Ramanuja's commentary on the Gita as an authority whenever there is
any question how something should be translated.
In order to make these posts shorter, I'll leave this thread as just
covering the concept in the Subject header, and make another thread
out of all the more specific issues ( since their interpretation is
subject to the larger issues discussed above ).
Namaskar,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
References:
